Understanding the search for more autonomy in Greater Manchester: an alternative perspective on the politics of devolution in England

IF 2.3 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Frontiers in Political Science Pub Date : 2023-08-21 DOI:10.3389/fpos.2023.1179181
A. Harding, S. Peake-Jones
{"title":"Understanding the search for more autonomy in Greater Manchester: an alternative perspective on the politics of devolution in England","authors":"A. Harding, S. Peake-Jones","doi":"10.3389/fpos.2023.1179181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Critical social scientific accounts of the confused and inconsistent process of “devolution” in England in recent years have rightly emphasized the place that Greater Manchester and, most recently, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, has occupied at the forefront of UK metropolitan institutional reform. They typically give little credit, however, to the long-running, independent processes of mobilization and institution-building that have resulted in Greater Manchester achieving this vanguard position. This article challenges the idea that contemporary metropolitan governance in Greater Manchester can be seen merely as a pawn in the hands of a regressive, centralist state or else as an undemocratic vehicle designed to enable a city elite to dominate its metropolitan neighbors. In taking a longer historical perspective than is common to critical accounts, the article demonstrates that metropolitanization in England has not followed a coherent centralizing script and neither has the current Combined Authority been constrained, or chosen, to adopt the narrow economic development logic its critics allege. The latter is exemplified by an empirical examination of the work done in Greater Manchester on the theme of work and health. The article concludes with an assessment of how a fragile and very English form of devolution might develop in the difficult context in which the UK now finds itself, arguing that social scientific analysis can perform much better in identifying ways in which further enhancements of sub-national autonomy can support the realization of progressive social and environmental goals.","PeriodicalId":34431,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1179181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Critical social scientific accounts of the confused and inconsistent process of “devolution” in England in recent years have rightly emphasized the place that Greater Manchester and, most recently, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, has occupied at the forefront of UK metropolitan institutional reform. They typically give little credit, however, to the long-running, independent processes of mobilization and institution-building that have resulted in Greater Manchester achieving this vanguard position. This article challenges the idea that contemporary metropolitan governance in Greater Manchester can be seen merely as a pawn in the hands of a regressive, centralist state or else as an undemocratic vehicle designed to enable a city elite to dominate its metropolitan neighbors. In taking a longer historical perspective than is common to critical accounts, the article demonstrates that metropolitanization in England has not followed a coherent centralizing script and neither has the current Combined Authority been constrained, or chosen, to adopt the narrow economic development logic its critics allege. The latter is exemplified by an empirical examination of the work done in Greater Manchester on the theme of work and health. The article concludes with an assessment of how a fragile and very English form of devolution might develop in the difficult context in which the UK now finds itself, arguing that social scientific analysis can perform much better in identifying ways in which further enhancements of sub-national autonomy can support the realization of progressive social and environmental goals.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解大曼彻斯特寻求更多自治权:英国权力下放政治的另一视角
对近年来英格兰混乱和不一致的“权力下放”过程的批判性社会科学描述正确地强调了大曼彻斯特以及最近的大曼彻斯特联合管理局在英国大都市机构改革中所占据的地位。然而,他们通常很少赞扬长期独立的动员和机构建设过程,这些过程使大曼彻斯特取得了这一先锋地位。这篇文章挑战了这样一种观点,即大曼彻斯特的当代大都市治理只能被视为倒退的中央集权国家手中的一枚棋子,或者被视为一种不民主的工具,旨在让城市精英统治其大都市邻国。这篇文章从一个比批评报道常见的更长的历史视角出发,证明了英格兰的大都市化没有遵循连贯的中央集权脚本,目前的联合管理局也没有受到限制或被选择采用其批评者所声称的狭隘的经济发展逻辑。后者的例子是对大曼彻斯特地区关于工作与健康主题的工作进行的实证研究。文章最后评估了一种脆弱的、非常英国化的权力下放形式在英国现在所处的困难环境中可能会如何发展,认为社会科学分析可以更好地确定进一步加强地方自治可以支持实现进步的社会和环境目标的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Political Science
Frontiers in Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Human involvement in autonomous decision-making systems. Lessons learned from three case studies in aviation, social care and road vehicles Deciphering the maritime diplomatic properties of Malaysia's oil and gas explorations in the South China Sea Dimensions of cultural sustainability—Local adaptation, adaptive capacity and social resilience Neurorights as reconceptualized human rights Interactions among national and supranational identities: mobilizing the independence movement in Scotland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1