Have you ever wondered what would happen if we stopped piling more layers of government on top of an already struggling economy? When Andy Burnham recently laid out his vision for the future, complete with grand ideas about shifting power to the regions, it got me thinking. Instead of creating more political fiefdoms, perhaps it’s time we trusted something far more effective: the market itself.
Britain faces some serious structural challenges right now. Productivity has been sluggish, regional inequalities persist, and the public finances are stretched thin. Burnham’s speech suggested a big devolution push, with more authority for city mayors, local councils, and even a “No. 10 in the North.” On the surface, it sounds empowering. But digging deeper, I worry we’re repeating mistakes that have already proven costly elsewhere in the UK.
The Devolution Experiment That Fell Short
Over the past couple of decades, we’ve run a pretty significant test on devolving power within the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales received their own assemblies and, in Scotland’s case, some control over taxes. The hope was that local decision-making would spark innovation and better address regional needs. In practice, the outcomes have left many scratching their heads.
Take Scotland. Growth has often trailed the UK average, while public spending ballooned to levels that would be unsustainable if it were fully independent. Their deficit figures tell a concerning story. Meanwhile, tax changes have consistently gone in one direction only. And in Wales, the picture looks even tougher, with a high proportion of working-age adults relying on benefits and living standards lagging behind much of Europe.
These aren’t just abstract numbers. They represent real communities where traditional industries faded and new opportunities haven’t fully materialized despite the extra layers of governance. If devolution was the magic bullet for regional revival, the evidence so far suggests we might need to reload.
More Government Layers, More Spending
One pattern that keeps emerging is how devolved authorities tend to expand their role. New politicians need to show they’re doing something, which often translates into more regulations and higher expenditures. Think about some of the policies that have come out: blanket speed limit reductions that slow down deliveries and raise costs, or rent controls that distort housing markets rather than fixing them.
In my view, Britain in 2026 doesn’t need another round of bureaucratic expansion. We’ve already got a state that takes up a massive chunk of the economy – around 45% of GDP by some measures. Adding more decision-makers at the local level risks simply multiplying the places where money gets spent without necessarily creating more of it.
The issue isn’t that local voices shouldn’t be heard. It’s that handing them more spending power without addressing the fundamentals of wealth creation often leads to the same problems on a smaller scale.
This brings us to what feels like the core misunderstanding in many political proposals today. Growth doesn’t come from rearranging the deck chairs of government. It comes from unleashing the creativity, risk-taking, and responsiveness of individuals and businesses operating in a genuine market environment.
The Reality of Heavy State Intervention
Let’s be honest about where we stand. The government already exerts enormous influence over daily economic life. Wages in many cities are heavily shaped by national living wage policies that push earnings above traditional market levels in some areas. Energy prices? They’re shaped by caps, green levies, and long-term state contracts rather than pure supply and demand.
Even basic goods are inching toward more controls, with discussions around price caps on food in certain regions. The space for straightforward negotiations between buyers and sellers keeps shrinking. This isn’t the free-market experiment some critics like to claim we’ve been running for decades. If anything, the trend has been toward greater micro-management.
I’ve always believed that the most dynamic economies thrive when people can make choices freely. When consumers vote with their wallets, businesses have to adapt quickly – innovating, cutting costs, or improving quality. Politicians, no matter how well-intentioned, face different incentives. Their time horizons often align with election cycles, and their tools are blunt: taxes, subsidies, and rules.
Why Empowering Consumers and Businesses Makes Sense
Imagine a different approach. What if, instead of devolving power to mayors, we devolved it downward to the real decision-makers: ordinary people and the enterprises they build? This wouldn’t mean abandoning all regional focus. It would mean removing barriers so that talent, capital, and ideas flow more freely to where opportunities exist.
Think about planning reforms that actually make it easier to build homes where people want to live, not just where local authorities decide. Or tax systems that reward work and investment rather than penalizing success. Regulatory environments that prioritize outcomes over process. These changes could do more for left-behind areas than another layer of political oversight.
- Reduce unnecessary local regulations that stifle small businesses
- Allow greater wage flexibility so pay reflects local conditions
- Encourage competition in services currently dominated by state providers
- Focus planning on enabling development rather than blocking it
- Promote portable skills and education that people can take anywhere
None of this is about ignoring regional challenges. Places with declining industries need support to transition, but the best support often comes through better education, infrastructure that connects them to markets, and incentives for private investment rather than perpetual public dependency.
Learning From What Actually Drives Growth
History offers plenty of examples where reducing state control led to bursts of prosperity. Post-war recoveries across Europe, the technology boom driven by entrepreneurial freedom, even some successful urban regeneration stories here in Britain where private investment followed when conditions improved. The common thread? Trusting markets to allocate resources better than central planners.
Of course, markets aren’t perfect. They can be messy, and they sometimes fail in providing pure public goods. But they have an incredible self-correcting mechanism: profit and loss. Companies that don’t serve customers eventually fade. Politicians who make bad decisions often get re-elected anyway if they promise the right things.
Markets might not always feel fair in the short term, but over time they tend to channel resources toward value creation far more efficiently than any committee of experts.
Right now, Britain needs wealth creation more than redistribution of existing resources. With public debt high and budgets tight, the old playbook of throwing money at problems isn’t viable. We have to grow the pie rather than argue endlessly over how to slice it.
The High Street, Housing, and Utilities – A Market Perspective
Burnham talked about reviving high streets, building council houses, and tightening control over utilities. These are understandable concerns. Empty shops signal economic pain in many towns. Housing shortages drive up costs for young people. Energy security matters enormously.
But consider alternative approaches. For high streets, lower business rates, flexible planning rules allowing mixed uses, and reduced parking restrictions could help independent retailers compete. On housing, streamlining approvals and incentivizing private development often delivers volume faster than purely public programs. For utilities, genuine competition and smart regulation focused on outcomes rather than ownership structures tend to deliver better long-term results for consumers.
The key difference is philosophy. One view sees government as the primary actor that must direct and control. The other sees government’s role as setting basic rules while allowing private initiative to do the heavy lifting of innovation and adaptation.
Addressing Regional Inequality Without More Bureaucracy
No serious observer denies that different parts of Britain face different realities. London and the South East pull ahead in many metrics, while northern towns and coastal areas struggle. The question is how best to bridge that gap.
Devolution to mayors risks creating little fiefdoms with their own pet projects and varying quality of governance. Some mayors will be excellent; others less so. Meanwhile, businesses face a patchwork of rules that complicates national operations. Empowering the market means people can move to opportunities, companies can invest where returns are highest, and successful models spread naturally through competition and imitation.
| Approach | Focus | Potential Outcome |
| Political Devolution | Local government control | More spending, varied policies |
| Market Devolution | Consumer and business freedom | Innovation, efficiency, growth |
This isn’t theory. Look at how certain sectors have evolved when allowed breathing room. Technology and professional services have grown despite heavy regulation elsewhere. Places that reduced barriers to entry often saw faster revival.
The Path Forward: Practical Market-Oriented Steps
So what might devolving power to the market actually look like in concrete terms? For starters, a serious review of regulations that no longer serve their purpose. Many rules were introduced with good intentions but create unintended consequences that hurt exactly the communities they’re meant to help.
Education reform that emphasizes practical skills and lifelong learning would equip people to succeed wherever opportunities arise. Infrastructure investment focused on connectivity – digital as much as physical – helps integrate regions into national and global markets.
- Simplify planning laws to speed up genuine development
- Cut business taxes in struggling areas to attract investment
- Promote portable benefits so people aren’t tied to specific locations
- Encourage competition in public services where feasible
- Focus welfare on genuine support while removing disincentives to work
These steps require political courage because they challenge entrenched interests. But without them, we risk managing decline rather than sparking renewal.
Why This Matters Now More Than Ever
With budgets constrained and global competition intensifying, Britain can’t afford to keep expanding the state’s role. The next few years will test our ability to adapt. Proposals that sound progressive on paper – more local control, public housebuilding, tighter utility oversight – need careful scrutiny.
I’ve come to believe, after watching economic cycles over the years, that the most sustainable improvements come when ordinary people have more agency over their economic lives. Consumers choosing winners and losers. Entrepreneurs spotting gaps and filling them. Workers moving to better opportunities without artificial barriers.
Andy Burnham clearly cares about addressing Britain’s imbalances. That’s commendable. The debate should be about the most effective tools, not just the most politically appealing ones. Empowering markets doesn’t mean abandoning those left behind. It means creating conditions where more people can succeed through their own efforts and choices.
The coming years will show which philosophy delivers. Will another round of devolution to political structures repeat the patterns we’ve seen in Scotland and Wales? Or can we find the courage to try something different – truly devolving power downward to where decisions about resources actually create lasting value?
The market isn’t perfect, but it’s proven remarkably good at turning human ingenuity into progress when allowed to work. Perhaps that’s the real devolution Britain needs right now. Giving power back to the people who generate wealth rather than those who primarily redistribute it. The results could transform not just regions, but the entire country’s prospects.
As we navigate these choices, keeping the focus on outcomes rather than intentions will be crucial. More government layers might feel like action, but real progress comes from removing obstacles so that enterprise can flourish everywhere. That’s a vision worth pursuing, regardless of which party holds the reins.
In the end, the conversation about Britain’s economic future shouldn’t be limited to how we slice up political authority. It needs to center on how we create the conditions for broad-based prosperity. Devolving power to the market might just be the bold idea that cuts through the usual debates and delivers the growth everyone claims to want.
