{"id":8861,"date":"2019-08-02T08:42:33","date_gmt":"2019-08-02T08:42:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/?p=8861"},"modified":"2019-08-02T08:45:32","modified_gmt":"2019-08-02T08:45:32","slug":"boriss-pork-barrel-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/2019\/08\/boriss-pork-barrel-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"Boris’s pork-barrel politics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Boris Johnson\u2019s trip to the Scottish capital was accompanied by an announcement of \u00a3300m in spending for the three devolved nations. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This promise from the UK\u2019s new prime minister would apparently bypass the official block funding mechanism<\/a> that has been in operation since devolution \u2013 and even before. It may sound like a nice gift, but is this good news for the citizens of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The devolution block funding\nmechanism, governed by the Barnett Formula<\/a>, is a rather simple\narrangement in principle. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations\nin each funding round get the same as last time, plus or minus a\npopulation-based share of any increase or reduction in English spending on\nfunctions comparable to those they manage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

They then have complete freedom to\nallocate the money within their devolved competences without any UK government\nguidance. Over the years, they have often chosen different priorities. Matters\nhave been complicated by the devolution of taxation powers to Scotland and\nWales but the basic principle that they chose their own priorities has\nsurvived. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

New forms of funding<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In recent years, however, there\nhave been new streams of funding outside the block. City deals and growth\ndeals, originally designed for England, have been rolled out in the devolved\nterritories. Instead of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland getting a\npopulation-based share of the money to spend as they wish, they are bound into\nUK programmes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To access the funding, they even\nhave to contribute money of their own, as do local governments. Another formula\nbypass happened when a billion pounds was allocated to Northern Ireland in\nreturn for support for the minority Conservative government in 2017<\/a> from\nDemocratic Unionist Party MPs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other streams of funding in prospect as a result of Brexit may\nalso bypass the formula and be tied to UK policy priorities. The UK government\nhas mooted a Shared Prosperity Fund to replace EU structural funding<\/a>,\nwhich member states receive to generate local economic growth. And another\nmechanism is planned to distribute spending on agriculture after Brexit. We\nstill do not know exactly how these will work except that they will not pass\nthrough the Barnett Formula.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much of the motivation for this is political. Following the arrival of the SNP Scottish government in 2007, which ultimately seeks independence, the UK government was concerned about its lack of visibility in the devolved territories. It looked to the example of Canada after the Quebec independence referendum of 1995, which sought ways of making its presence visible by appending maple leaf flags to projects<\/a>. The EU, of course, does much the same thing<\/a>. Yet the issue of federal government spending in areas of provincial competence has long been a sensitive one in Canada \u2013 and especially in Quebec.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No such thing as a free gift<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It is difficult for devolved governments to refuse what looks like a free gift \u2013 except that it is not really free. Taxpayers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland contribute through their taxes to these projects, as well as those in the English regions. There are, moreover, questions as to whether all this makes for good government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\nmay sound like a lot of money, but \u00a3300m is less than 0.05% of what the\ndevolved governments spend\nin a single year<\/a>. This is scarcely likely to make any noticeable\nimpact on communities, as proclaimed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\nthe UK government extends its reach through new funding mechanisms, leveraging\nmoney from the devolved administrations, there may be a recentralisation and\ndistortion of priorities. The ability of devolved governments to make policy in\nagriculture after Brexit, for example, will be limited if the money comes from\nLondon with strings attached. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Westminster\nis also extending its reach to some detailed local policies that are clearly\ndevolved and local. It is not clear, for example, why UK ministers should have\na say in the decision about a new concert hall in Edinburgh (part of the Edinburgh City Deal<\/a>) except to get its plaque\non the wall. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nmechanisms to govern these new spending arrangements are complex and\ncumbersome, especially in relation to the small amounts of money involved.\nMixing funding streams obscures what has been a fairly clear division of\nresponsibilities until now. And it obscures accountability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The French have an expression for the distribution of small\namounts of money in this way, saupoudrage<\/em>,\nor sprinkling in the way that condiments are scattered onto food. Maximum\nvisibility is achieved but at the cost of serious concentration of resources\nwhere it can have most effect. Americans talk of \u201cpork-barrel politics<\/a>\u201d, spreading money around\nto gain political credit. In Canada, some of the new federal projects have been\naccused of being more guided by politics than good policy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ministers in all jurisdictions like to be seen wearing hard hats and hi-vis jackets to announce new projects. They do not even need to be new. As money passes through levels and committees, it can be announced several times over. Taking serious decisions on priorities and planning for the long-term is a great deal harder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First published by The Conversation<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

‘Westminster is also extending its reach to some detailed local policies that are clearly devolved and local. It is not clear, for example, why UK ministers should have a say in the decision about a new concert hall in Edinburgh…’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":45,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[319],"tags":[40],"class_list":["post-8861","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economy","tag-devolution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8861","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/45"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8861"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8861\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}