Devolution as Process: Institutional Structures, State Personnel and Transport Policy in the United Kingdom

Abstract. Devolution has been described as a key ‘global trend’ over recent decades as governments have decentralised power and responsibilities to subordinate regional institutions. UK devolution is characterised by its asymmetrical nature with different territories granted different institutional arrangements and powers. This paper seeks to examine the role of state personnel in mobilising the new institutional machinery and managing the process of devolution, focusing on transport policy. The research presented shows a clear contrast between London and Northern Ireland, on the one hand, and Scotland and Wales, on the other, in terms of the effectiveness of political leaders in creating clear policy priorities and momentum in transport.

[1]  D. Mackinnon.  Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics , 2011 .

[2]  D. Mackinnon,et al.  New State Spaces, Agency and Scale: Devolution and the Regionalisation of Transport Governance in Scotland , 2010 .

[3]  D. Mackinnon,et al.  Moving on with ‘filling in’? Some thoughts on state restructuring after devolution , 2010 .

[4]  M. Keating.  The Independence of Scotland: Self-Government and the Shifting Politics of Union , 2009 .

[5]  D. Mackinnon,et al.  Divergence or Convergence? Devolution and Transport Policy in the United Kingdom , 2009 .

[6]  A. Moore,et al.  Rethinking scale as a geographical category: from analysis to practice , 2008 .

[7]  Iain Docherty,et al.  Diverging Mobilities?: Devolution, Transport and Policy Innovation , 2008 .

[8]  A. Smyth.  Devolution and Sustainable Transport , 2008 .

[9]  Eric J. Shaw,et al.  British Devolution and the Labour Party: How a National Party Adapts to Devolution , 2007 .

[10]  Colin Knox,et al.  BUREAU SHUFFLING? THE REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND , 2006 .

[11]  R. A. Walks.  New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood , 2006 .

[12]  B. Mansfield.  Beyond rescaling: reintegrating the `national' as a dimension of scalar relations , 2005 .

[13]  Maria Markantonatou.  The Future of the Capitalist State , 2005 .

[14]  R. Jones,et al.  Filling in’ the State: Economic Governance and the Evolution of Devolution in Wales , 2005 .

[15]  Mark Goodwin,et al.  Devolution, constitutional change and economic development: Explaining and understanding the new institutional geographies of the British state , 2005 .

[16]  Robert Hazell,et al.  Has Devolution Made a Difference , 2004 .

[17]  David Wilson,et al.  Urban Elites in England: New Models of Executive Governance , 2004 .

[18]  R. Jones,et al.  Devolution, State Personnel, and the Production of New Territories of Governance in the United Kingdom , 2004 .

[19]  Colin Knox,et al.  DEVOLUTION, GOVERNANCE AND THE PEACE PROCESS , 2004 .

[20]  David Sweeting,et al.  How strong is the Mayor of London , 2003 .

[21]  Ash Amin,et al.  Decentering the nation: a radical approach to regional inequality , 2003 .

[22]  A. Rodríguez‐Pose,et al.  The Global Trend towards Devolution and its Implications , 2003 .

[23]  Paul Carmichael,et al.  Decentralizing the Civil Service: From Unitary State to Differentiated Polity in the United Kingdom , 2003 .

[24]  D. Sweeting.  Leadership in Urban Governance: The Mayor of London , 2002 .

[25]  N. Brenner.  The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration , 2001 .

[26]  J. Peck.  Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard outcomes , 2001 .

[27]  B. Jessop.  Institutional Re(turns) and the Strategic – Relational Approach , 2001 .

[28]  J. Tomaney.  End of the Empire State? New Labour and Devolution in the United Kingdom , 2000 .

[29]  G. Macleod,et al.  Reconstructing an urban and regional political economy: on the state, politics, scale, and explanation , 1999 .

[30]  Jamie Peck.  Geographies of governance: TECs and the neo‐liberalisation of ‘local interests’ , 1998 .

[31]  Jonathan H. Turner,et al.  Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach.By Margaret S. Archer. Cambridge University Press, 354 pp , 1997 .

[32]  Paul Pierson,et al.  When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change , 1993, World Politics.

[33]  B. Jessop.  State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in their Place , 1990 .

[34]  S. Duncan,et al.  The Local State and Uneven Development , 1988 .

[35]  A. Giddens,et al.  The Constitution Of Society , 1985 .

[36]  James Mitchell.  The unfinished business of devolution , 2007 .

[37]  L. McAllister.  Has Devolution Made a Difference? The State of the Nations 2004 , 2005 .

[38]  R. A. P. Emeritus.  Autonomy, devolution and intergovernmental relations , 2004 .

[39]  Gerard W. Horgan Sessional Instructor.  Inter-institutional relations in the devolved Great Britain: quiet diplomacy , 2004 .

[40]  M Sandford,et al.  The Governance of London: Stategic Government and Policy Divergence , 2004 .

[41]  James Mitchell.  Governing Scotland: The Invention of Administrative Devolution , 2003 .

[42]  R. Hazell.  The state and the nations : the first year of devolution in the United Kingdom , 2000 .

[43]  Michael Keating,et al.  The New Regionalism In Western Europe , 1998 .

[44]  Bob Jessop,et al.  Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance , 1997 .

[45]  M. Archer,et al.  Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach , 1997 .