Assessing relative spending needs of devolved government: the case of healthcare spending in the UK

The system used to allocate resources to the UK's devolved territories, known as the Barnett formula, takes no account of the relative expenditure needs of the territories. In this paper we investigate the prospects of developing a needs based model for allocating healthcare resources to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We compare the method used by the National Health Service in England to allocate resources geographically within England with the method used by the NHS in Scotland to allocate resources to territorial Health Boards. By applying both approaches to the UK's devolved territories, we are able to examine similarities and differences in the two methods, and explore implications for an assessment of the relative healthcare expenditure need of each territory. The implications for the way in which revenue is distributed to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are discussed

The UK's exit charge from the EU: insights from modes of accounting

Whatever the final charge on the UK for leaving the EU, the money itself is relatively marginal to the former's public finances. However, this charge is politically sensitive and financially aggravating during one of the longest periods of fiscal austerity in the UK's history. The ways in which leaving is conceptualized have implications for any continuing financial obligations that must be managed within the context of fiscal austerity and political uncertainty. Yet, leaving the EU is a unique transaction: it is not analogous, for example, to a divorce settlement, the leaving of a club, the termination of a commercial contract, the leaving of a treaty‐based international organization, or secession from a state. Analysing the formulation of the charge in terms of the four modes of government accounting—financial reporting, statistical accounting, budgeting, and fiscal sustainability projections—enhances its fiscal transparency. It evidences not only the weakness and inconsistency of the UK's negotiating position but also the dominance in EU thinking of the short‐term budgetary calculations of the 2014–20 Multiannual Financial Framework over its long‐term sustainability without a large net contributor. The final amount paid by the UK will depend on the resolution of competing perspectives as well as on liabilities and contingent liabilities associated with the increasingly complex EU financial architecture

Animal disease and narratives of nature: Farmers' reactions to the neoliberal governance of bovine Tuberculosis

This paper examines the relationship between neoliberal styles of animal disease governance and farmers' understandings of disease and nature. In the UK, new styles of animal disease governance has promised to shift the costs and responsibilities of disease management to farmers, creating opportunities for farmers to take responsibility for disease control themselves and opening up new markets for disease control interventions. Focussing on the management of bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) and drawing on interviews with 65 cattle farmers, the paper examines how farmer responses to these new styles of animal disease governance are shaped by their own knowledges and understandings of nature and disease. In particular, the paper examines how two key narratives of nature – the idea of ‘natural balance’ and ‘clean and dirty badgers’ – lead farmers to think about the control of bTB in wildlife (such as the choice between badger culling and/or vaccination) in very specific ways. However, whilst discourses of cost and responsibility appear to open up choice opportunities for farmers, that choice is constrained when viewed from the perspective of farmer subjectivities and narratives of nature. Discourses of neoliberalism as control rather than choice are therefore revealed, drawing attention to the complexities and plural strategies of neoliberal governance