New article on devolution published by researchers on our cultural devolution team

When politicians and policymakers talk about devolution in England, the promises often sound familiar: more local voice, stronger democracy, and a fairer balance of power between the centre and the regions. But in practice, things rarely feel that simple.

A new article in The Political Quarterly by James Hickson (Heseltine Institute, University of Liverpool) and Jack Newman (University of Bristol) — both contributors to our The Future of Cultural Decision Making in the UK programme in 2024 — digs into these tensions.

Their piece, Localism, Levelling Up and Taking Back Control: Tensions in the Ambiguous Justification of English Devolution, shows how different “justifications” for devolution often pull against each other, leaving ambiguity — and sometimes frustration — in their wake.

Three Competing Stories of Devolution

Hickson and Newman outline three main ways devolution is usually justified:

• Democracy: giving citizens more direct say in decisions.

• Policy efficacy: making government more effective by tailoring policies to local needs.

• Disruption of central power: rebalancing where control sits, shifting it away from Westminster.

The problem? Although all three are regularly invoked in speeches and manifestos, it is usually the policy efficacy argument that dominates — often framed in terms of driving economic growth. Promises about democratic renewal or genuinely shifting power are made, but rarely delivered in practice.

Why This Matters for Culture, Creativity and Heritage

At Culture Commons, we’ve been exploring these same themes as part of our work on The Future of Cultural Decision Making in the UK - a major four nations open policy development programme we ran in 2024 with 30 UK-wide partners.

The parallels are striking:

• Local voice: Communities are promised more say over cultural priorities, but without real powers or resources this risks becoming a hollow exercise.

• One-size-fits-all models: Efficiency arguments often push toward standardised devolution deals, which can flatten out the diversity of local cultural contexts.

• Trust and sustainability: If cultural devolution raises expectations of empowerment but delivers only partial change, it risks damaging trust in both politics and cultural institutions.

Towards Meaningful Cultural Devolution

The lesson from Hickson and Newman’s work is clear: we need to be explicit about what devolution is for, and design institutions that match the rhetoric.

For cultural decision making, this means:

1. Ensuring any shift in governance comes with real powers and resources, not just symbolic consultation.
   That could involve devolved cultural budgets tied to long-term settlements, alongside powers for local authorities and/or combined authorities to direct investment in line with local priorities, rather than waiting for central sign-off.

2. Designing flexible models that respect place, history, and local identity, rather than replicating a single template.
   Different areas will need different solutions: for example, partnerships with parish councils in rural regions, sub-region-wide Culture Forums (one of our recommendations from the open policy development programme) or bespoke coastal town strategies — each co-designed with local stakeholders.

3. Measuring success not only in terms of economic growth, but also in equity, inclusion, and how far people feel genuine control over cultural decisions.
   This could mean developing new cultural impact metrics that track participation, representation, and community satisfaction, and making them as important in evaluation frameworks as jobs created or visitor numbers. Our work on the National Cultural Data Observatory could help here.

4. We need to bring local residents into decision making processes to ensure they feel the “double devolution” they have been promised.
   This could include citizens’ assemblies or juries for culture shaping local strategies, participatory budgeting where residents directly decide on cultural spend, and long-term mechanisms (not just consultations) for community groups, young people, and underrepresented voices to influence decisions. Our research on meaningful cultural engagement is of relevance.

Looking Ahead

As we continue our work on cultural devolution through, insights like these help sharpen the questions we need to raise when meeting with government and sector leaders.

If we want a future where cultural decision making is more democratic, more locally attuned, and more empowering, we need to ensure that the institutions we build reflect those values in practice — not just in rhetoric.

You can read Hickson and Newman’s article here.