Government and Institutions

Radically decentralising power to town halls may pay UK growth dividend

No major political party is interested in a radical decentralisation of power. The Conservatives, in particular, are scarred by their experiences of ‘loony-left’ councils in the 1980s, and we certainly don’t want to go back to those days. The big flaw in the local government system then, however, was the disconnect between the franchise and the tax base. After the business vote was abolished, councils voted for more and more spending. They loaded the costs on businesses and, often, a small number of domestic ratepayers.

But genuine fiscal autonomy would be an extraordinarily positive force. It would require, however, central government to stop dictating to local authorities what services should be provided and how. In fact, central government would stop financing local authorities entirely. Councils themselves would have to choose how much revenue to raise and how to raise it – as long as the tax base was broad.

Indeed, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, argues in A U-Turn on the Road to Serfdom, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs last week, that fiscal autonomy is crucial if we are to reduce government spending and taxes. In the US, where state governments have far more autonomy, good ideas implemented by one state are copied by others. And states that reduce taxes attract business and grow their tax base, encouraging others to follow suit. In Britain, local authorities might be much more development-friendly if they kept the local taxes that new development generated.

And as Matthew Sinclair, a consultant for Europe Economics, shows in a commentary on Norquist’s ideas, this is not just a US phenomenon. The international evidence shows that fiscal decentralisation makes government more accountable. Sinclair argues that it will also deliver smaller and more efficient government, and consequently stronger growth.

The UK is an outlier in international terms. Local government’s share of total tax revenue is just 5 per cent. Although one should regard these estimates with caution, some models have suggested that, if that share rose to 15 per cent, the government would save about £70bn a year through increased efficiency. The magnitude of this estimate can certainly be disputed, but the direction cannot. But to make decentralisation work, it is essential that both tax-raising and spending powers are given at the local level. Just devolving spending powers will not work.

Sadly, the government shows no appetite for radical action. Its policy in Scotland has been particularly misconceived. It should have given Scotland the option of raising around 80 per cent of its own taxes and being responsible for all spending apart from defence, some elements of justice and a few other areas. Scottish MPs could then have been restricted to voting at Westminster only on those matters for which Parliament remained responsible. Instead, we will get a dog’s breakfast if there is a ‘no’ vote in the independence referendum. There will be some devolution of spending, and constitutional incoherence as Scottish MPs retain their votes in Westminster.

Coalition ministers have not thought seriously about fiscal decentralisation. It is time that they did.

This article was originally published by City AM.

Watch Grover Norquist speak about a U-Turn on the Road to Serfdom on iea TV.

Academic and Research Director, IEA

Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.

2 thoughts on “Radically decentralising power to town halls may pay UK growth dividend”

  1. Posted 19/05/2014 at 07:39 | Permalink

    I have often thought that decentralising power to either councils or regions in a more dramatic way would be fantastic. It would be particularly interesting to see how it could reinvigorate the weakest regional economies. The massive central subsidies to the poor periphery could be used to fund tax cuts in Wales and the North East. Though maybe the distortion created by that might not be helpful? It might develop tax competition between regions, more so than exists internationally because it is so easy for people and businesses to move between counties. I also wonder what role non-tax powers could play. For example could London have its own financial regulations? Could regions choose to allow large scale gambling as exists in the US or Macau? Perhaps each region could specialise in one industry, and build a regulatory structure around that. It does sound inviting, but it also sounds like it might end in an unruly and sprawling state.

  2. Posted 18/08/2014 at 08:00 | Permalink

    I visit day-to-day a few web pages and information sites to read articles,
    but this weblog gives quality based articles.

Comments are closed.