Devolution and transport in the UK IPPR Devolution in a Downturn conference, Belfast Jon Shaw.

Devolution and transport in the UKIPPR Devolution in a Downturn conference, Belfast

Jon Shaw

Outline

Transport and devolution in the UK

Transport strategies

Transport policies

Conclusions

Transport and devolution in the UK

Our starting point is 1998: A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone Travel Choices for Scotland Transporting Wales into the Future Shaping our Future: Regional Development

Strategy for Northern Ireland

Geographical tensions within this one overarching strategy

Transport and devolution in the UK

Transport and devolution in the UK

Transport strategies

Headline ‘national’ strategies showed remarkable horizontal convergence Sustainability / integration rhetoric Reassertion of road building and primacy of

economy

Some vertical divergence as a result A longer timescale would mean some vertical

convergence

Why?

Transport strategies

London’s strategy showed genuine divergence Horizontal divergence in that in London the

rhetoric of A New Deal was actually delivered Vertical divergence in that policies different from

those immediately preceding The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (again a timescale issue)

Transport a policy area upon which broader legitimacy for the devolved institutions was based

Transport policies

Four policy elements of the various transport strategies demonstrate dynamics of divergence and convergence Roads / road user charging Public transport investment Concessionary fares Air Route Development Funds

Transport policies

Divergence (D) / convergence (C) from England

Scotland Wales Northern

Ireland

London

Road building C C C D

Road user charging C C C D

Additional bus investment C C C D

Additional rail investment D D D D

Concessionary fares C C C C

Air route development funds D (C) D (C) D (C) C

Transport policies

Concessionary fares for the over-60s Well established prior to devolution but – on the

mainland at least – problems after local government reorganisation in the 1990s

National schemes following devolution: Northern Ireland, October 2001 Wales, April 2002 Scotland, January 2006 England, April 2008

Policy divergence and convergence

Benefits of concessionary fares questionable Costly but limited economic development effect

and distribute benefits unevenly Induce travel and therefore become more costly Impact upon local transport budgets A political gimmick?

Curious lack of appraisal – probably ‘grey vote’ initiative An easy way to reach targets?

Nevertheless, a splendid example of policy transfer!

Conclusions

Analyses of policy divergence and convergence have been a key strand of devolution research in the UK Transport largely neglected in such analyses

Transport strategies show significant convergence London being the exception

Transport policies show a mixture of divergence and convergence

Importance of timescale to analyses of vertical divergence / convergence

Conclusions

How far is devolution per se significant in promoting policy change?

Policy ideas themselves not necessarily products of devolution

“Devolution opens the door, but you have to walk through that door” (Transport policy adviser, London)

London shows the most significant devolution effect, but has the least devolved power Institutional arrangements important… …but so are specific local circumstances, and the activation

of institutional structures by political agency So, ‘strategic capacity’ is of key importance?