# Could Andy Burnham’s Devolution Push Spark Stronger Economic Growth?
BBC Verify recently examined how handing more powers to local leaders might affect the UK’s economic prospects. Greater devolution — transferring responsibilities and some funding from Westminster to mayors and regional authorities — is getting renewed attention because proponents argue it can unlock local potential, while critics warn of risks and patchy results. This article unpacks the mechanics behind devolution, surveys the evidence so far, and assesses whether Andy Burnham’s proposals for Greater Manchester (and similar regional plans) are likely to produce measurable gains in growth.
## What does “devolution” mean in practice?
Devolution is not a single policy but a bundle of potential changes. It can include:
– Control over transport planning and regional infrastructure budgets.
– Power to design and deliver skills, training and employment programmes.
– Influence over housing policy, planning consent and land use.
– Responsibility for aspects of health and social care.
– Ability to shape business support, trade promotion and inward investment strategies.
– Limited tax-setting or tax-raising powers, or control over local business rates and retention of some revenues.
Different deals hand over different mixes of responsibilities and funding. The variation matters: an authority with transport, skills and a growth fund can act differently from one that only gets planning powers.
## What is Andy Burnham proposing?
As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has advocated expanding the scope of powers available to city-region mayors across England. Broadly, his case rests on three pillars:
1. Locally tailored policies: Persuading that local leaders better understand their labour markets, industries and infrastructure bottlenecks, so they can target investment more effectively.
2. Decisions closer to people: Shifting policy design and spending decisions nearer to affected communities to improve responsiveness and accountability.
3. Unlocking long-term investment: Using devolved control to assemble packages for housing, transport and skills that aim to support sustained productivity improvements.
The specifics of any new deal — what powers are transferred, how money flows, and whether the area gains tax flexibilities — will determine outcomes. Burnham and other advocates argue that place-based economic strategies can yield faster, fairer growth if backed by adequate financing.
## How can devolution increase economic growth? Mechanisms and pathways
If devolution is to boost growth, it typically acts through several channels:
– Improved policy targeting: Local authorities can focus on the particular needs of their labour market — sectoral strengths, skills gaps and commuting patterns — which national programmes may overlook.
– Faster, integrated investment decisions: Combining transport, housing and business support budgets can reduce bottlenecks and deliver projects that raise productive capacity.
– Better land-use and planning: Local control over planning can accelerate housing delivery and unlock land for commercial development, supporting labour mobility and firm expansion.
– Workforce development aligned with local demand: Tailoring apprenticeships and training to employer needs can raise employment and productivity.
– Business ecosystem support: Regional agencies can cultivate clusters, support R&D adoption and coordinate supply chains more effectively than distant ministers.
– Fiscal incentives and retention: When areas keep a share of locally generated tax revenue, they can better align incentives with growth, although this depends on the design and fairness of fiscal rules.
These are plausible effects, but translating them into measurable GDP growth requires scale, funding and competent delivery.
## What does the evidence say so far?
The body of evidence on devolution’s impact on regional GDP is mixed and context-dependent.
– Positive case studies: Some city-regions that secured significant powers and financing, notably London, have seen rapid expansion — but London’s rise owes as much to global finance, agglomeration economies and international connections as to local governance alone.
– Modest impacts elsewhere: Many mid-sized cities and combined authorities that received partial devolution deals have seen limited or uneven improvements in productivity. Infrastructure projects and skills investments often take years to influence output.
– Variation by policy levers: Areas that gained control of transport and housing typically reported clearer benefits than those given only managerial or administrative responsibilities.
– Importance of funding: Deals that merely shifted responsibilities without matching financial resources frequently underperformed. Fiscal autonomy or substantial investment funds are often needed to deliver tangible change.
Crucially, independent assessments tend to conclude that while devolution can improve policy fit and local accountability, it is not a guaranteed engine of rapid growth. Outcomes hinge on the scale of powers, the funding package, and the capacity of local institutions to execute.
## Constraints and risks that could blunt the effects
Several factors can limit how much devolution raises growth:
– Insufficient resources: Transferring responsibility without adequate budgets can leave local leaders unable to act effectively or forced to cut services.
– Fragmentation and coordination problems: Multiple local authorities with overlapping functions can create fragmentation that raises transaction costs and delays major projects.
– Uneven administrative capacity: Some regions have more experienced public agencies and stronger private sectors to absorb new powers; others may lack the expertise to manage complex programmes.
– National macro limits: Broader fiscal policy, interest rates and trade conditions set by the central government and global economy can overshadow local initiatives.
– Risk of increased inequality: If wealthier regions attract more investment and retain more tax revenue, devolution without equalisation can widen regional disparities.
– Short political cycles: Local leaders under pressure to show quick wins may favour visible short-term projects over long-term productivity investments.
These constraints mean that devolution is not a plug-and-play solution; it requires careful institutional design.
## What would increase the odds of success?
To make devolution more likely to lift economic performance, several features and policies are important:
– Scale and coherence of powers: Grants that bundle transport, skills, housing and business support allow joined-up strategies that target productivity drivers.
– Adequate and predictable funding: Multi-year capital commitments and access to borrowing or tax retention can enable long-term projects.
– Clear accountability and governance: Transparent decision-making, scrutiny arrangements, and collaboration across neighbouring authorities help prevent fragmentation.
– Investment in capability: Strengthening local civil service capacity, data analytics, and programme management supports effective delivery.
– Complementary national policies: Fiscal equalisation, supportive national policy on R&D and trade, and alignment on macroeconomic stability amplify local efforts.
– Evaluation and learning loops: Building in rigorous monitoring and independent evaluation lets regions learn what works and scale successful interventions.
When these elements combine, devolved powers are more likely to translate into steady improvements in jobs, productivity and living standards.
## How quickly would benefits appear?
Timeframes matter. Most gains from devolution are medium- to long-term:
– Quick wins: Efficiency gains, minor transport improvements, or streamlining approvals can have visible local impacts within 1–2 years.
– Medium-term effects: Skills programmes, targeted business support and land releases typically begin affecting employment and output in 3–7 years.
– Long-run transformation: Major infrastructure projects, shifts in industrial composition, and cumulative productivity gains may take a decade or more.
Policymakers and the public should therefore manage expectations: devolution can lay foundations for sustained growth, but it rarely delivers an immediate surge in regional GDP.
## Practical examples and lessons
– Greater Manchester: The combined authority has piloted integrated transport and health initiatives, and its experience highlights that devolved health and work programmes can improve outcomes where properly resourced and coordinated.
– Cities with weak outcomes: Regions that received limited powers or underfunded deals often experienced little change, illustrating the importance of matching responsibilities to resources.
– International comparisons: Successful metropolitan governance in other countries often pairs fiscal powers with robust planning and strong accountability, showing that institutional design matters.
Learning from these cases suggests that the details of a deal matter more than the headline claim of “more devolution equals more growth.”
## Recommendations for policymakers
If the objective is to use devolution to boost economic growth, consider the following practical steps:
– Prioritise comprehensive deals that combine powers over transport, housing, skills and business support.
– Ensure multi-year funding and credible borrowing mechanisms so regions can plan long-term.
– Set up strong evaluation frameworks with independent auditors to track economic impacts.
– Invest in local institutional capacity-building: data, procurement competence, and project management.
– Design fiscal arrangements that protect less prosperous regions and avoid widening inequalities.
– Foster collaboration across city-regions for projects whose benefits cross local boundaries.
These steps increase the likelihood that devolved powers will translate into measurable productivity and employment gains.
## Conclusion
Devolving more power to mayors like Andy Burnham could help stimulate local economic growth, but it is not a guaranteed fix. Evidence to date points to mixed outcomes: where regions receive meaningful powers, adequate funding and strong institutional capacity, devolution has the potential to improve targeting, speed up investment and boost productivity over time. Conversely, narrowly scoped deals without resources or clear governance rarely move the needle.
The decisive factors are scale, funding, and delivery capability. For devolution to meaningfully raise growth, it must be implemented as a comprehensive package — with transport, housing, skills and fiscal tools working together — and supported by strong local institutions and national policy coherence. If those conditions are met, Burnham’s vision could be a step toward more dynamic, locally driven economies; if not, the benefits will likely remain modest and uneven.