Upload
colin-sweeney
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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?