as noted above. Some political scientists (Le Galès and John, 1997) argue that
incrementalism carries with it considerable costs in terms of loss of momentum for reform.
Of course, the opposite problem can also arise, with asymmetries leading to arguments for
further change. In Italy, part of the federalist movement has been pushing for similar
autonomies to be granted to all regions to bring the asymmetric treatment of regions to an
end. Another risk is that, where some regions are granted greater powers because of historical
reasons or cultural diversity, granting some regions greater powers than others may lead to
tensions between regions, and then create difficulties in implementing horizontal equalisation
systems. Even where asymmetric devolution settlements are justified for historical reasons
(e.g. maintaining a separate Scottish education or legal system), our view is that these
exceptions should be explicitly costed as part of a comprehensive regional financing system
and that, apart from these exceptional factors, similar degrees of fiscal autonomy should be
allowed to all future regional governments in the UK. This would then avoid the tensions that
mightotherwise arise from a multi-speed path to devolution in some regions (e.g. the
Northern English regions) if they are granted much less fiscal powers than Scotland.
Conclusions
We have surveyed some of the experiences of the OECD economies in the area of fiscal
decentralisation and fiscal autonomy andhave highlighted possible lessons for the UK as it
considers the future path of its devolution process. In general, we can draw the following
conclusions:
• Economists have traditionally seen some benefits in fiscal autonomy, on the grounds that
it promotes efficiency in local government and accountability.
of the United Kingdom Government." (Section 10).
32