“… The ad hoc, piecemeal and rapid process of decentralisation in England is generating a new institutional landscape.

Since 2010, institutions have been abolished as the regional tier was dismantled, new institutions have emerged, existing institutions reformed and new areas of public policy been brought together creating new arrangements involving Combined Authorities and LEPs with metro mayors to come as well as connections between new policy areas, for example health and social care (Figure 6). Echoing historical experience in England, this further episode of institutional churn, disruption and hiatus has reproduced many longstanding issues including loss of leadership, capacity and momentum as well as instability and uncertainty with negative impacts on growth and development.

The new institutional landscape is raising serious questions of accountability, transparency and scrutiny – the ‘achilles heel’ of decentralisation. Decisions are being made by a narrow of cadre of actors behind closed doors, involving a mix of elected politicians, appointed officials and external advisors.

Deals and deal-making are being conducted, negotiated and agreed in private by a small number of selected participants in closed and opaque circumstances and in a technocratic way. Decisions involving large sums of public money and long-term financial commitments are being taken without appropriate levels of accountability, transparency and scrutiny.

Although uneven in different places, many institutions and interests in the wider public, private and civic realms feel left out and marginalised. These include business and their representative associations (alongside the uneven involvement of LEPs), environmental organisations, further and higher education, trade unions, and the voluntary and community sector.

Equalities and representation concerns are evident in relation to gender and diversity. The wider public knows little about decentralisation of the governance system and is becoming increasingly disengaged and lacking faith in the ability of politics, public policy and institutions to make their lives better. Those better informed and engaged worry that power and control has simply shifted a little from elites in central national government to those at the local level.

Concerns that the decentralisation efforts in England failed in the early 2000s due to the limited nature of decentralisation on offer and lack of public engagement and support are mixed with fears that the current process risks repeating this mistake.

Accountabilities are lacking, weak and under-developed. Wider discussion, scrutiny and challenge by the public and/or relevant institutions have been largely absent. Anxieties are being articulated that the exclusive, opaque and technocratic way decentralisation is being conducted is reinforcing such concerns.

More inclusive, transparent and accountable ways of doing decentralisation need to be found, developed and adapted to local circumstances. Means need to be explored to allow and enable a wider set of voices to be heard and more interests and opinions considered in order to make decentralisation accountable and transparent and more sustainable.

International evidence illustrates that inclusive deliberation and dialogue supports better and more robust decision-making for public policy and more effective and lasting outcomes27. Decentralisation must not be seen as an end in itself but as a means to better economic, social and environmental outcomes for people and places across England and the UK. …”