Devolution: Power to the Councils
Devolution is often discussed as a single event - the transfer of power itself. But the transfer of power, the implementation of the new arrangements, and the outcomes it produces are three distinct things. Conflating these narrows the debate to whether devolution is right in principle, when the real question is what does it take to make it successful?
The UK remains one of the most centralised advanced economies, with persistent regional productivity gaps [1]. Devolution policy seeks to strengthen local accountability, regional growth, and public service quality by moving decisions closer to communities. However, discourse often focuses on the merits of devolution, rather than the practical conditions and delivery frameworks required to implement it and realise the intended outcomes.
International Experience on Devolution
Evidence from decades of reforms spanning a wide range of countries shows that there is no universal relationship between devolving powers and improved economic growth or public services [2]. Instead, the debate on devolution should move beyond whether it is simply ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The results depend on how reforms are designed, implemented, and sustained over time. Countries that simply transfer powers without establishing the right institutional conditions often struggle to realise the expected benefits. In contrast, those that invest in institutional capacity, governance, and coordination are more likely to achieve positive outcomes.
The Implementation Challenge
Devolution to local government will proceed amidst a constrained fiscal backdrop and voter demand for immediate improvement on growth, cost of living, and public services. In addition, three key challenges stand out:
Capacity and capability: Local government may need additional people and resources to take on new responsibilities at pace. Fewer than 10,000 people work across England’s Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs), compared with more than 500,000 across the civil service. Financial capacity is similarly constrained: the combined budgets of the MCAs amount to less than £10bn, equivalent to just 0.3 per cent of UK GDP [3].
Concurrent reform: Many authorities are already managing significant organisational transformation through local government reorganisation. Layering devolution onto this process adds further complexity at a time when many councils face workforce shortages, budgetary pressures, and constrained delivery capacity. The challenge is to implement further large-scale change while simultaneously maintaining public service performance.
Optimism bias: Evidence from major projects across the public and private sectors demonstrates a tendency to underestimate costs and timescales. Devolution and local government reorganisation may be no exception. Experience from previous UK local government reforms suggests that transitional costs can be higher than expected, while anticipated savings do not always fully materialise [4].
A Delivery Framework for the Challenges Ahead
A practical delivery approach should focus on the core questions:
Are the new arrangements designed effectively?
How will the transition be managed?
How will performance and outcomes be monitored?
This framing shifts the focus from the act of transferring powers, to the capabilities, governance, and controls required to translate the reforms into public value. The following areas are central to ensuring that devolution delivers public value:
Closing the capacity and capability gap: The starting point is an independent assessment of capacity and capability on both sides of the transfer. Local government bodies receiving new powers need the people, skills, and operating models to take them on effectively.
In addition, the transition itself requires sufficient capacity to run the programme, manage commercial arrangements, and lead service transformation.
Identifying and closing these gaps is a prerequisite for reform of this scale, not an issue to resolve once implementation has begun.
Managing complexity through portfolio governance: Delivering devolution alongside local government reorganisation creates additional complexity, with overlapping scopes, shared resources, and interdependent timelines. Disciplined portfolio governance helps to maintain control through clear accountability, integrated dependency planning, and visibility of progress, risks and decisions. Experience shows that programmes without this governance commonly struggle to provide leaders with the assurance needed to steer effectively, yet introducing it later is costly. Establishing effective portfolio governance early is therefore critical to preventing concurrent reform from becoming unmanageable.
Countering optimism bias through evidence-based appraisal and assurance: The tendency to underestimate costs and timescales in major change programmes can be challenged through stronger appraisal and assurance. This begins with testing the business case and assumptions behind devolution decisions, assessing which powers offer the greatest benefit relative to transfer costs and complexity. This conforms to the full costing and appraisal expected under HM Treasury Green Book guidance. Crucially, this cannot be a one-off exercise at the outset; costs and benefits need continual assurance and re-testing throughout delivery to ensure the case still holds as circumstances change.
Making Devolution Deliver
Devolution in and of itself should not be the goal, better outcomes should be. While new devolved powers are the outputs, economic growth, service improvement, productivity gains and better value for taxpayers are the outcomes. Structural change is simply the mechanism.
Realising these outcomes requires capacity and capability building, strong portfolio governance, and robust appraisal and assurance. The real test of devolution is not whether powers are transferred, but whether the benefits are delivered. Ultimately, the people will judge success by outcomes, not structures.
Deecon's Public Sector team helps turn reform into results by building robust business cases, providing independent assurance, strengthening portfolio governance, and ensuring ambitious change programmes remain credible, deliverable and focused on outcomes.
Written by Scott Kennedy
Edited by Kate Randall