Territory and Power Revisited: Theorising Territorial Politics in the United Kingdom after Devolution

The article seeks to contribute to theoretical analysis of political decentralisation in the UK occasioned by devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1998–9. It examines the contribution that can be made by Jim Bulpitt's 1983 book, Territory and Power in the United Kingdom . First, it argues that Bulpitt's critique of conventional wisdoms in the early 1980s remains highly relevant to reflecting on shortcomings in the literature today. Key among these is the lack of a common conceptual language for analysis, and Bulpitt's overarching re-conceptualisation of the field as the study of 'territorial politics' would repay renewed reflection. Secondly, the article clarifies Bulpitt's own centre perspective and argues that its application is best understood today as a realist historical institutionalist account of UK territorial politics. In so doing Bulpitt also provides an enduring methodological and interpretative challenge to assumptions of state centralism. Thirdly, the article argues that key methodological/interpretative insights can be adapted from Territory and Power in analysis of UK territorial politics and the advent of devolution. This reinforces the utility of Bulpitt's historical institutionalism to contemporary analysis. Finally, it argues that Territory and Power 's concepts and methods, understood in these ways, would bear application in comparative studies of political decentralisation.     

The Settlement and Process of Devolution: Territorial Politics and Governance under the Welsh Assembly

Devolution has been the most notable feature of the Labour government's plan to modernize the constitution. Principal consideration is given to Wales and to events since the formation of the National Assembly, which are examined by recourse to theoretically informed analysis on territorial politics and the nature of governance. The central question concerns the extent to which the Assembly can develop an autonomous policy position. Contemporary theories argue that internal and external developments have left central government in a less powerful position, which potentially can further augment the prospects for devolution. Events prior to and after the formation of the Assembly question whether government has moved into a new phase of development. Central government still commands an extensive range of resources and powers, especially over territorial bodies. At the same time, comparative analysis shows that such institutional parameters need not remain fixed. There is institutional space within the state for these powers to be contested and that the continued significance of territory can act as the basis of such political struggle.     

Metropolitan Structural Development: The Territorial Imperative

Annexation has been an important factor in the growth of Americancities. This continues to be the case in many southern and westerncities. Thus, turf politics has figured prominently in the structuraldevelopment of most metropolitan areas in the United States.Divisions of the local landscape are largely determined throughnegotiations and bargains among local citizens and their representatives.However, several complicating factors can make local bargainsunstable and draw other institutions and governments, such asthe state, into the bargaining process, thereby adding a furtherintergovernmental dimension to local territoriality and requiringaccommodations of wider interests. These dynamics are studiedhere through a detailed examination of annexation policies inthe Houston metropolitan area.     

Devolution and Local Government

Devolution was introduced amid a rhetoric of democratic renewaland promised the active engagement of local government. Localgovernment has responded in different ways in different partsof the United Kingdom. In Scotland and Wales local authoritieshave built on their advocacy of devolution before 1997 to realizea close partnership with devolved government. In London, too,local authorities have come to engage closely with regionalgovernment. In the rest of England local authorities were atbest ambivalent about the possibility of regional government,preferring to work in a national context with UK governmentinstitutions. Northern Ireland local government is parochialand appears suspicious of engagement with devolved government.These differences express some of the wider relationships ofthe component societies of the United Kingdom to the UK stateand have helped to embed continued centralized government inEngland.     

Uneven Development, Territorial Politics and the British Health Care Reforms

The paper considers the relationships between the uneven development of the British economy, the political strategies pursued by the Conservative government, and the changes to the character of the NHS in the 1980s which culminated in the NHS reforms. It describes the context in which spatial resource allocation policies in the NHS were operating—one of heightened uneven development, with particularly rapid growth taking place in South East England with harmful effects on the NHS. It shows that one response was pressure by backbench MPs on government for a more equitable distribution of funds. Developments within the NHS are interpreted as strategic attempts to prioritize the interests of key geographical locations within a broader 'two nations' political strategy. Three issues are raised: the usefulness of the idea of 'spatial coalitions' in understanding pressures for change in health care policy; the extent to which spatially-uneven development and the 'two-nations' political strategy influenced the character and timing of changes in health care policy; and the possibility that the politics of the welfare state will increasingly be shaped by territorially-based conflicts.     

Evaluating the Devolution Revolution1

This article provides an evaluation of the impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. The evidence clearly shows that PRWORA has had a major impact on the poverty population and the welfare system. The data analyzed identify those policy areas in which positive changes can be identified, along with implementation and design problems that need reform. The data also show that while some states have made considerable progress in implementing the law, many are lagging.     

Devolution in the United Kingdom: Statehood and Citizenship in Transition

The United Kingdom evolved as a "state of unions," in whichgovernment arrangements were territorially varied in line withthe particular circumstances of the sequence of acts of unionbetween the core state territory of England and Wales, Scotland,and Ireland. The recent devolution reforms have built on thatterritorial nonuniformity, embedding a number of idiosyncrasiesinto the devolved UK state: a lopsidedness that leaves the biggestand wealthiest part of the United Kingdom—England—governedcentrally wihle the non-English nations have devolved government,devolved government arrangements for those nations that aremarkedly asymmetrical, and an underdeveloped system of intergovernmentalrelations connecting United Kingdom—level and devolvedpolitical arenas. Together these issues pose important questionsof whether the devolution reforms amount to a coherent overallpackage, whether the reforms are stable, and whether they erodea common UK citizenship.     

Devolution and Celtic nationalism in the UK

Other than the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices, the UK is exceptional in lacking a uniform level of government or administration between central and local government. There have been various attempts to fill this gap. The most important arose because of an upsurge of Celtic nationalism in the early 1960s which resulted in the Scotland and Wales Acts of 1978. Neither was implemented, however, and both were rescinded in 1979. Whether this issue will return is problematic: the British political tradition is indelibly unitary as is its socio‐economic structure. In addition, moderate Celtic aspirations may have been met by unobtrusive devolutionary changes such as language concessions, the strengthening of the Offices and various symbolic changes in the field of sport.     

Reforging the Union: Devolution and Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom

Devolution to Scotland and Wales represents a major constitutionalchange in the United Kingdom. It responds to changes in Britishpolitics and in Europe, which have necessitated a renegotiationof the union that underpins the United Kingdom. The Scottishproposals are more radical than those for Wales, while Englishregional government change has been postponed for the time being.Possible areas of difficulty in the new arrangements includefinance, relations with Westminster, partisan conflict, andScotland's position in Europe. Devolution is likely to continuefor some years before a stable settlement is reached.     

Deficits and Devolution in the 104th Congress

Deficit reduction was an important impetus for the devolutioninitiatives thai moved through the 104th Congress, but it wasnot the only cause. Other objectives, notably building an alliancewith Republican governors and transforming the American welfarestate, also helped to drive devolution. Although the Republicandeficit and devolution agendas appeared mutually reinforcingat first, arguments over the terms of devolution (e.g., entitlementstatus, program mandates, and funding formulas) helped to slowdown and build opposition to those agendas. The use of omnibuslegislation helped to gel Republican proposals through the Congressin 1995, but packaging together popular and highly unpopularprovisions in a single bill ultimately provided President BillClinton with political cover to veto the legislation. The unpopularityof Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Clinton'spledge to "end welfare as we know it" propelled a more limiteddevolution agenda focused on AFDC in the lead-up to the 1996presidential election. Devolution ofMedicaid was dropped, however,while Food Stamps and child nutrition programs experienced budgetcuts but little devolution.     

Reflections on Devolution: Twenty Years on

May 2019 marks twenty years since the first elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. This report discusses a paper published by the Institute for Government (IfG) that reflects on the experience to date of devolution, drawing on interviews with thirteen individuals who have served as ministers in the devolved governments. Reflecting the structure of the IfG paper, there are three main themes in this report: governing without a majority, institutional change, and—in the light of Brexit—relationships between the devolved governments, Westminster and the EU. The conclusion is that the report, although limited in coverage, provides a useful addition to the literature on devolution.