How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South.

Full text

1
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
How do we solve a
problem like devolution:
The case of the
Central South
Insight Paper #1
By Prof John Boswell, Dr Hannah Dalgleish,
Dr Max Stafford, and Gareth Giles

About the Centre
for the South
About the
authors
Thank you
Copyright
The Centre for the South (CftS) is a policy institute
founded under the University of Southampton.
The CftS uses equitable approaches to stimulate
cross-sector collaboration across the Central
South, mobilising knowledge and using evidence to
drive more informed place-based decision making,
for mutual prosperity. The Centre is focused on
addressing six overlapping priorities:
→The identity of the region and pride in place
→Power structures, devolution, and
community resilience
→Mental health, wellbeing, and health inequalities
→Local skills and (future) labour needs
→Infrastructures (e.g. transport and
housing) and net zero
→The role, use of, and access to green/blue spaces
John Boswell is a Professor in Politics whose interests
centre around democratic governance and public policy.
He is keen to work on challenges related to transport
infrastructures and the role of libraries for communities.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3018-8791
Hannah Dalgleish is a Knowledge Exchange Fellow,
establishing networks and mobilising knowledge across
the academic-policy sphere. She is eager to address
science-based challenges around work and skills, as
well as explore human-nature awareness as an essential
aspect of a green recovery.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8970-3065
Max Stafford is a Teaching Fellow in Politics and has
ample experience working for former cabinet ministers
and policymakers. He is especially interested in research
regarding the role, evolution, influence, and significance
of the Downing Street Chief-of-Staff; and the leadership
of directly-elected mayors.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0698-0770
Gareth Giles is the head of Public Policy | Southampton,
bringing a wealth of knowledge from previous experience
gained in central and local government. He is excited
about finding solutions for the future of work in the
central South, as well as improving power structures in
the region.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0155-2408
This work is the result of discussions with several policymakers from local
authorities across the Central South. We are very thankful for their time and
candid answers to our questions.
This paper has been published under a Creative Commons ‘Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)’ licence.
This licence makes it possible for the sharing and adapting of all intellectual property rights
herein, provided that there is an appropriate attribution; that all adaptations are clearly
indicated; and that all intellectual property rights are used for non-commercial purposes only.
To cite this paper, please use: How do we solve a problem like devolution, Centre for the South,
May 2024, DOI: 10.5258/SOTON/PP0200
2
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
Find out more
Register your interest to keep up
to date with news and events at
www.centreforthesouth.co.uk
Or email cfts@soton.ac.uk

Executive Summary
The purpose of this paper
This Insight Paper is the first in a series of pieces looking to shine a light on the key challenges
of our region. Here, we focus on the prospects for local devolution in the Central South. We
draw on contemporary research on the ‘devolution revolution’ in England to ask what local
leaders can learn from experience elsewhere.
The key insights from our narrative review of the relevant literature are as follows.
The paper is aimed at policymakers and other stakeholders in the Central South. Its focus
is the prospect of devolution in the region, but the paper does not seek to promote
a particular blueprint or geography on which any deal ought to be predicated; the
emphasis is on process, not outcome. The paper reviews emerging evidence on the
experience of planning, negotiating, and executing devolution deals across England in the
last decade to draw lessons from the country’s recent ‘devolution revolution’. We then lay
out a practical guide for what getting to an acceptable deal in our region might involve,
and how local policymakers and stakeholders might best go about navigating this process.
The paper, we hope, will help to drive forward a local deal that can convince Westminster
to unlock resources and devolve autonomy to promote prosperity in the Central South.
The official Westminster story of
convergence around an institutional
pathway towards devolution is at
odds with research. In practice,
local deals have demanded greater
contingency and complexity.
Our recommendations, on the basis of these insights, are that:
The challenges of political, social,
and economic geography that have
prevented a deal in the Central
South thus far are far from unique
to our region – other regions have
successfully overcome these same
challenges on the path to devolution.
There is no single model to follow,
either as a blueprint for devolved
arrangements or as an ideal process
to develop a deal, but experience
elsewhere points to key ‘arts’ that
enable creative and lasting solutions.
Local stakeholders should get
poised to take advantage of
the ‘window of opportunity’
likely presented by a change of
government in Westminster;
A ‘circuit breaker’ is needed to
drive discussions forward quickly;
Reaching a deal cannot rely on
any magic solution, and will
require clever craft and hard
graft on the part of local leaders.
3
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South

4
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
The background:
Why a local devolution deal hasn’t
happened – and why it needs to now
Devolution in the Central South has been an awkward
political challenge for the region over the last decade.
In light of central government commitments to
decentralisation and ‘Levelling Up’, multiple attempts
have been made to package and sell a devolution deal
to the government in Westminster. None have been
successful. One stumbling block has been around the
precise geography involved, with competing proposals
envisaging the region in different ways (Knott, 2023;
Paun et al. 2023) – the different geographies speak to
anxieties that key local stakeholders have concerning
jurisdictions (such as the county) being split, or others
(such as the districts) becoming marginalised. Another
obstacle has been the diverse economic profile of the
Central South, spanning as it does from ‘left behind’
places to inner-cities to relatively affluent hubs like
the rural and peri-urban regions of Hampshire (see
Boswell et al. 2018). A final stumbling block has been the
institutional arrangements that Westminster requires,
with pockets of strong local opposition to the prospect
of a directly elected mayor (Clayden, 2016; Zodgekar,
2023). The legacy of this challenging recent history is an
environment of low trust among key regional figures.
But, despite these challenges, there is equal recognition
that reaching a devolution deal remains an important
aspiration. Indeed, in our recent report (Lord, 2023),
solving the devolution problem is identified as an
urgent priority for the region. The primary push factor
is the financial strain facing local authorities after years of
austerity and recent inflationary pressures (see Bradley
et al. 2023). Southampton City Council was very recently
granted up to just over £120million in additional financial
support (financed through capital receipts), in order to
assist budgetary pressures in the short-term (Gov.uk,
2024a) – other local authorities are showing similar signs
of financial distress. Devolution represents one obvious
way of unlocking the additional resources urgently
needed to attract growth and run essential public
services in the region, as well as opening up potential
to benefit from efficiencies associated with economies
of scale.
Another key element is impending change in the wider
political context. While it is unlikely that the recent
local elections will prompt major changes in the
region’s political terrain, there will be some refreshing
of personnel, subtly shifting the dominant ideas and
relationships involved in local negotiations. More
importantly, the polls are consistently and strongly
pointing to a change of national government when
a General Election is called, with potential flow-on
effects for negotiations between devolved regions and
Westminster. First and most obviously, this prospect
‘wipes the slate clean’ after a difficult history of failed
negotiations between Westminster and local authorities
in the Central South region in the search for a deal. Just
as importantly, though, a change in government opens up
wider possibilities. The clear focus of devolution policy
under successive Conservative-led governments has
been the combined mayoral authority model. As forecast
most clearly in the Brown Commission on constitutional
reform, a Labour government is firmly committed
to pushing forward the devolution agenda further
still – getting “The Right Powers in the Right Places”
(White et al., 2023) and “widening devolution to every
town and city in England” (Labour, 2024). As Labour’s
vision on devolution develops further, a change in
government certainly opens up potential for greater
local autonomy over the exact nature of institutional
arrangements and, moving forward, over the powers
and responsibilities that might come under local control.
This confluence of developments and alignment of
incentives add up to a ‘window of opportunity’ for the
Central South region. Now is the time to rethink regional
coordination so as to be in the best possible position
to lobby for a favourable devolution deal after the next
General Election. But the scars of previous failures
remain, and trust between some key parties in the region
is low. How, then, can efforts towards coordination be
mobilised?
“...despite these
challenges, there is equal
recognition that reaching
a devolution deal remains
an important aspiration.”

5
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
Approach:
Learning from experience elsewhere
In this paper, we look to evidence from successes and
failures in developing and delivering devolution deals
across England. There is a decade of experience of the
‘devolution revolution’ elsewhere in the country to
learn from. And, while every region has its own unique
background, the Central South is far from alone in
experiencing the difficulties that have inhibited a
deal so far. The challenges that our region faces around
geography, economy, and politics – even the strained
relationships resulting from recent failures – all bear
a strong ‘family resemblance’ to those faced in places
as diverse as Greater Manchester (see Gains 2015), the
Liverpool City Region (Jeffery 2023), and the West of
England (Ayres et al. 2018). In our analysis we ask: how
have they managed to negotiate these challenges, and
what can leaders in the Central South learn from those
experiences?
Our approach is to conduct a narrative review of
the evidence that has emerged from this decade of
experience. This approach is the norm in scholarship
focused on learning from similar experiences in political
science and policy studies – variously dubbed ‘policy
transfer’, ‘evidence-informed policymaking’ or ‘policy
learning’ (see Dolowitz and Marsh 2000; Cairney 2016 for
reviews). Narrative reviews enjoy this prevalence in the
field for two reasons, both of which also apply for our
purposes:
1One is that narrative reviews are the ideal approach
for pulling together deep insight from rich but
heterogenous sources. In the case of lessons from
devolution in the last decade in England, the evidence
base is highly varied in nature, with research articles,
grey literature, and testimony on the public record.
2Two is that narrative reviews are a method
designed to cut through complex experience
and deliver key conceptual and practical insights.
Our purpose here is to deliver meaningful guidance
that can be picked up and used by local stakeholders in
practice, rather than to present dry, abstract, or technical
descriptive detail.
We then draw on this broad understanding to outline
a practical guide for reaching a devolution deal for
policymakers in the region.
Figure 1. Credit: House of Commons Library (2023). Figure accurate as of November 2023

6
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
England’s Devolution Revolution:
The story so far
In the last decade, successive Conservative-led
governments have promoted devolution to city-regions
as a key mechanism for promoting economic growth in
England outside London (see Tomaney 2016; Giovannini
2021; Sandford 2023). More than 60% of the English
population are now covered by a devolution deal, and
rising (Gov.uk 2024b). Devolution deals include mayoral
areas with considerable local autonomy, as well as
a handful of recent County Deals with more limited
devolution of powers (see Figure 1). In this context,
the Central South lags behind the majority of the
country, representing one of the most populous
regions in England not to have any sort of deal yet.
The perception locally tends to one of exceptionalism –
that the political, social, and economic geography of the
Central South presents unique challenges relative to the
more cohesive communities of the North of England
and Midlands (e.g. Powell 2023). This perception makes
sense in the context of the official account of the story
so far, but is not borne out by evidence from grounded
research in policy studies and political science on
the challenges of realising the ‘devolution revolution’
elsewhere in practice.
On the one hand, the official story points to broad
convergence in overall outcome in ‘successful’ cases
(e.g. DLUHC 2022). In this narrative, the first and
best-known of the devolution deals was the Greater
Manchester Combined Mayoral Authority. In the
subsequent decade, another eight devolution deals that
broadly fit the same combined mayoral authority model
(post facto dubbed ‘Level 3 deals’ in the Levelling Up
White Paper of 2022) have gone ahead, with another
three having just recently come into being (North East,
York and North Yorkshire, and the East Midlands). Two
combined mayoral authorities – Greater Manchester
and West Midlands – have progressed to ‘Level 4 deals’
which enable the apparent Holy Grail of a ‘single pot’
that grants further autonomy over key portfolios and
unlocks strategic resource. Level 4 powers have since
been offered to an additional four areas: Liverpool City
Region, North East, West Yorkshire, and South Yorkshire.
These greater powers include: skills & employment;
housing & land; transport; net zero & climate change;
innovation, trade & investment; culture & tourism; and
public health (Gov.uk, 2024c) – albeit in practice, away
from the national headlines, the promise of autonomy
in these portfolios conflicts with Westminster demands
for accountability across targets and benchmarks. In
blunt terms, nevertheless, this official story asserts
convergence around an institutional pathway towards
more effective local autonomy.
On the other hand, in-depth academic research
reveals a more complex, less linear story. In these
more critical accounts, broad claims of conformity
to a specific blueprint or model disguise a great deal
of heterogeneity in the specific forms and functions
of these devolved bodies, which are a product of
contested and complex origin stories grounded in local
context (see Sandford 2017). In their landmark analysis,
Lowndes and Lemprière (2018) draw on sophisticated
institutionalist theories to explain and show how
local government reform in England occurs against a
challenging background of rivalries, relationships and
‘sticky’ legacies of past arrangements and ongoing
service provision. They point to a constellation of
local factors that shapes subtle differences in how
devolution manifest across context: ‘animation’ (the
role of key agents), ‘nesting’ (the relationship between
local and national institutions) and ‘embedding’
(the link between new proposals and place-specific
institutional legacies and identities). Their explanatory
model has been applied to understand case study ‘deals’
including the successes of Greater Manchester and
the West Midlands and the initial failure of the North
East Combined Authority (see Lemprière and Lowndes
2019). Other research in the field uses slightly different
theoretical lenses and explanatory jargon, but reaches
much the same conclusion – in-depth studies based
on deep understanding of the process of devolution
invariably speak to a delicate balancing act of quelling
local political rivalries, merging different organisational
cultures, and managing relationships with stakeholders
outside government and in Westminster (see Ayres et
al. 2018; Roberts 2020; Paun et al. 2023).
“the Central South lags
behind the majority of
the country, representing
one of the most populous
regions in England not to
have any sort of deal yet”

7
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
The key insight from this deeper dive into relevant
academic research is not just that no devolution process
is exactly alike, but that local contingencies inform both
success and failure in conceiving and negotiating a deal,
and the institutional legacies of devolution in place. These
complexities make it impossible to point to a particular
institutional blueprint for devolution in our region, or
even a model process from elsewhere to replicate exactly.
The Central South story will inevitably have its own
idiosyncrasies. Nevertheless, insights from elsewhere
provide a valuable bank of experience to draw from, with
many existing deals emerging from contexts that bear
important ‘family resemblance’ with the challenges and
obstacles in the Central South.
We move now to turning these experiences and insights
into useful advice for stakeholders in the Central South
region. We structure our account around the five key
‘arts’ of ‘conceiving a devolution deal’ identified in Paun
et al. (2023). We do so because these ‘arts’ offer a useful
narrative device to break down broader insights and
translate them in ways that, we hope, are easily digestible
for local policymakers and stakeholders.
“local contingencies
inform both success and
failure in conceiving and
negotiating a deal, and
the institutional legacies
of devolution in place.”

8
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
A practical guide:
How to craft a devolution deal
Paun et al.’s (2023) analysis is based on the deepest
and widest set of interviews yet conducted with
leaders in local government about the ‘devolution
revolution’. By necessity, their findings relate to
the experience those leaders have of navigating a
wider political environment set by the Conservative-
led government in Westminster – one typified by a
consolidating and narrowing institutional pathway,
frequent processing bottlenecks, and – for our region
– regular frustration. The environment for devolution
under a Labour-led government might differ. It is not
clear from public pronouncement, for instance, whether
Labour will commit to the narrow ‘city-region’ model or
stepwise institutional ‘Levels’ outlined in DLHUC’s official
narrative, or whether they will seek to reform or refine
those models and pathways. In our guide below, we
proceed on the assumption that the overall environment
will remain largely similar, but we also speculate where
appropriate on what opportunities and challenges a
change in government might throw up.
 THE ART OF ESTABLISHING A DEEP
AND WIDE COALITION
The first point that Paun et al. (2023) reflect on is the
importance of establishing a deep and wide coalition
within a given region – the more successful attempts
to build the case for devolution have involved
collaboration across key local political powers and
other stakeholders in the private and third sectors
who are based in the region. The logic here is to surface
and head off potential conflict early, before plans become
too advanced, and parties feel their interests have not
been taken into account.
In the Central South, this would of course mean
coordination with the main unitary/county councils
involved in any potential deal (Hampshire County Council,
Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council, and
Isle of Wight Council) – they will be required to ratify
and carry out a deal. But Paun et al.’s point is that those
outside the official tent, but with an obvious stake, need
to be involved too. In the Central South, that would mean
also including the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
Council whose interests are firmly connected to the
region. It would also mean engaging with:
→up to 11 relevant district councils;
→local Members of Parliament across as many
as 19 constituencies stretching from Havant in
the east, potentially as far as the New Forest in
the west, and from Aldershot in the north, to
the Isle of Wight in the south;
→and key stakeholders across the region’s
business and voluntary sectors.
That is not to say that all stakeholders will have an equal
say or that all parts of this broad region will be involved
in an eventual deal. Instead, it is to say that coordination
groundwork is essential to better understand the
enablers and barriers and build relationships with key
parties.
How? It is not necessary to look outside the region in search
of a good model for stakeholders in the Central South to
draw on. Prominent previous efforts that tap into central
resources have involved just this sort of ground-up coalition
building work, albeit at a slightly smaller scale. For example,
prior to the ‘devolution revolution’ that kicked off towards
the end of the Coalition government, partners in the Solent
region banded together effectively to capture central grants
from Osborne’s City Deals initiative, enabling investment
in civic infrastructure in Southampton and Portsmouth
that local residents are enjoying today. The more recent
Solent Freeport investment offers a similar case in
point. There is a longer history of collaboration via the
Partnership for South Hampshire (formerly Partnership
for Urban South Hampshire) in working together on
planning, transport, and sustainability policy. This strong
local track record suggests that coordination capacity is
there, but needs to be tapped and expanded for the more
ambitious still devolution agenda.
 THE ART OF CONVEYING COHERENT
(ENOUGH) GEOGRAPHY
Paun et al. (2023) also stress the importance of conveying
a coherent geography for a regional devolution deal. The
background here is that the long history of authority
concentrated in Westminster and Whitehall means that
England does not split naturally into obvious or ‘natural’
geographical sub-units (see Richards and Smith 2015).
Devolution regions are therefore artificial constructs
imposed on messy realities, inevitably cutting across in
one way or another, traditional boundaries of community
identity, public infrastructure, and service delivery.
The key lies in telling a story about this geography that
rings true enough for key internal stakeholders, but
that – more importantly – convinces decision-makers in
Westminster and Whitehall.
“The environment for
devolution under a
Labour-led government
might differ.”

9
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
The Central South acutely exhibits the problem
of messy geography. There is a legacy, through
restructuring of local responsibilities and public
investment in regional initiatives, of overlapping
administrative territories across different sectors.
The region has also seen significant growth of peri-
urban settlements and commuter towns which
means that residents in everyday life are often cutting
across jurisdictions for work, education, and leisure
(e.g. Zodgekar 2023). Differing perspectives on the
appropriate geography has been at the crux of the failure
thus far to get a devolution deal.
CASE STUDY: THE NORTH EAST
It is perhaps useful to look at a cautionary tale from
one of the messiest and most protracted battle
over geography: the North East Combined Mayoral
Authority. An earlier pitch for a North East Combined
Authority – one widely thought to accord with an
obvious identity – fell through in 2016 because of
failure to agree terms with Westminster (including
especially the question of a directly elected mayor,
which local leaders in parts of the region were
strongly opposed to). A breakaway pitch for North
of Tyne, involving only half the original constitutive
authorities, then emerged as a politically expedient
alternative. Local Professor of Planning, Jonathan
Tomaney (2016), colourfully put local controversy
over this re-framing in a critique at the time:
In the festive period, as I went about my
Christmas shopping and socialising in Newcastle
and environs, I conducted my own (unscientific)
opinion gathering in shops, bars, buses, and
taxis. I asked two questions “Where is the North
of Tyne?” and “Have you heard there’s going to
be a new mayor for it?”. I hardly need to report
that there were few clear or affirmative answers.
In fact, “North of Tyne” is a misnomer; one of
the principal settlements in Northumberland –
Hexham – is located south of the Tyne. Defining
sub-national identities in England is notoriously
difficult, but “North of Tyne” seems uniquely
contrived and opaque.
Yet, even in this context – half a decade later – the
North of Tyne Deal has allowed local authorities to
tap into over £20 million in centralised funding, gain
autonomy over the direction of that funding, and
deliver efficiencies in some local services. Moreover,
the everyday governance challenges associated
with this stop-gap – in, for example, a messy transit
network that did not fit the new jurisdictional map
– and the ad hoc workarounds this necessitated
kept public debate and private discussion about the
need for a larger North East authority alive. A North
East CMA is finally set to go ahead as the region
transitions to new arrangements at time of writing.
The lesson is that putting perfectly logical lines on a
messy regional map is not always feasible. It might be
necessary to make a pragmatic and provisional set of
decisions about geography just to access resources
and shift the terrain for future conversations –
moreover, we stress that previous assumptions about
a suitable geography, based on decisions made by the
Conservative-led government, may no longer hold under
a change to Labour.
 THE ART OF CREATING A NARRATIVE
OF SHARED BENEFIT
Part of getting to that settled geography, according to
Paun et al. (2023), is developing a convincing narrative
of shared benefit for all those inside the purported
devolved region. The challenge here is that the city-region
model invariably incorporates distinct communities with
distinct economic profiles and social needs: rural versus
urban populations, affluent versus deprived areas, local
economies dependent on different industries, and so
on. The task is in moving beyond zero-sum assumptions
and assuring all parties that benefit to one will not mean
disadvantage to another.
Here, the diversity of the Central South once more
represents an acute case. The priorities of the Solent
region centre around marine and maritime industries,
while other parts of the region look to support a more
diverse economy, particularly in knowledge intensive
sectors such as aerospace, defence, bio sciences,
information technologies, and digital services. Thus far,
the Levelling Up agenda has conspicuously favoured ‘left
behind’ regions in the North and Midlands, while the
relative affluence of parts of the Central South masks
important pockets of deprivation in inner cities. The Isle
of Wight has long been promised an ‘island deal’ to help
with its unique social and economic problems (something
that, at the time of writing, finally seems to be coming to
fruition). The longstanding and legitimate fear is that any
devolution deal will help some of these causes but not
others, creating clear regional winners and losers.
An important model here is the West Yorkshire Plan
where, facing similar intra-regional inequalities, local
leaders have been able to turn this perceived weakness
into a strength. In this framing, diversity across the
region has been seen as a valuable asset for two reasons:
“The task is in moving
beyond zero-sum
assumptions and assuring
all parties that benefit
to one will not mean
disadvantage to another”

10
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
one, it has enabled access to continued central funding of
‘place-based’ initiatives targeted across the full spectrum
of economic regeneration plans; and, two, it has provided
opportunities for ‘levelling up’ within regions by tapping into
the very different resources, capacities and opportunities
that already exist in these communities. In the Central South,
this would mean a narrative that can meaningfully promise a
‘rising tide’ from attracting business investment, but that can
also position pockets of deprivation in the region in places
like the Isle of Wight or in inner city areas to access central
funding to address urgent social needs. The exact focus of
Labour’s regional economic development policy remains
unclear (see Herbertson 2024), and so the region needs to
have this sort of shapeshifting narrative that can best
tap into and align with the direction of travel centrally.
 THE ART OF POOLING RESOURCES
FOR AN EFFECTIVE EVIDENCE-BASE
Another key issue identified in Paun et al. (2023) is
bringing together analytic capacity within the region to
evidence the benefits of devolution. The point here is
to lay the groundwork for more than just the initial cash
injection associated with Westminster’s incentives for
reaching a deal. Poised appropriately, devolved regions
are in an advantageous position to access centralised
funds devoted to economic growth or addressing
social needs on an ongoing basis and, eventually, push
for stronger devolved rights and responsibilities. But
that sure footing requires generating and maintaining
an effective evidence base that optimises – rather
than duplicates – resources which constitutive local
authorities already have to draw upon.
Merging and optimising analytic capacity is famously a
challenge in public policy (see O’Flynn 2009; Boswell
2023). The history of integration and collaboration is one
fraught with technical obstacles and political tensions.
These issues have arisen in some of the devolution deals
already, and seem unlikely to be any different in the Central
South. More fundamentally, long-term austerity and recent
financial pressures facing local authorities have seen a
reduction in staffing and expertise to capture and capitalise
on available evidence. Pooling resource looms as one way
out of these challenges.
For a model, it is useful to look at efforts at coordinating
analytic capacity at local level in health. Even in a sector
characterised by frequent bouts of reform, the shift to
the new ‘integrated care’ model that links local authorities
and myriad NHS bodies has represented a sudden and
disruptive challenge for those charged with overseeing,
commissioning, and providing health services. By way of
example, policy actors in primary care and public health
in a number of Integrated Care Systems have been able
to adapt to these reforms, especially when effective
approaches to data sharing across health services and
institutional jurisdictions have been implemented (Ham
2023). Although it is too soon to pronounce any decisive
successes in our region – where the bedding in of the new
structure has not been seamless – the principle remains
the same. It is possible for integrated approaches to
evidence and data to allow for more efficient targeting of
resources, but also to enable long-term monitoring and
evaluation to inform future bids for promised funding and
support. The lessons of this integration of analytic capacity
around integrated care systems suggest that scaling these
practices across sectors can have similar benefits for the
prospects of successful local devolution.
 THE ART OF BUILDING TRUST
The last of Paun et al.’s (2023) categories concerns the
art of building trust. The point here is that devolution
typically emerges from a complex political terrain of
local rivalries. ‘Getting to yes’ both in terms of having a
plausible offer to Westminster, and then in terms of getting
agreement necessary to push any deal forward, requires
careful navigation of these sensitivities. Although last in
their account, building trust is in many ways the most
fundamental. Everything else – the building of a wide
coalition, the effective storytelling around geography and
shared benefit, and the pooling of analytic capacity – all
depend on fragile relationships of trust.
In the Central South, a lack of trust has been an important
factor, driven largely by partisan divisions across local
authorities in the region. The legacy of failed attempts to
promote alternative geographies of a deal, including the
lack of dialogue surrounding some of those pitches, is
felt in strained relationships among key players. Though
upcoming local body elections may see some refreshing
of personnel, there is unlikely to be much change. So how
might trust be built?
Success elsewhere points to the importance of baby steps
in shifting relationships – in successful cases, the sense
of common cause and the need for closer day-to-day
integration has the organic effect of bringing rival
parties closer together. The obvious case in point is
Greater Manchester. Celebrated now both locally and
in Westminster as the poster child of the ‘devolution
revolution’, DevoManc was not always a natural or given
regional identity built on intrinsically close relationships.
It was the product of years of collaborative engagement
behind the scenes as local leaders experimented with new
ways of working together that could build internal trust
and enable a more powerful regional voice (see Gains
2015). The Central South does not have that bedrock to
draw on, however. So where might the circuit-breaker
come to reset relationships instead? We turn to this
question in our conclusion below.
“the region needs to have
this sort of shapeshifting
narrative that can best
tap into and align with the
direction of travel centrally.”

11
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
What next for local devolution
in the Central South?
Having surveyed and drawn key lessons from England’s ‘devolution
revolution’, our final task is to outline potential next steps to make best
use of this knowledge. The ‘window of opportunity’ looks set to open
with a likely change of government in Westminster, but what would it
take to be in position to take advantage of that window?
The immediate problem in this context is that local negotiations have stalled. Our
key recommendation therefore is to engage in a ‘circuit breaker’ that can go
some way to resetting the fractious political history around this issue. In the
language of the institutional analyses in our review, there is the need for an act of
what Lowndes and Lemprière call ‘animation’ to drive discussion forward. What
might that look like in practice?
One approach would build joint expert taskforce or even a joint officer team on the
prospects for devolution in the region. Observers of the original DevoManc deal point to
the importance of the forerunning expert commission set up jointly by local authorities
across the region to explore the possibilities for devolution (see Gains 2015). The work
of this commission served to construct an output – a report that conveyed a coherent
story and geography for the region – that everyone could get behind. But the process
itself also helped to build backroom rapport and trust among local parties along the
way, breaking down old barriers and tensions. In the Central South in recent years, we
have seen different parties hire their own expert analysts to build the different cases
independently, which has exacerbated political tensions. The ‘circuit breaker’ here instead
would be to come together and commit a fair share of resources to a combined
expert body that can offer greater neutrality.
Another potential ‘circuit breaker’ might look more like the sort of ‘stakeholder summit’
that has proven useful in breaking deadlocks across a range of different policy contexts
and sectors (see Lees-Marshment 2015). Here, the logic is again a dual one founded in
rich understanding of the challenges of steering policy networks and managing political
diplomacy. The ‘summit’ itself operates as a public event and shop window, but more
valuable still is the backroom negotiation and relationship-building surrounding the
set-piece. In private is where leaders can discuss their limits and red lines without the
glare of publicity. Analysis reveals that political tensions across the Central South region
are often more about principle than about practice (see Southern Policy Centre 2020)
– and that events that can get people together in a room are therefore liable to work
together collaboratively and effectively in this more pragmatic orientation.

12
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
We want to conclude by stressing that taking any of these steps would only
be the first of many. The academic literature makes it clear that innovations to inject
expertise, collaboration or participation need effective integration with existing politics
and policy (Boswell 2023), just as there is no single ‘magic bullet’ for local devolution
generally. There is a lot of hard policymaking graft and astute political craft that needs to
go on before or after any ‘circuit breaker’ to realise the benefits. We hope this report is
helpful in preparing local stakeholders for the challenges ahead.
Alternatively, a solution could lie in embracing democratic innovation as a mechanism
to push discussions forward. We have in mind here institutional innovations that
bring together everyday citizens to discuss the complexities of the issues involved,
elicit informed views, and alight on constructive solutions. (The most popular model
in the UK is the Citizens’ Assembly, comprised of 50-150 citizens randomly selected to
ensure a cross-section of the population). The best ask in this case would not be for
a magic bullet to deliver a complex deal. Instead, research shows (e.g. Boswell 2021),
democratic innovations are better targeted more specifically at knotty or difficult
choices that are stumbling blocks to action. One reason to be enthusiastic about
this novel potential is that the region already has a distinctive pedigree in democratic
innovation. Assembly South, the very first Citizens’ Assembly in the UK in 2015 was an
academic ‘proof-of-concept’ exercise that helped to inspire practical experimentation
(see Prosser et al. 2017). Subsequent Assemblies in Romsey and Southampton on
planning and environmental issues have further cemented this reputation of the region
as an early adaptor. But turning to democratic innovation could also be hugely helpful in
building a narrative to convince Westminster, especially if the contours of any local deal
are to differ from the blueprint or template laid out in the Levelling Up White Paper
(2022). Recent reports suggest that Starmer’s presumptive chief of staff, Sue Gray,
is an enthusiastic advocate of novel democratic innovations like Citizens’ Assemblies
(Baldwin, 2024; Markson, 2024); it would be harder politically for a Starmer-led
government to push back on a deal that stemmed from any process.

References
Ayres, S., Flinders, M., & Sandford, M. (2018). Territory, power and statecraft:
understanding English devolution. Regional Studies, 52(6), 853-864.
Baldwin, T. (2024). Keir Starmer: The Biography. London: William Collins.
Boswell, J. (2023). Magical Thinking in Public Policy: Why Naïve Ideals about Better
Policymaking Persist in Cynical Times. Oxford University Press.
Boswell, J., Denham, J., Killick, A., et al. (2018). Making ends meet: The lived experience of
poverty in the south. Southern Policy Centre Working Paper.
Bradley, L., Heald, D., & Hodges, R. (2023). Causes, consequences and possible resolution of
the local authority audit crisis in England. Public Money & Management, 43(3), 259-267.
Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Palgrave Pivot London.
Clayden, S. (2016). Hampshire split as county U-turns on mayor decision. Available at:
https://www.themj.co.uk/EXCLUSIVE-Hampshire-split-as-county-U-turns-on-mayor-
decision/203261. [[Accessed on March 04 2024]]
DLUHC (2022). Levelling Up in the United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/levelling-up-the-united-kingdom [[Accessed on May 23 2024]]
Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in
contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5-23.
Gains, F. (2015). Metro mayors: Devolution, democracy and the importance of getting the
‘Devo Manc’ design right. Representation, 51(4), 425-437.
Giovannini, A. (2021). The 2021 Metro Mayors Elections: Localism Rebooted?. The Political
Quarterly, 92(3), 474-485.
Gov.uk (2024a). Exceptional financial support for local authorities for 2024-25. Available
at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptional-financial-support-for-local-authorities-
for-2024-25. [[Accessed on March 01 2024]]
Gov.uk (2024b). 60% of England now covered by historic devolution deals. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/60-per-cent-of-england-now-covered-by-historic-
devolution-deals. [[Accessed on April 24 2024]]
Gov.uk (2024c). Technical Paper on Level 4 Devolution Framework. London: DLUHC.
Ham, C. (2023). Improving health and care at scale: learning from the experiences of
systems. NHS Confederation. Available at: https://www.nhsconfed.org/system/files/2023-11/
Improving-health-and-care-at-scale-Chris-Ham.pdf. [[Accessed on April 24 2024]]
Herbertson, M. (2024). What next for English devolution? LSE Inequalities blog. Available
at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2024/03/12/what-next-for-english-devolution/.
[[Accessed on April 24 2024]]
House of Commons Library (2023). English devolution deals in the 2023 Autumn
Statement. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/english-devolution-deals-in-
the-2023-autumn-statement/ [[Accessed on May 23 2024]]
Jeffery, D. (2023). Understanding drivers of support for English city-region devolution: a
case study of the Liverpool City Region. British Politics, 18(3), 439-458.
Knott, J. (2023). Exclusive: Unitaries push for “two-deal” Hampshire devo solution.
Available at: https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/devolution-and-economic-growth/exclusive-
unitaries-push-for-two-deal-hampshire-devo-solution-12-06-2023. [[Accessed on March 04
2024]].
13
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South

Labour (2024). Power and partnership: Labour’s plan to power-up Britain. Available at:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Power-and-partnership-Labours-Plan-to-
Power-up-Britain.pdf. [[Accessed on April 24 2024]]
Lees-Marshment, J. (2015). The ministry of public input: Integrating citizen views into
political leadership. Palgrave Macmillan London.
Lord, P. (2023). Centre for the South: Stakeholder Mapping. New Local. Available at: https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/64e8b46d78c0de7eb1716337/t/6545313a08f9de3f186a1d
4f/1699033403922/Centre+for+the+South+Report_Final.pdf. [[Accessed on April 24 2024]]
Lowndes, V., & Lemprière, M. (2018). Understanding variation in processes of institutional
formation. Political Studies, 66(1), 226-244.
Lemprière, M., & Lowndes, V. (2019). Why did the North East Combined Authority fail to
achieve a devolution deal with the UK government?. Local Economy, 34(2), 149-166.
Markson, T. (2024). Labour would introduce citizens’ assemblies, Sue Gray says. Available
at: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/labour-plans-citizens-assemblies-
sue-gray. [[Accessed on March 04 2024]]
O’Flynn, J. (2009). The cult of collaboration in public policy. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 68(1), 112-116.
Paun, A., D. Henderson, & P. Hourston (2023). The art of the devolution deal: How
England’s successful counties and cities can make a success of devolution. London:
Institute for Government.
Powell, R. (2023). ‘Choppy waters for devolution: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight’. Reform.
September 13. Available at: https://reform.uk/comment/choppy-waters-for-devolution-
hampshire-and-the-isle-of-wight/. [[Accessed on April 24 2024]]
Prosser, B., Renwick, A., Giovannini, et al. (2017). Citizen participation and changing
governance: Cases of devolution in England. Policy & Politics, 45(2), 251-269.
Richards, D., & Smith, M. J. (2015). Devolution in England, the British political tradition and
the absence of consultation, consensus and consideration. Representation, 51(4), 385-401.
Roberts, J. (2020). The leadership of place and people in the new English combined
authorities. Local Government Studies, 46(6), 995-1014.
Sandford, M. (2017). Signing up to devolution: The prevalence of contract over governance
in English devolution policy. Regional & Federal Studies, 27(1), 63-82.
Sandford, M. (2023). ‘Muscular Unionism’: The British Political Tradition Strikes Back?
Political Studies, 0(0).
Southern Policy Centre (2021). Collaboration and devolution in the Central South: The
views from city, town and count councils. Southern Policy Centre. Available at: https://
southernpolicycentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/July-2020_SPC-devolution-
seminar2.pdf. [[Accessed on April 24 2024]]
Tomaney, J. (2016). ‘A mess of pottage? The North of Tyne and the travails of devolution’.
LSE BPP Blog. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-north-of-tyne-deal-
and-the-travails-of-devolution/. [[Accessed on April 24 2024]]
White, H., T. Pope, A. Paun, et al. (2023). Five things we’ve learnt about the Brown
Commission on the UK’s future. Institute for Government. Available at: https://www.
instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/brown-commission-constitutional-reform.
[[Accessed on March 04 2024]]
Zodgekar, Y. (2023). What form should Hampshire devolution take? Centre for Cities.
Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/what-form-should-hampshire-devolution-
take. [[Accessed on March 04 2024]]
14
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South

15
How do we solve a problem like devolution: The case of the Central South
Find out more
Register your interest to keep up
to date with news and events at
www.centreforthesouth.co.uk
Or email cfts@soton.ac.uk