Localism, Levelling Up and Taking Back Control: Tensions in the Ambiguous Justification of English Devolution

With the publication of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the government have signalled a moment of stabilisation and consensus for the devolution project in England. However, although the what of English devolution appears to be settled for now, the why remains much more volatile. Over recent years, the UK's two main political parties have made repeated rhetorical appeals for English devolution over the last quarter of a century.

In this article, we explore the nature of these rhetorical appeals, calling for more recognition of the competing visions of English devolution and the need for a stronger national debate that helps to reconcile these tensions. We argue that this failure to deliver on the proclaimed democratic and empowering ambitions of devolution risks eroding trust and destabilising the devolution project as a whole.

Three theories of devolution

Different justifications deployed in support of English devolution have sought to fulfil different purposes, with different expectations of what such processes ought to achieve.

First is the argument that devolution enhances democracy. John Stuart Mill has long been an important reference point here. Mill argues that the smaller and more local scale of devolved governance creates more opportunities for citizens to participate directly in democratic politics and hold elected office. This, in turn, provides a valuable educative function.

In addition to opportunities for political participation and education, democratic theories of devolution have, more widely, emphasised the extent to which decentralisation further enhances the democratic legitimacy of political decision making. Closer proximity to affected citizens helps to ensure that decision-making reflects the interests of the local community.

Next, we come to the argument that devolution promotes policy efficacy and government efficiency. Mill also argues that decentralisation is the most efficient way of organising the administration of certain public services. Central government authorities are likely to lack the knowledge and capacity to deliver local services. Recent literature on the idea of ‘place-based policy making’ argues that locally-led and locally-sensitive approaches to policy are more likely to support improved economic growth and address inequalities.

Practically speaking, theories that emphasise efficacy may therefore be more likely to underpin instrumental models of devolution, which are designed to deliver on the agendas of national policy makers.

Finally, a third understanding of devolution emphasises the extent to which devolution disrupts concentrations of power. Devolution can help to protect and promote particular local economic, political and cultural interests that could otherwise be overlooked and undermined within more distant, centralised systems of governance. This could have substantive consequences for institutional design.

Devolution pursued on the basis of this justification is likely to emphasise sufficient levels of autonomy from existing centres of power. In particular, such ideas may underpin models of decentralisation that enable devolved governments to pursue their own ideas and interests with a high degree of independence from any demands, preferences or expectations imposed by central government.

Justifying contemporary English devolution

Despite successive governments repeatedly emphasising the importance of tackling central concentrations of power and democratisation through devolution, our analysis shows that devolution policies have been enacted with policy efficacy as the overriding justification, with economic growth the chief aim.

Between 2010 and 2024, successive Conservative-led administrations pursued public policy agendas that emphasised the need for decentralisation in England. Accompanying these arguments was concern with the concentration of power, underpinned by free-market concerns about an overreaching state. However, these rhetorical appeals usually led to efficacy-based arguments about local economic development, which ultimately underpinned the design of policy interventions and local institutions.

While English devolution proceeded ad hoc through the 2010s and driven by various economic agendas, notably the Northern Powerhouse, it was not until late in the decade that the ‘levelling up agenda’ produced a new wave of justifications of English devolution. The 2019 Conservative manifesto appealed to a democratic justification of devolution. However, appeals to policy efficacy were again much more common, with numerous references to the broader national growth strategy. In the 2022 Levelling Up White Paper, the overriding justification of devolution was to realise spatial rebalancing and revitalise left-behind places. There was little regard for the notion that devolution might counterbalance central power.

With the election of the Labour Party in 2024, English devolution was closely tied to the Brexit-era phrase, ‘take back control’. In this slogan, it is possible to identify a combination of a democratic justification of devolution and a concern with the concentration of power. However, in Labour's pre-election policy documents, devolution is more firmly pitched as a tool for economic growth.

In December 2024, the government published its plans in the English Devolution White Paper. Efficacy is again the primary justification, although there are attempts to tackle concentrations of power, mostly at regional level.

While there is a lot of rhetoric about ‘empowering communities’, there are few concrete policy levers—a trend that echoes previous Conservative administrations. At the same time, democracy is in many cases moving further away from people, with promises to abolish district councils and the smaller unitary authorities.

Tensions in devolution justifications

There is a consistent theme that emerges from the analysis of how English devolution has been justified: economic growth. The Cameron, Johnson and Starmer administrations have not disguised this. However, they have each sought to wrap their growth ambitions in rhetorical appeals to democracy and tackling concentrations of power, which are rarely followed through. This leads to the development of devolved institutions that lack meaningful capacity.

One of the most repeated motifs is the ambition to ‘empower communities’. But there has been little attempt to address the problem of local turnout, declining local media, low levels of trust or limited public knowledge of local politics. There has been no concerted public engagement policy on utilising deliberative democracy, direct democracy or democratic technologies at the local level. And, finally, there has been no attempt to establish or empower hyper-local institutions that would bring local democracy closer to people. The public repeatedly hear promises for their empowerment and yet feel little increase in the power of their community. Therefore, successive governments have likely eroded public trust in devolution itself.

The government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill appears to have signalled a moment of stabilisation and consensus, but this too fails to acknowledge—let alone reconcile—the competing justifications of devolution. And it continues to prioritise the pursuit of instrumental efficiency gains over more intrinsic goods. This risks undermining the resilience of English devolution in the face of wider economic and political volatility. Three pressing challenges highlight this risk.

First, there is the potential for a populist backlash against the devolution agenda, as already seen with Reform UK’s narrative on ‘cutting waste’ at the local level. Second, there is the potential to undermine the place-based identities that are crucial to effective devolved policy making. Third, there is the uncertainty surrounding economic growth. The security of devolution in England requires a simultaneous focus on enhancing the public culture and practice of devolution.

People's sense of ownership and connection to devolution in their area will ultimately help to promote and protect this agenda over the long term. If this is merely deployed as empty rhetoric that is blended into a risky growth-or-bust agenda, the government is taking a gamble using that most precious currency of which we are already so short: public trust.