Distancing himself from his predecessor, instead embracing the everyman, outsider, and pragmatist image; Andy Burnham has announced possibly Britain’s biggest policy shakeup of this century. A stalwart defender of devolution, as mayor, Burnham oversaw the rapid and sustained economic development of Greater Manchester, seeking to replicate this “Manchesterism” model across other metropolitan areas across Britain. However, Britain already operates on a partially-devolved basis. Will more decentralisation end decades of stagnation and widening socioeconomic inequality?
One must note that devolution is not a revolutionary idea in the UK. The Local Authority Act 2000 has allowed councils to hold referendums on whether they should elect mayors to oversee metro areas, and the 1999 referendums saw the establishment of assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff respectively. What does make decentralising particularly attractive, however, rests in the British distribution of power and wealth. With approximately 35 million people living within commuting distance of London and the Southeast of England, this has led to an incredibly centralised concentration of economic power in the British capital. Coupled with deindustrialisation of the latter 20th century, and forces of globalisation, this has left many other areas of the UK feeling left behind. Britain is the most centralised nation in the G7, and overly centralised resources are a burden on both the receiver and neglected. For London, expansion of the city is limited and is outpaced by demand for housing and other amenities.[1] Additionally, with some of the highest living costs in Europe, this makes it difficult to attract home-grown talent from the rest of the UK – meaning that Britain’s most competitive and attractive roles remain largely inaccessible to those who are less wealthy.
Symbolically highlighting this commitment to decentralising power in the UK, Burnham recently unveiled “Number 10 North”, headquartered in Manchester. He emphasised the importance for this change, “To be felt by every citizen in Britain.”[2] The advantages to decentralising power are numerous. It can enable economic growth across the country rather than just in concentrated pockets. People will not feel forced to move into these expensive metropoles that currently occupy most of the opportunities. More importantly, it can attract talent, investment and infrastructural change to meet these changes in small to medium sized cities. Devolved regions will be able to flex their unique strengths, too. On an individual level, citizens may feel more empowered to contribute to the running of their area with accountability and decision-making now localised. Fiscal devolution allows local authorities to concentrate financial resources on their most pressing issues, nurturing local knowledge and talent. [3]
However, experts warn that devolution may not be the silver bullet to Britain’s stagnation. While many have praised the potential of targeted regional economic growth, agility and innovation, and democratic accountability that greatly benefit devolved regions, some are concerned about the lack of guardrails that could worsen regional inequality in areas. Waite et al., writing in the University of Glasgow Centre for Public Policy, suggest that decentralisation guarantees divergence – whilst this may mean that some areas can rapidly develop in the same fashion as Greater Manchester – if some areas make bad policy choices then it may lead to varying social and economic standards across the country.[4] Furthermore, regions with weaker tax bases risk being left behind under fiscal devolution, unless robust redistributive funding mechanisms are established. For example, Canada operates an equalisation model whereby the more economically productive provinces (such as oil-producing Alberta) generate tax revenue surpluses which are then redistributed to other provinces that require more federal funding. While a similar model could be implemented in the UK, this may lead to worsening social perceptions between “net contributor” and “net receiving” regions in a further devolved model. Waite et al., note that for devolution to work, the regional and central governments must remain in dialogue, and limits in policy control must be in place for decentralisation to reduce rather than exacerbate regional inequality.
However, some studies suggest that fiscal devolution alone may not lead to long-term prosperity for the UK. Quantitative research indicates that there is a weak correlation between devolved states and economic growth. “A sample of OECD countries shows that there is only a modest correlation between the share of tax take set locally and productivity, with an even weaker link when GDP per capita is used.” Furthermore, retaining a portion of locally generated income and corporation tax may establish a link between local government funding to local economic performance, creating a strong fiscal incentive for leaders to foster regional economic growth[5]. Whether devolution can improve regional growth is also subject to academic debate as devolution can take on many complex forms which can complicate cross-country studies[6]. Previous attempts at devolution in the UK have not enabled these devolved countries to outperform the UK average in terms of worker productivity. In Scotland’s case, this is despite there being an extension of tax-raising power between 1999 and 2017.
If quantitative studies suggest otherwise, then why is devolved Manchester thriving? The city was already undergoing a resurgence prior to the Local Authority Act 2000, and prior to the establishment of the combined authority and role of mayor. Manchester enjoys some political and infrastructural advantages that other areas of the UK do not have. For example, political stability under successive Labour administrations have allowed long-term infrastructural projects and other policy programmes to be carried with relative ease. [7]The tram network, and the city’s close proximity to other large population clusters have always attracted inward investment and attention. Additionally, the 1996 IRA bombing unexpectedly kickstarted the regeneration of the city, the expansion of the tram network, and skyscraper developments in the city centre. It provided a chance for the city to find its footing and regenerate. That’s not to say that Manchester “got lucky”. The city managed to leverage its physical location as well as turning tragedies into opportunities for a fresh start, all under the steady hand of good governance and strong policy making that have all contributed to the city’s revival and sustained growth. Strong economic and social development have complimented the city’s historical role as a cultural hub, which can also attract global interest.
Whether Burnham’s devolution reforms will rejuvenate or trap the stagnant regions of Britain will depend on the strength of policy making and continued negotiations between central and regional authorities to ensure prosperity, not inequality. [8] Devolution is an ongoing process, with cross-authority communication being key for its success.
Works cited:
Breach, Anthony. 2026. ‘Burnham Bets Big on Historic Devolution of Power’. Centre for Cities, July 31. https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/burnham-bets-big-on-historic-devolution-of-power/.
Harvey, Alexander. 2026. ‘FEATURE ARTICLE: DEVOLUTION IS NO SILVER BULLET for GROWTH’. Economic Outlook 50 (3): 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0319.70067.
Selby, Oscar. 2026. ‘Briefing Burnham: Fiscal Devolution’. Centre for Cities, July. https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/briefing-burnham-fiscal-devolution/.
Waite, Dr. David, Professor Graeme Roy, Professor James Mitchell, and Professor Stuart McIntyre. 2026. ‘University of Glasgow – Research – Research Units A-Z – UofG Centre for Public Policy – News and Commentary – Devolution on Existing Devolution: Burnham’s Blind Spot?’. UofGlasgow. https://www.gla.ac.uk/research/az/publicpolicy/news/headline_1285750_en.html.
[1] Selby, Oscar. 2026. ‘Briefing Burnham: Fiscal Devolution’. Centre for Cities, July. https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/briefing-burnham-fiscal-devolution/.
[2] Breach, Anthony. 2026. ‘Burnham Bets Big on Historic Devolution of Power’. Centre for Cities, July 31. https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/burnham-bets-big-on-historic-devolution-of-power/.
[3] ibid.
[4] Waite, Dr. David, Professor Graeme Roy, Professor James Mitchell, and Professor Stuart McIntyre. 2026. ‘University of Glasgow – Research – Research Units A-Z – UofG Centre for Public Policy – News and Commentary – Devolution on Existing Devolution: Burnham’s Blind Spot?’. UofGlasgow. https://www.gla.ac.uk/research/az/publicpolicy/news/headline_1285750_en.html.
[5] Selby, O., 2026
[6] Harvey, Alexander. 2026. ‘FEATURE ARTICLE: DEVOLUTION IS NO SILVER BULLET for GROWTH’. Economic Outlook 50 (3): 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0319.70067.
[7] ibid.
[8] Waite et al., 2026