1

Devolution and
Federalism

The differences between devolution in the UK and federalism in the USA

are greater in theory than they are in practice. Discuss
Key Ideas

The relationship between national and regional government in the UK and USA is much
more complex than the theories suggest, and it has always been so.
The UK has usually been called a unitary state, yet it has always been a union state, with
substantial regional differences. Since 1997, the UK has become a devolved state, but
lopsidedly so. The degree of power which has been devolved is limited in nature,
especially in Wales and there is no devolution for English regions yet. While Labour are
in favour of English devolution, regional autonomy is likely to be slim.
The USA is a federal state, but the constitutional provisions are vague and
contradictory. In the twentieth century, economic and social change has transformed
federalism, greatly strengthening the Federal government.
While the last twenty years has witnessed a revival of the states, the classic definition
of federalism as a division between two layers of government is long since dead.

Although the UK has become more decentralised and the US more centralised, the
degree of decentralisation in the USA remains much greater than in the UK

Study Guide
Definitions
Devolution in the UK since 1997
Devolution and federalism in the UK
Why Devolution?
Federalism in the USA
Arguments for Centralism and Decentralism

Definitions
A. A unitary state/a union state

A unitary state, is one where there is one central law-making body, and one executive or
government.
The implication is that all parts of the state have the same laws, which are administered
and implemented by the same institutions.
Citizens throughout the state are subject to the same laws.
Britain has usually been seen as a unitary state because of the principle of parliamentary
sovereignty, i.e. the location of supreme legal power in the UK is the Westminster
parliament.

2
The UK has always been best described as a union state, where different regions are
often treated differently and where some degree of regional self-government remains.

B. A federal state

Legal and constitutional power in a federal state, like the USA and Germany, is divided
between a national government and various regional governments.
Each level of government has policy areas in which it is autonomous and each level
has its own elected assembly (or assemblies) and government.
Each of the 50 American states, for example, has its own constitution, its own Governor
and, among other things, the states control education policy.
The crucial feature of a federal state is that the division of power is defined in a
codified constitution and protected by that constitution.

C. Devolution

Devolution is the delegation of central government powers to subordinate units,

these powers being exercised with some degree of autonomy though with ultimate
power remaining with central government. Vernon Bogdanor
In theory, the key difference between federalism and devolution is that in a federal
system the division of power between the central government and the regional
governments is defined and protected by a codified constitution whereas devolution
is more flexible with the division depending on the central governments discretion.
For example, Northern Irelands virtual autonomy within the UK was ended when the
British government restored direct rule in 1972, abolishing the Northern Ireland
parliament (Stormont).

2. Devolution in the UK since 1997

Since 1997 the UK has passed from being a unitary or union state to a devolved or
quasi-federal state with an increasing degree of devolved power exercised at regional
and local level.

It is also a region in the federal EU.

Since 1997 UK devolution has been extended:
o Elected parliament for Scotland - legislative devolution
o Elected parliament for Northern Ireland - legislative devolution, with additional
constitution implications involving the Republic of Ireland
o Elected assembly for Wales - executive devolution
o Elected assembly for London and directly elected Mayor
o Regional structure established in England - RDAS, regional Councils,
o prospect of elected assemblies
Legislative devolution is when an elected assembly has the power to make laws for
its region, and to raise some of its own tax revenue. This is what the Labour government
has given Scotland. Executive devolution is a much weaker form of devolution. The
power to make laws remains with the Westminster parliament but specific powers may
be delegated to the elected assemblies in Wales and England to decide on details of the
law.

These broad facts need to be substantiated by some evidence given below

in the rest of section 2

3
A. Scotland : The Labour Governments Devolution Policy
In the referendum held in Scotland on September 11th 1997, over 74 per cent of
those voting supported the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, over 63 per cent
opted for the Parliament to have tax-varying powers.
Elections for the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) are held every four
years. Electors cast two votes: one for a constituency member and one for a party list.
There is one MSP elected on a 'first-past-the-post' basis for each of the 73
parliamentary constituencies; and 56 MSPs (seven for each of the current eight
European Parliament constituencies) are returned by means of a corrective system of
AMS proportional representation.
The Westminster parliament retains power in certain reserved matters. These are :
the constitution of the United Kingdom; foreign policy, including relations with the EU;
defence and national security; stability of the fiscal, economic and monetary system;
common markets for British goods and services; employment law and social security.
The Scottish Parliament can legislate on the following subjects in Scotland: health;
education; training; local government; transport (excluding most aspects of safety and
regulation) ; social work; housing; economic development; the law and home affairs; the
environment; agriculture, fisheries and forestry; sport; the arts, and all subjects not
defined as reserved matters for the United Kingdom parliament.
Government in Scotland is undertaken by the Scottish Executive, headed by the First
Minister. The Executive is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. Scotland continues
to elect MPs to the Westminster parliament but the number (at present 73) of Scottish
MPs will be reviewed by a Parliamentary Boundary Commission.
Under existing arrangements, the United Kingdom Parliament allocates an annual budget
(currently some 14,000 million ) to the Scottish Office. In addition, the Parliament
can increase or decrease by up to three per cent (450 million - index-linked) the basic
rate of income tax set by the Westminster Parliament.

B. Wales and Devolution

A referendum was held in Wales on 18 September 1997. The overall majority in

favour was only 0.6%.
There is a 60 member Assembly, located in Cardiff. The public services the Welsh
Assembly administers are : Welsh language, arts and heritage; industry and
training;
economic development;
social services; agriculture; environment;
education; planning; housing; health; roads.
Forty Members of the Welsh Assembly are directly elected, and the remaining 20
are elected by proportional representation.
The first year of the Assembly was turbulent. When the Assembly budget was
announced in February 2000, Plaid Cymru tabled a vote of no confidence and amidst
dramatic scenes, Alun Michael resigned and the vote was carried. Rhodri Morgan
emerged as the new First Secretary and leader of the Labour party in Wales.
Disputes over the powers of the Welsh Assembly have continued with one
subject committee seeking independent legal advice over the powers of the
Assembly to decide teachers pay in Wales. The issue at the core of the debate
revolved around the extent to which the Assembly can shape primary legislation
at Westminster.

C. Northern Ireland

Shortly after the May 1997 election talks involving the British and Irish governments
and the Northern Irish parties chaired by former US Senator George Mitchell got
under way. These talks produced an agreement in April 1998 that is now referred to as
the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement.
This agreement called for the creation of an Assembly in Northern Ireland with a power
sharing Executive drawn from the major parties within the Assembly pledged to work
the Agreement and use exclusively peaceful means.
The agreement was put to referendum in both Northern Ireland and The Republic
of Ireland on 22 May 1998. In the Irish Republic, on a 58% turnout, 94% of those
voting approved the agreement and supported removing articles 2 and 3 of the Irish
constitution which claimed Irish sovereignty over Northern Ireland. In Northern
Ireland, on an 81% turnout, 71% of those voting approved the agreement though opinion
surveys suggest that Protestants were much less supportive of the agreement than
Catholics in Northern Ireland.
Elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly took place on 25 June 1998. Enough
pro-agreement Unionists were elected to make the Assembly work and David Trimble of
the Ulster Unionist party and Seamus Mallon of the nationalist SDLP were elected First
Minister and Deputy First Minister respectively. The period since has seen tortuous
even farcical progress but the general peace has held.

D. The English Regions

At present each of the eight English regions possesses a structure of Regional

Development Agency (RDA), Government Office for the Region (GO), and Voluntary
Regional Assemblies.
The Government Offices for the Regions were set up by the Major administration in
1994 to co-ordinate policy delivery at a regional level. The Assemblies have
provided a foundation for increased discussion of regional input in a number of policy
areas: principally strategic and spatial planning, economic development, higher education
and transport..
The Assemblies vary in size from 42 in the East Region to 115 in the South-East. Each
Chamber contains approximately 70% elected local government representatives from the
region and 30% regional stakeholders. These stakeholders typically include business
organisations, trade unions, environmental groups, voluntary organisations, and further
and higher education institutions.
An Act establishing Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) became law in 1998 and 8
RDAs were established in the English Regions in April 1999 (the ninth RDA, the London
Development Agency, became operational in May 2000). RDAs are charged with
developing the economic potential of their regions and by autumn 1999 all the RDAs had
drawn up economic strategies for their regions.
The total budgets of the eight RDAs is to be increased from 1.2 billion in 2000 to 1.7
billion in 2003 : however, this remains a fraction of the spending of the devolved
assemblies (and of regional expenditure itself).
In several regions there now exist campaigns for fully elected devolved assemblies,
normally resembling the National Assembly for Wales. The North-East, North-West,
West Midlands, Yorkshire & Humberside, and the South-West all possess Constitutional
Conventions to argue and develop the case for devolved regional assemblies. In 1999 the
Campaign for the English Regions formed as an umbrella group to campaign at national
and parliamentary level for a programme of devolution to the English Regions.
Much speculation surrounds the introduction of elected mayors under the Local
Government Act 2000. Under this Act, local authorities are obliged to develop proposals

to bring in one of three options of new executive arrangements: a directly elected

mayor, a cabinet and leader, or a directly elected mayor with a council manager.
A consultation paper was published setting out the Government's ideas for a new
Greater London Authority and elected mayor; the referendum held on 7 May 1998
endorsed the governments plans - 72% voted in favour of the new Authority, but on a
turnout of only 34%. The Mayor is elected by the Supplementary Vote and the Assembly
has 25 members elected by the Additional Member System.

3. Devolution and federalism in the UK

A. More constitutional changes are likely - in the direction of more
devolution:
House of Lords reform is likely to include an elected regional element
England is likely to experience greater devolution, based on the RDA structure
The Human Rights Act has moved the UK towards constitutional restrictions on
parliamentary sovereignty
The degree of devolution given to Wales is likely to grow because it needs greater
credibility to attract legitimacy
English regional government and elected city mayors will undoubtedly further fragment
power and lead to clashes between the levels (for example, over London transport).
The UK is part of a federal EU - all the central features of federalism are present: a
codified constitution - the Treaty of Rome and subsequent treaties and a supreme court;
different areas of autonomy - the EU controls trade, the regions (the 15 member
states) control education.

B. There are no signs that a codified federal constitution is likely:

Both major parties are against a federal structure;

writing a new constitution would be enormously difficult and politically impossible
without a national crisis.
UK devolution will remain lop-sided with different regions having different levels of
authority. This is not uncommon - Italy and Spain have similar arrangements, but
federal states have uniform decentralisation - every US state has the same legal
autonomy.

C. Devolution in the UK compared to federalism

Although in theory, Scottish legislative devolution could be reversed it is very difficult to
see it happening in practice
The nature of Scottish devolution is not dissimilar to US federalism in its degree of
autonomy
Examples of Scotland and the UK diverging include student grants and hunting with dogs.
There is no doubt that the UK has moved away from its former unitary or union
constitution.

6
Despite these decentralising factors (and the centralising trend in the USA), British
devolution cannot seriously be compared to American federalism in the extent of
decentralisation involved in the political system.
The Supreme Court has recently returned to a strong defence of the tenth
amendment protecting states rights;
the states raise and spend around 80% of their own revenue;
they exercise legislative supremacy in many areas including areas like capital
punishment;
each state has the same degree of autonomy whereas the UK has lopsided
devolution;
the degree to which the states have a cultural distinctiveness is much
greater than the regions, especially the English regions which are artificial
creations
the impact of regional government on the national government in the USA
through the Senate and Electoral College is much greater than in the UK.

4. Why Devolution?
A. The Maintenance of the Union (and New Labour self-interest)
o

The single most important practical political reason why devolution has been
introduced is that the popular demand in Scotland for an elected Scottish
Assembly with significant powers became overwhelming. Without devolution
Scotland might have been pushed toward demanding independence.
The logic of this argument can be summarised:
there are nationalist sentiments in Scotland, which provide important
sources of cultural identity.
If this was not recognised by opportunities for increased selfgovernment, pressure for independence would continue to grow.
The United Kingdom can only be preserved by a meaningful devolution
of power to Scotland.
The Labour Party had good political reasons for introducing increased devolution.
It dominates representation at Westminster for both Scotland and Wales. Labour
does not want to be electorally outflanked by the SNP and does not want to see the
break-up of the UK because without its Welsh and Scottish MPs it will be extremely
difficult to win a parliamentary majority in the UK parliament.

B. Britains membership of the European Union

o

The EU has provided an important incentive to develop a layer of elected

regional government. The Maastricht Treaty created the Committee of the Regions
and requires requests for many sources of funds from the EU budget to be developed
at regional level.

C. The Democratic Deficit' argument

This has many dimensions. The case in principle for devolution includes the following
arguments:
o Highly centralised government from Westminster is unrepresentative and
unaccountable. For example, Scotland has commonly been governed by a Conservative
administration which it has rejected at the ballot box.

7
o

o
o
o

Government appointed quangos which are neither elected nor accountable have taken over many tasks previously performed by elected local councils. A
report published in 1994 estimated that Britain has 4,800 quangos, spending 37
billion annually. By 1997 this had risen to 6,700 and 60 million.
Centralised government appears remote and lacks legitimacy, in the sense that
people do not feel properly consulted or that their consent has been given.
Greater devolution leads to greater participation and self-government because
elected national and regional assembles control areas of policy most directly
affecting people's lives.
Devolution inevitably leads to greater diversity because different communities
could make different decisions reflecting majority opinion in their areas.
Devolution also provide checks and balances on the misuse of government power
because government powers are taken away from the centre.
Arguing before Labour came to power veteran academic and politician David
Marquand said,
our present political arrangements give too little scope for variety and
experiment. British governments have been too slow to appreciate that
the people who live in different parts of the country may legitimately
have different priorities. Local and regional peculiarities are too often
ignored

Marquand suggests that over-centralization has 'weakened our democracy,

creating a sense of powerlessness among ordinary citizens.

D. Better Government results from Devolution

o
o

Democratic government, by local people and politicians who know local conditions and
circumstances, and have a stake in the outcome, is also more efficient government.
Centralised government is overloaded, leading to delays and is unable to focus on the
problems facing specific regions. An article in the Economist in November 1995 made
this point strongly, Experts in Whitehall, rather like central planners in the former
Soviet Union, simply do not have the information or knowledge to make the right
decisions for every part of Britain. Mistakes made by central government are big,
harder to reverse, and so more costly.
The argument for strengthening local government is simple. It is that solutions to
local problems.......ought instead to be made more often by local people and
politicians, who know more about particular local issues and have more of a stake
in the final outcome. (The Economist)

E. Checks and Balances

o

Devolution adds to democracy by providing a check on central government. The

Plaid Cymru website says, The Assembly has achieved some important things,
the most important being unmasking the truth about the way in which the UK
government has been dealing with European money. For years money earmarked
for Wales has been going to the Treasury's coffers while European projects
were funded at the cost of our public services.

Review Questions
Explain the arguments that devolution has produced both more democratic and
more efficient government.

5. Federalism in the USA

A. Themes

The division of power between the national (Federal) government and the states has
steadily been eroded in the direction of Federal power
There has been a revival in state power since 1980, but
Federal power has encroached upon the power of the states to such an extent that
the concept of federalism in the classic sense of a neat division of powers is irrelevant
The term inter-governmental relations is used to indicate that the relations between
two levels of government are now typified by co-operation and interaction; few policy
areas are totally the preserve of one level or the other.

B. The Survival of Federalism

Since the late 1980s, there been an attempt to devolve power by Congress and the
Supreme Court has made serious attempts to revive federalism by strengthening the
Tenth Amendment and by reinterpreting the Commerce Clause.

The states remain very important administrative and political units and the states
preserve variety - each continues to have its own separate legal and political system,
and travelling from state to state the observer is aware of distinctive political
cultures.

The states preserve a degree of local or regional political autonomy that is quite
unfamiliar in more centralized political systems.

State law remains pre-eminent in many areas of economic and social life,

The role of the states has increased, as federal governments have required them to
participate in the implementation of federally funded programmes.

The states are at the very heart of some of most important issues in American politics,
for example, abortion.

C. The Constitution and Federalism

Constitutional provisions in America are complex, vague and contradictory.

For example, the 'necessary and proper' clause conflicts with the Tenth Amendment

The Supreme Court has therefore been of crucial significance in the development of
federalism

'Federalism is not a fixed, well defined legalistic principle; it is an evolving concept

Federalism is what political leaders, especially Supreme Court justices, say it is.'
(Weissberg)

D. An overview of the historical development of federalism to 1980

Federalism was part of the system of checks and balances

Key factor that has changed relationship states/Federal government has been economic

Tasks of government have grown and only the national government can tackle many

Until the early 1930s it is possible to describe national-State relations as Dual

Between 1933 and 1980 the dominant trend was of increasing Federal power - first
through co-operative federalism (1933- 1963) then through Centralising federalism
(1964-1980). Cause the nationalization of economic and social life.

Both the national government and the States came to exercise joint responsibility for
welfare, health, highways, education, and criminal justice.

An important change also occurred in the legal status of the states in this period. The
Bill of Rights was 'nationalised', setting in motion a new role for the Federal
government - the protection of individual liberties against state violations.

The relationship between the Federal government and the States underwent further
significant changes from the mid-1960s. Virtually all problems confronting American
society - from solid waste disposal and water and air pollution, to consumer safety, home
insulation, noise abatement, and even metric conversion - were declared to be national
problems.

The 'reserved' powers of the States embodied in the Tenth Amendment lost most
of their meaning and decisions of the Supreme Court played a major role in
extending Federal power over the States.

The states' role became one of carrying out Federal mandates

The major means of central control was the grant-in-aid system. Federal financial aid
was at the centre of the growth of national government power.

Apart from the sense of political crisis at the root of the nationalisation of policy, there
were several reasons for the growth in Federal power: national finances were strong
but many of the states were virtually bankrupt; the increase in pressure group activity
also contributed to the growth in Federal aid and regulation eg groups were
working for improvements in environmental and consumer protection; the states actually
lobbied for Federal action.

and social transformation.

problems.

Federalism - powers were divided between the Federal and state governments in a
relatively neat way with the States having substantial areas of autonomy.

E. Revitalisation

From the late 1960s onwards, the right was committed to reversing what they saw as
the usurpation of state powers by the federal government.

10

Since 1980, the trend towards centralisation has been halted and to some degree
reversed. President Reagan talked in terms of New Federalism

Following their 1994 election victories, the Republican majority in Congress

developed policies that gave the states further decision-making powers. The 1996
Welfare Reform Act represented a particularly important decentralising shift.

Congress also passed the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The states also responded to the changing political environment and to specific
problems they faced, by becoming more assertive, imaginative and innovative.

After 50 years of interpreting the constitution in a way that favoured an extension of

Federal authority, the Supreme Court reflecting its 7-2 republican majority began to support the states.
It was the landmark New York v. United States
decision in 1992, which restored substance to the Tenth Amendment.

In 1995, in United States v. Lopez the Court restrained Congress from relying upon its
constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to ban the simple possession of
a gun in a school zone.

The 1996-in Printz v. United States, the Court invalidated the provisions of the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act which required local law enforcement officers to
conduct background checks on gun purchasers.

F. Defining Modern Federalism

Permissive Federalism. There still is a sharing of power and authority between the
two constitutionally recognized levels of government but the states' share rests
largely upon the permission and permissiveness of the national government. '

The key concept in understanding modern federalism is 'interdependence'.

The federal system is highly intergovernmental. For example, Food Stamp benefits for
the poor are funded entirely by the federal government, but states determine benefit
eligibility, issue identification cards, and pay 50 percent of the administrative costs.

The complex distribution of authority leads to great competition and he typifies the
state of modern federalism as 'competitive interdependence' because different states
compete for Federal funds aided by their Senators and members of the House of
Representatives.

G. Assessment of modern federalism in three key areas

11
Legal Powers
The legal power of the Federal government has grown and is likely to continue to
grow because the social, economic, political, geographical and technical realities of
modern life require national action.

There have been over 250 Congressional laws in the last 30 years, which have
transferred powers to the centre.

The phrase commonly used to describe this process is pre-emption.

Federal pre-emption is one result of the supremacy clause.

Because of problems that cross state boundaries, there are very often compelling
reasons to make national policy supreme. For example water pollution that kills fish
often crosses state boundaries, making it difficult for anyone state to deal with the
problem.

In 1965, Congress passed the Water Quality Act, which allowed the national government
to assume responsibility for water-pollution abatement if the states failed to maintain
adequate water-quality standards.

Revenue Powers

States administer federal schemes and rely heavily on federal funds in policy areas,
like welfare, which were once exclusively state responsibilities.

Much state spending is mandated or compelled by the Federal government

the vast majority of Federal funds given to the states are categorical grants i.e. they
have tight strings attached and the states have little discretion.

the Federal government will continue to hold the purse strings and states needing
Federal cash will inevitably submit to Federal restrictions and conditions

Policy

The states preserve a degree of local or regional political autonomy, which is quite
unfamiliar in unitary systems.

The powers allocated to the states include powers over civil and a good deal of
criminal law (including the issue of capital punishment); school education and higher
education; health, sanitation, housing and public highways.

The states have also been 'laboratories', undertaking experiments in policy-making in

areas like 'workfare', education, health care and consumer protection.

In addition states plan, supervise, partially fund and sometimes directly execute
large, costly, and socially significant intergovernmental programmes like Food Stamps.

12

The powers of central government continue to encroach on the states. One of the most
disturbing aspects of this is that the Federal government continues to impose new
duties (or mandates) on the states without giving much thought on how the states
are to pay for new services

6. Centralisation and Decentralisation

In both the UK and USA the same arguments are used. Those who favour
decentralisation put forward a number of claims.
o

Democracy near the people - different regions have their own political and
cultural traditions. Only a federal system offers the space that will allow these
to flourish.

Decentralised

systems

of

government

offer

opportunities

for

policy

experimentation and innovation

o

Regional governments can balance out the actions of the national government.
They can prevent the legislators and bureaucrats in the centre from becoming
excessively powerful.

Conflict management allowing policy diversity also means that a uniform policy
is not imposed on hostile citizens.

The arguments for stronger central government include :

o
o
o
o

citizens are entitled to the nationally set minimum standards.

Efficiency and fairness require national policies and redistribution of wealth
from wealthier to poorer areas.
National crises constantly demand national action
The realities of modern economic and social life and technology, mean that the
appropriate framework for decisions are large national and international (for
example, pollution)

These arguments both have validity and in the modern UK and USA some political
decisions are taken at national level and some at regional level. The structure of
decision-making is in flux and in both countries the balance between national and
regional government is itself a controversial political issue. In Britain this is
complicated by a European dimension. In the USA, the Supreme Court is mounting a
vigorous defence of the federal principle together with a new breed of state
Governors.