England is one of the most centralised countries in the developed world with a patchwork governance map of overlapping responsibilities, reinforcing uneven development and persistent regional divides that neither the rhetoric of “levelling up” nor the language of “left-behind places” has adequately addressed.
Devolution of power is central to new Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s political agenda. His diagnosis is persuasive: England remains unusually centralised, regional inequalities are entrenched, and too many decisions are still made in Westminster and Whitehall.
Greater Manchester offers evidence of what regional coordination can achieve but also shows that successful devolution requires more than transferring responsibilities to regional mayors.
Devolution is a prospect, not a panacea.
The first advantage of devolution: the power of place
The clearest benefit is that it allows policies to be designed around the places in which people actually live and work. This is not simply a technical advantage of coordination; it reflects a deeper principle about the “power of place” and the importance of place-based leadership.
Administrative boundaries rarely reflect how people actually live. People may live in one council area, work in another and travel through several more. Housing markets, labour markets, transport networks and environmental pressures frequently extend beyond municipal borders, creating a strong case for coordinating some decisions across larger geographical areas.
Yet there is a tension within the current agenda. Devolution is presented as bringing decisions closer to people. At the same time, the direction of travel within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is towards larger institutions, including the replacement of county and district councils with unitary authorities. This continues a long-standing tendency to pursue capacity and economies of scale through larger units.
Such authorities may coordinate services and infrastructure more effectively. But they can also increase the distance between citizens and decision-makers, weaken local identities and remove the tier closest to many communities. There is a discordance between the rhetoric of bringing power closer and reforms that move decisions upwards.
“The issue is not whether government should operate locally or regionally, but which decisions belong at each level.”
Transport, housing and economic strategy often require coordination across a city-region or county. Community services, neighbourhood priorities and democratic representation require greater proximity. Successful devolution must therefore create a genuinely multi-level system, rather than treating the aggregation of councils as synonymous with local empowerment.
Greater Manchester’s Bee Network demonstrates the advantages of operating regionally. Under bus franchising, public authorities determine routes, fares and standards, while private operators run the services. When transport is organised around wider social and economic objectives rather than profit alone it improves access to employment, education and public services, while reducing household costs, congestion, air pollution and supporting town centres. A regional authority can connect these priorities in ways that fragmented institutions may struggle to do.
Burnham’s reforms combined an ideological commitment to public control with a specifically Greater Manchester argument.
“Devolution works best when it enables places to connect policy areas that national government often treats separately.”
The second advantage: political voice and soft power
Devolution can also provide places with more visible political leadership. Metro mayors possess a direct electoral mandate across a wider area than individual council leaders, giving them a platform from which to negotiate with central government, attract investment and articulate shared regional priorities.
Yet much of mayoral innovation has not resulted from extensive formal powers transferred by Westminster. Formal powers have been transferred gradually, unevenly and on a limited scale. Mayors have therefore relied heavily on soft or “generative” power: the ability to convene organisations, build coalitions, shape debate and persuade others to act.
Mayors can bring together councils, businesses, universities, public agencies and community organisations. They may not control all the resources, but they can align institutions around a common direction. In this sense, the mayoralty can add value by connecting organisations whose responsibilities overlap but which might otherwise work separately.
Burnham used this effectively, presenting himself as an advocate for Greater Manchester and giving regional concerns a national audience. His authority has rested partly on his formal mandate, but also on his capacity to tell a persuasive story about the region and mobilise others behind it.
Soft power, however, has limits. The capacity to convene and advocate cannot substitute for control over funding, taxation, regulation or public services. A mayor may be held responsible for transport, housing or economic performance while lacking many of the powers needed to change them.
“If Burnham genuinely intends to shift power from Westminster, regional leaders must receive more than visibility, responsibilities and an invitation to negotiate.”
Substantive powers and stable resources must move from the centre. Otherwise, devolution will remain too dependent on the personality and persuasive capacity of individual mayors.
Visibility also raises questions of accountability. A recognisable mayor can make it easier to identify who speaks for a region, but decisions emerge through combined authorities, councils, partnerships and negotiations with central government. The stronger the mayor’s profile, the greater the risk that the collective and often opaque character of regional decision-making is obscured.
The first risk: Confusing leadership with institutions
The Greater Manchester story is often narrated as the story of Andy Burnham. In reality, the region’s institutional development began long before his election as mayor in 2017.
Greater Manchester’s ten local authorities have a history of cooperation stretching back several decades. The combined authority grew from established relationships and experience in regional planning. Burnham added direction and visibility, but progress has also depended on councillors, officers and regional partners. Bus franchising required legislation, finance, preparation and the capacity to withstand legal challenge. It was not achieved through mayoral popularity and political communication alone.
Creating a mayor does not automatically create the institutional capacity behind the office. Some regions possess established relationships among councils, businesses and civic institutions; others cover newer or more contested geographies. Some have large urban economies and universities; others contain dispersed rural or coastal communities with weaker transport links and fewer major institutions. Identical powers would therefore not necessarily produce equal outcomes.
Stronger regions may exploit new opportunities more quickly, while weaker areas risk falling further behind. Manchester offers principles rather than a template: institution-building, collaboration and strategic capacity matter more than copying one structure.
The second risk: Regional centralisation
A further danger is that devolution transfers power from Whitehall but allows it to accumulate in the office of a regional mayor. Mayors can make responsibility clearer, but they also personalise complex systems of governance.
A strong direct mandate may allow a mayor to claim to speak for a whole region, but regions do not possess single, uncontested interests. Greater Manchester includes a successful centre, suburbs and post-industrial towns with different economic circumstances and political priorities. The benefits of investment in a successful city centre do not necessarily spread automatically to Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale or Wigan. Regional growth can coexist with significant inequalities within the region.
Bristol offers a useful comparison. Its directly elected mayoralty created visible leadership and encouraged collaboration through the One City approach, but also generated concerns about concentrated authority, marginalised councillors and limited democratic scrutiny. Voters ultimately abolished the mayoralty, and Bristol returned to committee governance in 2024. This suggests that visible leadership alone is insufficient unless governance arrangements also command broad political legitimacy.
Devolution should therefore transfer power both to regions and within them. Councils, towns and neighbourhoods need influence over regional priorities. Otherwise, decisions may move geographically closer while remaining politically remote.
Risk three: Financial dependence
Formal powers are of limited value without long-term financial capacity. English devolution has frequently involved negotiated agreements in which central government transfers particular responsibilities, provides temporary funding and retains substantial control over how money is spent. This encourages regional leaders to compete for centrally controlled funding rather than enabling them to plan confidently over the long term.
“Genuine devolution requires greater freedom to raise revenue, borrow and move funding between priorities.”
It also means accepting that regional leaders will sometimes make choices national ministers would not. That autonomy may be essential to unlocking innovation and growth. National government must still maintain standards and redistribute resources between richer and poorer regions. Past experience suggests that excessive Treasury control can prevent devolution from becoming meaningful.
The answer is a transparent settlement combining predictable funding, local discretion and redistribution according to need.
Devolution as a means, not an end
The English experience points to four principles. Coherent groups of powers should be devolved together because transport, housing, skills and economic development are interconnected. Government must build institutional capacity rather than simply create new political offices. Devolution should permit institutional variety: city-regions, rural counties and coastal communities should not be forced into identical structures. Finally, regional devolution must be accompanied by stronger democracy beneath the regional level, with effective scrutiny and clear routes for councils and communities to shape policy.
Devolution is not inherently democratic, economically successful or socially just. Its effects depend on which powers are transferred, the resources attached to them, the institutions receiving them and the distribution of authority within each region.
“England does not need every region to become another Greater Manchester. It needs every region to possess the powers, institutions and financial autonomy to do the best it can for the community it serves.”
The real test of devolution is not whether it creates stronger mayors, but whether it creates stronger places.
Dr Thom Oliver is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of the West of England, Bristol, and co-leads the Bristol Civic Leadership Project. His research focuses on devolution, elected mayors, local democracy, place-based leadership and political representation. He has published widely on mayoral governance, civic leadership and the changing structures of local government and regularly contributes to public and media debates. He is also an associate member of the Bristol Leadership and Change Centre.