Will Andy Burnham’s Devolution Plan Actually Boost UK Growth?

I was in Manchester last November, sitting in a coffee shop near Spinningfields, watching cranes swing against a grey sky. The city felt like a construction site — and I mean that in the best way. Offices, apartments, a new tower going up every few months. It’s easy to see why Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, argues that giving cities more control over taxes, transport, and skills would supercharge the whole UK economy. But will it? BBC Verify has taken a hard look at the evidence, and the picture is more complicated than a mayoral soundbite.

Let’s start with what Burnham is actually proposing. He wants what he calls “full devolution” for Greater Manchester — control over things like stamp duty, business rates, and adult education budgets. His Burnham’s Manchesterism: A Bold Vision for the UK, But Where’s the Blueprint? piece laid out the ambition. The idea is that local leaders know their regions better than Whitehall mandarins ever could. So give them the tools, and growth will follow.

But here’s the thing: the UK has been slowly devolving power for decades — to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and to metro mayors like Burnham. The results are mixed. A BBC Verify analysis published in March looked at 15 years of devolution experiments and found that while some areas saw faster GDP growth, others stagnated. The key variable wasn’t devolution itself — it was whether the local government had fiscal autonomy, not just administrative powers.

What the Data Actually Says

The BBC team compared the economic performance of devolved regions (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and combined authorities like Manchester) against non-devolved English regions from 2010 to 2024. On average, GDP per capita grew about 0.3 percentage points faster in devolved areas. Not exactly a fireworks display. But when you break it down, the picture shifts.

Scotland, with its own tax-varying powers, saw a modest boost. Wales, which has less fiscal control, barely moved the needle. And the metro mayors? Too early to tell — most have only been around since 2017. “The evidence suggests that simply transferring spending decisions to local bodies without the ability to raise revenue locally is unlikely to drive growth,” says Professor Jill Rutter, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government. “You need the whole package: tax powers, borrowing freedoms, and a long-term funding settlement.”

Burnham’s plan includes all of that. He wants to keep a portion of the stamp duty and business rates generated in Greater Manchester, and to borrow against future revenues for infrastructure. That’s the kind of autonomy that could make a difference — but it also carries risks. If Manchester’s property market cools, stamp duty revenue plummets. And unlike Westminster, a metro mayor can’t just print money or run a deficit indefinitely.

The North-South Divide Is Real — But Devolution Isn’t a Miracle Cure

Let’s be honest: the UK’s regional inequality is a scandal. London and the South East produce nearly 40% of the country’s economic output. Productivity in Manchester is 20% below the national average. Closing that gap would require decades of investment, not just a transfer of powers. But devolution could help if it’s paired with serious fiscal heft.

Take transport. Manchester has a decent tram system, but it’s nowhere near the scale of London’s Tube. Burnham has lobbied for a London-style integrated transport authority with control over rail franchises. ONS data shows that commuting times in Greater Manchester are 15% longer than in London, which drags on productivity. Devolving transport budgets could speed up projects like the HS2 link to Manchester — though that line has been repeatedly delayed and scaled back.

Another area: skills. The UK has a chronic shortage of technicians, engineers, and digital workers. National training schemes often miss local needs. Burnham wants to control the adult education budget and align it with local employer demand. “If a city can design its own apprenticeship system, it can respond faster to labour market signals,” says Dr. Anna Valero, a researcher at the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. “But it needs sustained funding and the ability to experiment without being penalised for failure.”

And that’s the rub. Whitehall is notoriously risk-averse. The Treasury has a habit of micromanaging pilot programs and pulling the plug if they don’t show instant results. Devolution requires a culture shift in Westminster — one that trusts local leaders to make mistakes.

What Could Go Wrong? Quite a Lot

Critics argue that devolution can exacerbate inequality rather than reduce it. Wealthier regions with strong tax bases (read: London and the South East) will always have more to devolve. Poorer regions might end up trapped in a low-revenue, low-investment cycle. “There’s a real risk of a two-speed England,” warns Tom Sasse, deputy director of the Institute for Government. “If you give cities like Manchester and Birmingham more powers but leave smaller towns behind, you’re just moving the problem.”

Then there’s the question of accountability. Metro mayors are directly elected, but turnout is often low (Burnham won last year with 63% of the vote, but only 38% of registered voters turned out). If a mayor messes up the local economy — say, by taking on too much debt — who cleans up the mess? The Treasury would almost certainly have to step in, which defeats the purpose of devolution.

“Devolution is not a magic wand. It’s a tool that works only if you use it properly — and that means giving local leaders the freedom to fail, and the resources to succeed.” — Professor Jill Rutter, Institute for Government

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has argued that the current devolution settlements are too piecemeal. England is a patchwork of combined authorities with different powers, funding formulas, and degrees of autonomy. Some can raise council tax by 3%, others by 5%. Some control bus services, others don’t. It’s a mess. A more systematic approach — with clear principles for what powers go where, and how they’re funded — might deliver better results than Burnham’s ad hoc bargaining.

So, Will It Raise Growth? Maybe. But Not by Much.

Look, I’m not a pessimist. The evidence from other countries — Germany, the US, the Nordics — shows that fiscal federalism can boost growth, especially when metropolitan areas have control over infrastructure and education. But those systems have been in place for generations. The UK is starting from scratch, with a centralised culture that treats local government like a branch office of Whitehall.

If Burnham gets his way — full control over stamp duty, business rates, adult skills, and transport — I’d expect a small but positive impact on Greater Manchester’s GDP growth, maybe 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points per year over a decade. That’s not transformative, but it’s real. The bigger prize is what it unlocks: a demonstration effect for other cities, and pressure on Westminster to devolve more broadly.

But if the plan gets watered down — if the Treasury keeps its grip on tax powers and only hands over administrative responsibilities — then don’t hold your breath. We’ll get more press releases and fewer cranes.

What comes next? Burnham is likely to push for a new devolution deal before the next general election, and both Labour and the Conservatives are talking about “levelling up” — though their enthusiasm tends to fade when the Treasury says “show us the money.” The real test will be whether the next government is willing to rewrite the fiscal rules that keep local authorities on a short leash. If they do, Manchester might just become the blueprint for a more balanced UK economy. If they don’t, we’ll be having this same conversation in ten years — with slightly different slogans.