Skip Navigation

Publius: The Journal of Federalism 2006 36(1):189-206; doi:10.1093/publius/pjj003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CSF Associates: Publius, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Devolution and Development: Territorial Justice and the North-South Divide

Kevin Morgan*
*Cardiff University

One of the unintended consequences of devolution under New Labour is that it might make it more difficult to secure territorial justice between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Centralized regional policy, the aim of which was to promote economic equity between the regions, has been replaced by a devolved regional policy that aims to promote an economic dividend within each region. In the unlikely event that devolution yields a uniform economic dividend in each region, the result does nothing to redress the territorial inequalities at the heart of the North-South divide. Treating unequal regions equally is not a recipe for territorial justice.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Urban StudHome page
G. Pearce and S. Ayres
Governance in the English Regions: The Role of the Regional Development Agencies
Urban Stud, March 1, 2009; 46(3): 537 - 557.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.