Institute of Development Studies

Local Government and the Decentralisation Process

14 July 2009 – Diana Conyers

In the Summer term, MA students at IDS choose from a wide variety of six-week option courses. One of these is on Decentralisation and Local Government. The course, which is offered by the Governance Team and taught by Diana Conyers, includes fieldwork in the local area. This year, the fieldwork entailed a small research project in East Sussex on the decentralisation of functions from Lewes District Council to the five town councils in the Lewes District.

This topic was chosen partly because of its obvious relevance to the course, but also because it is an issue of considerable national and local interest in the UK at present. At the national level, there is a move to strengthen town and parish councils, which constitute the lowest tier of the British local government system, and at the local level, Lewes District Council has a decentralisation policy and welcomed IDS’ offer to review their experience to date.  

The objectives of the study were to find out which functions have been decentralised and why, and to get the town councils’ views about the decentralisation process. Following an initial briefing by staff of the District Council, the 20 students taking the course divided into five groups and each group visited one of the five town councils. The preliminary findings were presented to representatives of the District Council, the town councils and the Sussex Association of Local Councils at a meeting in Lewes on 27 May 2009, and a final report was produced in June.

Comparing experiences of reform

Some interesting findings emerged from the study. When compared with the decentralisation reforms undertaken in many supposedly less developed countries, the nature and extent of decentralisation in Lewes District is very limited. The functions under discussion are relatively minor, ranging from parks, playgrounds and community centres to Christmas decorations and dog-waste bins. Another, more significant difference concerned the relationship between the District Council and the town councils.  Because town councils are autonomous bodies, the District Council cannot impose its decentralisation policy on them; decisions about what functions are decentralised and under what conditions are therefore made through a process of negotiation between the two councils.

In many respects, however, the experience in Lewes District is very similar to that in other countries.  The most obvious similarity is the dominance of financial issues. The study found that relatively few functions have been decentralised and that the main reason for this is failure to agree on the financial arrangements. Lewes District Council is, like many British local authorities, under increasing financial pressure, and so sees decentralisation primarily as a means of reducing its expenditure. Consequently, while it is more than happy to devolve functions to the town councils, it is unwilling to give them the financial resources needed to execute those functions. And, for obvious reasons, the town councils are reluctant to take on additional functions under these conditions. 

The study concluded that, if the financial obstacles can be overcome, there is considerable scope for improving the quality of local service provision through decentralisation. Although there are no easy answers to the financial problems, the IDS team was, on the basis of experience elsewhere in the UK and in other countries, able to come up with some suggestions. The initial response to these suggestions has been positive. Both District Council and town council representatives say that they will be useful, and the Sussex Association of Local Councils has referred the findings to the national level, where a review of decentralisation to town and parish councils is currently underway.

Diana Conyers is a Tutor on the MA in Governance and Development