2 results
eight - Social citizenship and intergovernmental finance
- Edited by Scott L. Greer
-
- Book:
- Devolution and Social Citizenship in the UK
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 21 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 January 2009, pp 137-160
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Social citizenship rights only become meaningful when there is money to make them a reality. In federal or devolved political systems intergovernmental finances can determine who sets social citizenship rights. For instance, a system that provides devolved administrations with an unconditional block grant, when combined with substantial devolution of political powers, enables the administration to alter the citizenship rights available to its citizens. On the other hand, in a system where devolved administrations’ grants are conditional and key legislative powers remain with the federal or central government, it is central government that will dominate the country's social citizenship agenda. But shared standards, declarations of intent, public expectations and administrative efforts to create equal outcomes will all fail if the money is missing.
To understand intergovernmental finance and its consequences for social citizenship in the UK, we need to understand the extent of the powers and functions available to the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the way in which the UK intergovernmental finance system works – basically how the UK government taxes and spends. This is important for social citizenship for two reasons. First, where the power lies determines which administration has policy-making competence in the key areas for social citizenship, which will give an indication of whether it is the UK as a whole or the devolved administrations that are setting the social citizenship agenda. Second, how public spending is distributed has implications for social citizenship, as an equitable distribution of public spending can enable shared social citizenship.
This chapter explores the impact of the UK's devolution and intergovernmental finance arrangements on shared social citizenship in the UK. First, we give an overview of the degree of devolution, using public spending as a proxy for the degree of devolved powers, to explore whether it is the UK or the devolved territories that constitute a ‘sharing community’ (Banting, 2005a). Second, we outline how public spending is distributed in the UK, explaining the much misunderstood ‘Barnett formula’, how it works and why it is a source of political tension. Then we analyse where the spending actually goes, before considering whether the current distribution of public spending is equitable and promotes shared UK citizenship.
nine - Social justice in the UK: one route or four?
- Edited by Gary Craig, Tania Burchardt, David Gordon
-
- Book:
- Social Justice and Public Policy
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 19 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 June 2008, pp 181-204
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
You can't have Scotland doing something different from the rest of Britain. (Tony Blair, on tuition fees policy, quoted in Ashdown, 2001, p 446)
Devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was one of the earliest and most radical Acts of the 1997 Labour government, opening up new and more democratically legitimate centres of decision-making power in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Such constitutional changes are often regarded as dry, arcane matters of interest to a select few. But constitutional changes can have profound implications for policy and practice. Since the devolved administrations came into being in 1999, the achievement of overarching aspirations – such as progressing social justice – have required a different approach, one that takes account of policy differences in different parts of the UK.
For many, devolution to the nations of Scotland and Wales embodied a recognition of the different cultural and national identities in the multinational state that constitutes Great Britain. The debates that took place in the run-up to the referendums in 1997 focused heavily on creating a new kind of inclusive politics, voice, representation and, particularly in the case of Scotland, national identity. In terms of social justice, the issues that the debate turned on sat well within the more recent pluralistic approach to social justice, with its concern for representation and recognition of different groups (Fraser, 2003; Chapter Five, this volume). The referendum debates paid less attention to the consequences of the greater policy divergence that devolution could bring. The debate in Northern Ireland was somewhat different, with conflict resolution acting as the key driver of devolution. The circumstances in Northern Ireland are exceptional, with the project stalling and restarting a number of times, meaning that devolution has been interspersed with periods of suspension and the re-imposition of direct rule. As a result, Northern Irish policies will not be discussed in detail here.
Finding local solutions to local problems and addressing specific territorial needs is a key rationale for devolution. Devolution of powers can create opportunities for policy experimentation, innovation and learning, with new and successful ideas shared. In this sense, devolution is said to create ‘policy laboratories’.