Devolution is often framed as a democratic upgrade. By moving power closer to communities, the logic goes, decisions become more responsive, services more effective and growth more locally rooted.
However, as new strategic authorities take shape across the UK, devolution isn’t simply redistributing power - it’s redistributing risk. In particular, it raises a question that is still too often treated as secondary: what happens to equality, inclusion and social cohesion when responsibility fragments across place?
Transferring power alone is insufficient; devolution only delivers successfully if principles of fairness are carried through into local decision-making.
When local choice meets national inequality
Devolution arrives in a country with significant regional differences and ongoing pressure on public services.
In this context, local autonomy can cut both ways. On one hand, it allows leaders to respond to lived experience and tailor solutions to local needs. On the other hand, it exposes equality and equity to the uneven terrain of local politics, public opinion and financial capacity.
As funding tightens and public debate becomes more charged, some councils may face pressure to retreat from initiatives perceived as controversial - particularly those supporting marginalised or minority communities. In these cases, the very proximity that makes local government powerful can also make it vulnerable.
Without clear guardrails, devolution risks a patchwork approach where: inclusion thrives in some areas and erodes in others.
What devolution gets right - when it’s intentional
Where inclusion is treated as a true and embedded design principle, devolved systems have delivered more equitable results.
Some regions have used devolution to align economic development with social justice, embedding fairness into governance, investment decisions and regeneration plans. Others have strengthened decision-making by systematically assessing the impact of policy choices across different groups and by addressing barriers such as digital exclusion and community fragmentation.
- Liverpool City region has embedded fairness into its region-wide equality strategy with annual reporting to ensure action, and involving vulnerable groups in planning and regenerations decisions.
- Surrey County Council has integrated EDI into its devolution plan, ensuring that "No One is Left Behind." By embedding Equality Impact Assessments directly into their devolution planning, they are proactively identifying and mitigating risks for underrepresented groups while tackling digital exclusion and fostering community cohesion.
What unites these approaches is not geography or funding level, but intent. In each case, equity is deeply woven into how power is exercised.
These examples matter because they demonstrate a broader point: devolution doesn’t automatically generate better outcomes. It amplifies whatever priorities are built into it.
Scale, simplicity and the loss of nuance
As local government reorganises into larger regional bodies, leaders inherit responsibility for more diverse populations and more complex needs. Under pressure to deliver quickly, there is a strong incentive to simplify.
Standardised services are easier to manage, easier to explain and often cheaper to run. But they are also less sensitive to differences.
The digitalisation of public services illustrates this tension. Where access and skills are uneven, moving services online without targeted support doesn’t increase efficiency - it shifts exclusion. Devolution offers an opportunity to address these gaps.
Financial constraint compounds the challenge. When resources are stretched, equality work is often framed as discretionary. In reality, it’s preventative infrastructure - reducing long-term demand and strengthening social resilience.
The overlooked role of community infrastructure
Structural reform also disrupts relationships. As boundaries shift and institutions merge, long-standing connections between councils and community organisations can weaken or disappear.
This matters more than is often acknowledged. Community groups are not simply delivery partners; they’re translators between policy and lived experience. In periods of uncertainty, they provide trust, continuity and social glue.
At a time when misinformation, fear and polarisation are increasing, weakening these networks carries real risk. If devolution is to strengthen democracy, community voice must be treated as core infrastructure, not peripheral consultation.
The conditions that make devolution fair
If devolution is to deliver on the promise two things need to be addressed.
First, equity must be built into the foundations of the devolution. This means embedding rigorous impact assessment, measurable inclusion outcomes and genuine co-production into new services from the outset - not simply addressing them once disparities become visible.
Second, accountability cannot be devolved away. Central Government retains responsibility for setting clear equality standards, ensuring transparency, and intervening when obligations are not met. Devolution can fulfil its promise only when paired with clear accountability and support, ensuring that it translates into real benefits for regions and communities.
A choice, not an inevitability
The purpose of devolution is to broaden democratic engagement, not concentrate influence in fewer hands.
Where leadership is confident, values-led and adequately supported, devolution can unlock innovation, rebuild trust and deliver fairer outcomes. Where resources are constrained and inclusion is sidelined, it can harden division and deepen exclusion.
As new strategic authorities define their identities, equality and equity must be embedded in their constitutions, governance models and early decisions. The real test of devolution isn’t whether power moves closer to communities but whether communities feel better served in the new world.