This paper considers the economy‐wide output and employment effects of the shift in forest expansion away from coniferous plantations towards broadleaf and native species. Four different woodland types are distinguished within a Scottish input‐output table and demand and supply multipliers estimated to show the total effects on the economy of a 100 hectare increase in the land area devoted to each type as well as a switch in land from agriculture. Results suggest that the output and employment effects of new native woodlands and farm woodlands are greater than those generated by planting additional coniferous woodlands of equivalent size. In addition, an increase in the area of these policy‐driven woodland types is likely to have positive effects, even when the expansion impinges onto agricultural land of average productivity. It is thus argued that the traditional economic objectives of forestry policy have not been compromised in the drive towards multi‐benefit woodlands.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper examines the background to calls for further fiscal decentralisation in Scotland in the light of theories of fiscal federalism. In particular, it examines whether spatial differences in preferences, which are central to ‘first generation’ theories of fiscal federalism can be argued to play a central role in the case for granting Scotland further tax and spending powers. ‘Second generation’ theories of fiscal federalism draw attention to the political economy of allocating tax powers to different levels of government. Some of the authors in this strand of theory argue that the case for allocating tax powers to subnational governments can be made in terms of ‘accountability’ – the notion that local politicians can be better held to account for the outcomes of policy actions. Our empirical analysis suggests that there is no clear difference in preferences between Scotland and the rest of the UK along a number of key political dimensions. However, the Scottish parliament enjoys substantially higher levels of trust among the Scottish electorate than does the UK parliament.

Abstract. The UK's devolved administrations (DAs) rely on block grants to finance most of their spending, but the level of grants allocated to them is not determined by any estimate of their spending needs. There are increasing calls to replace the current grant allocation mechanism with one which explicitly considers the DAs' spending needs, although some commentators argue that assessing their needs is not practicable, given the normative dimension in defining need. This paper compares two existing formulae for estimating healthcare spending needs (used by the NHS to allocate resources within England and Scotland) by applying both formulae to the DAs. It is found that these formulae provide very similar estimates of the DAs' healthcare spending needs, and both formulae imply that the current distribution of resources across the DAs may be inequitable. The implications for the possible development of grant allocation mechanisms based on estimates of spending needs are discussed.