‘Devolution has brought the UK closer to the federal system of government found in the US.’ Analyse and evaluate this statement.

Intro

• Devolution and federalism were introduced to serve a similar purpose:

  • devolution: power was transferred from central govt to regional administrations to address grievances concerning those regions, while still in an attempt to maintain the unitary (centralised ) format

    • In the United Kingdom, devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in the late 1990s responded to respond to calls for self-governance and recognition of their distinct national identities.

  • federalism was introduced as a compromise by the framers of the constitution

    • there were tensions between those who wanted a strong federal govt and those who wanted a limited one

    • federalism sought a middle ground - embedded in the 10th amendment of the constitution

• To evaluate this statement, it is important to look at how both systems of governance have evolved since their implementation:

  • In the 21st century, states have legislative freedom and so do devolved regions. (to some extent)

    • However Supremacy Clause and parliamentary sovereignty limits this

    • constant moves between between cooperative and regulated federalism

• Uk moving away from unitary government slowly towards federalism, threatening the unitary form of centralised power in Westminster

  • shown by policy divergence, increased english devolution etc
    

Point 1: FOR:

Devolution and federalism have started to resemble each other as they both have (recently) displayed elements of cooperative federalism- where both national and sub national govts have worked together on various issues

Although devolution was intended to preserve parliamentary sovereignty, it has appeared to start to resemble a (cooperative) federalist system like in the US, where power is divided equally between national and subnational governments, rather than parliament maintaining significant power.

POINT 1 US EVIDENCE + ANALYSIS

US:

• Federalism means that states and national governments have dual sovereignty and operate together

• Examples of this include:

  • COVID 19 Response (national crises):

    • States had autonomy over how to handle the crises and the imposition of state- wide lockdowns, 

      • E.g. 32 state governors declared their own state of emergency before a national declaration by Trump

      • was also a variety of responses

        • Some quick to act like Republican Ohio governor DeWine → first governor to call for state-wide closure of schools

        • Democrat California governor Gavin Newsom was first to issue state wide order to close business

        • 7 states did not issue orders to stay at home for non-essential activities between March and April 2020 → felt it inappropriate to do so for their states

      • also intervention on a federal level however the federal government also had a part to play by actually passing the CARES ACT

        • Allowed for $2.2 trillion care package for nation

    • The covid-19 response allowed for a variety of responses on a state level but also the federal government involvement wherever necessary, which fulfils the original purpose of a limited government that the framers had originally intended while allowing state governors to respond in a way that suits their own state needs

    • States withhold autonomous influence co-equal with national govt

POINT 1 UK EVIDENCE + EVALUATION

UK

• devolution has started to resemble federalism, shown through how devolved regions and parliament works together rather than parliament maintaining ultimate authority

  • Also revealed during COVID like in the US:

    • Devolved administrations had policy divergence on COVID yet they also worked together like in the US

    • E.g.:

      • UK government’s decisions often influenced but did not dictate the decisions of devolved governments

      • Scotland imposed tighter restrictions on businesses in late 2020 than England

      • HOWEVER national government also intervened when it was necessary as devolved regions relied on Uk treasury for funding as exemplified by the Furlough Scheme

    • This example of handling national crises highlights how Westminster is not really sovereign over health and education

    • Although the management was coordinated in some way, each region impose restrictions on what suited their region, similar to the US federal approach

    • funding is similar as national govt has to cooperate with sub national govt to provide financial relief

POINT 1 OVERALL EVALUATION

• Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed how similar the two countries and the extent to which national and regional governments work together. Both countries had regions that coordinated their response to what worked for their state while still working together nationally

  • Reliance on state funding - cares package

• Overall: Move away from central unitary government in the UK means power is becoming decentralised and instead is resembling a federal system, MOVING CLOSER TO A FEDERAL SYSTEM

POINT 2 :

FOR: UK is starting to resemble a federal system since laws vary from region to regional, which is similar to the arrangement in the states

• In both countries, there are regions where the passing have legislation has been entrusted to state governors

• Means there is significant policy divergence within the UK which is also apparent within the US model of federalism

POINT 2 : US EXAMPLES + ANALYSIS

US:

• Criminal laws : as something as serious as the death penalty differs from state to state

  • Death penalty is legal in some states but banned in others

    • Legal in: Texas, Florida and Arizona

    • Illegal in : Cali, NY and Mich

• Marijuana: states have freedom on whether to allow recreational use of cannabis:

  • 24 states have legalised the recreational use of cannabis

  • Although it is illegal as a federal law, the Cole memo in 2015 acknowledged that it should not enforce federal restrictions on marijuana if states had legalised it

• These examples show that states can enjoy legislative autonomy despite the federal law.

• However the constitutional  Supremacy Clause means that states don't get to enjoy full autonomy

  • Federal law takes precedence over any conflicting state law

• This significantly limits the extent to which states can make laws which suit them- lack of legislative freedom, yet in all other cases they do

POINT 2 : UK EXAMPLES + ANALYSIS

UK:

• There is significant policy divergence within the UK too

  • For example, in Scotland:

    • Free university tuition for Scottish Citizens, whereas not in England

    • Scotland Act 2016 - established that Westminster cannot legislate on devolved matters without consent

  • Wales and Scotland both impose free prescriptions, which differs to England

    • England is the only part of the UK to have prescription charges

• This policy divergence shows how devolved governments have gradually introduced policies which vastly differ from England 

• HOWEVER, Westminster still has reserved powers which it can legislate on

  • Scotland Act 1998 outlined this:

    • involves things like foreign policy, nuclear energy etc

  • Diminishes authority of devolved regions

POINT 2 : EVALUATION

• OVERALL, the ability for regions to legislate on and manage issues based on the grievances of their population demonstrates how the format of devolution has brought the UK closer to one that resembles federalism

• HOWEVER both states and regions in England are not entirely free to make policy for themselves

  • Especially because both system have limitations placed on the amount of legislative freedom they have:

    • In UK: Parl Sov

    • In US: Supremacy Clause

AGAINST: DIFFERENCES STILL REMAIN

PARAGRAPH 3: Yet devolution is still a long way from fully resembling a federalism system because the federalism in the US also switches between different types of federalism. Both systems of transferral of power vary so they will be never be able to resemble each other precisely

• However, federalism within the US distributes a significant amount of power to the states - this power usually increases and decreases over time thanks to the elastic clause

• Means that UK can never (exactly) fully resemble a federal government

• Differences still remain- in the UK, devolved powers are becoming stronger whereas in the US national government is becoming more dominant

POINT 3 : US EXAMPLES + ANALYSIS

US: federal/national government becoming more dominant recently, moves between regulated federalism and cooperative

• Regulated federalism: where the federal government sets policies and mandates the states must follow with incentives

  • 1.No child Left Behind Act -> implemented by Bush in Jan 2002

    • Required states to implement standardised testing and accountability systems to measure student achievement in schools

    • Loss of federal education funding if states do not comply

  • 2. Affordable Care Act (ACA)

    • Required states to  participate in the expansion of Medicaid or lose their federal funding for it

    • While SC ruled that Medicaid expansion must be optional ( in National Federation of Independent v Sebelius in 2012), fed govt still provides incentives for states to expand

  • This shows how states rarely have any option in cooperating with the desires of national government - power of states increases and decreases

    • Because even if a supreme court ruling is in favour of states (e.g. Sebelius case) it rarely has a significance as national government has financial power ( can revoke federal funding)

  • Perhaps the US is moving away from the previous strong federal system it had before, where states had more power

POINT 3 : UK EXAMPLES AND ANALYSIS

UK: power dynamic between national govt and devolved administrations is also changing

• More devolution

  • Increasing number of metro mayors

    • E.g. Andy Burnham of Greater Manchester

  • As of 2024, 26 directly elected mayors

    • These metro mayors have increasing powers over a range of policy areas, which demonstrates a shift in authority from Westminster: not unitary as much anymore

    • Housing and planning

    • Transport

    • Economic development

• ENHANCED BY (2024):

  • Devolution white paper by new Labour Government to solve English Devolution

  • ‘Devolution revolution’

    • gave full devolution coverage to england with extended powers to regional mayors such as housing and transport

  • Gives mayors in England their own functions and responsibilities

    • Substantial transfer of power

• These UK examples of devolving power to local govts show that devolved regions are moving into quasi federalism, where it resembles some characteristics of federalism however central government retains authority over sub national govts

• moving towards federal system where regional govts have more power

POINT 3 : OVERALL EVALUATION

• Overall, the US and UK are diverging in their federal characteristics

  • Especially with the election of Trump, states may have less authority and autonomy as the fed government encroaches on state issues like health care and education

• Yet the increasing prominence of metro mayors and calls for devolution in UK differs significantly to the move towards more regulated federalism in the US where national government wields a lot of power over states in the form of finances

Conclusion

• While devolution and federalism were set to serve the same purpose almost, it seems like the US has periods of weak and strong federalism thanks to the Supremacy clause and elastic clause.

• With the new labour government it is apparent that they are concerned with enhancing devolution, while Trump’s policies look like they are compromising federalism

• However Labour’s drive for devolution in both 1997 and now to solve asymmetric devolution means the UK can strive for a more quasi federal approach