SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
What are your thoughts on decentralization? When is it a good thing? What powers should local bodies have?
Decentralization
- Thread starter SS-18 ICBM
- Start date
sophie
Break My Heart
Discussion is meaningless without context.
Decentralization of what? I think it's a good idea for some things, but a terrible idea for a butt-ton of other things.
Decentralization of what? I think it's a good idea for some things, but a terrible idea for a butt-ton of other things.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Government responsibilities.
sophie
Break My Heart
Which responsibilities?
Wrymouth3
Emperor
This thread was started by David Blatt under the OP's account. Everyone now knows the guy has literally no idea how to coach and is now trying to justify himself by deferring it to another subject.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Decentralisation is underrated.
It is especially works well in cases where redundancy is desirable.
All government entities containing between 400.000 and 4 million inhabitants should have their own education, law enforcement and health care systems, as well as most infrastructure (except for highways, that's best carried out by a central government). Military stuff is something you shouldn't leave completely to local bodies either, though something akin to a national guard couldn't hurt as long as it supplements a national military.
In the American political context decentralization comes up a lot. Most often for the wrong reasons. Most of the people pushing decentralization do so because they want the government to fail at one thing or another. Or everything. There are things it makes sense to decentralize. Others, not so much. Regulations decentralized will probably fail. Income support decentralized will absolutely fail. Schools decentralized some will fail, some won't. But, then, that's the point. Decentralizing schools means that some will fail. And almost always the students of the ones who fail won't be white.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I've never heard of redundancy as a cited advantage for decentralization in the context of governance. Seems like a waste of resources if there was redundancy.
Education administration makes sense to be at a more local level. Not sure I can say the same for standards and regulations.
Do municipalities provide enough economies of scale for healthcare systems? Seems more like something to be handled at provincial levels.
You're talking about welfare systems? I don't know, I think local conditions and resources are important for determining how to distribute that to the population.
Nope. Local conditions and resources will be cut to the bone when conditions are worst and the most people are in need of assistance. And the rest of the time they will be cut to the bone in order to drive the needy to go someplace else.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I'm not discounting transfers at a higher level to assist divisions that require help. But local conditions are important. For instance, an urbanized area receiving many immigrants would require different forms of welfare compared to a rural one experiencing an exodus of inhabitants.
That's really not true. What is sometimes true is that some of those who need assistance need services, and not just money. There's some argument to be made that those services might be better administered locally. But for simple cash assistance, local governments, even state governments, will never be better than just plain sucking. In all of the history of the US, the only organization that has ever done even a half decent job of income support is the US federal government.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Welfare is more than just simple cash handouts. The future health complications caused by SNAP programs in food deserts doesn't seem to argue for the US federal government being better than local ones.
Straight cash payments are superior in pretty much every respect for pretty much every recipient than any of the other options. Things like food deserts are a separate subject. And should be addressed outside the issue of income supports.
I think attending one HOA meeting should be enough to convince one to be skeptical of decentralization as a cure all.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Well, to be fair, if HOA means "homeowner association" it'll most likely convince one that all the sane people on this planet are dead and now replaced with raving lunatics.
Narz
keeping it real
Decentralization is scary to power holders. And the best chance at rising up for poor nations.
I think its the future. A few players holding all the cards guarantees corruption. People put up with it out of lazyness & as long as they are thrown some small pieces of the pie.
It makes sense for certain things to be run by huge governments & mega-corporations. The making of cell phones for instance.
It's hard for me to judge because I love Costco. I also enjoy farmer's markets though.
I think its the future. A few players holding all the cards guarantees corruption. People put up with it out of lazyness & as long as they are thrown some small pieces of the pie.
It makes sense for certain things to be run by huge governments & mega-corporations. The making of cell phones for instance.
It's hard for me to judge because I love Costco. I also enjoy farmer's markets though.
No more than they can handle. In my country in paticular 'decentralization' and 'reforms' have been euphemisms for central government budget cuts for years now with little regard for the question if local government bodies can actually handle all this 'decentralization'. In the end, costs may actually rather go up than down. But hey, who cares about long term planning anyway.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, imagine if a central government had annoying laws that provoked everyone to move to another country. There you have your single point of failure. Decentralisation can avoid things like that.
Well, it weaken nationalism and strengthen regionalism. Of course, it may be an option for the central government to regulate how far provinces can go with making their own educational system, though the direct decisions are perhaps best left up to the provinces. There is zero guarantee that education will be most option, so a bit of diversity followed by mix-and-match is the best way to improve such stuff. Same for anything.
Agreed. And in general, to avoid decentralisation, one should first decentralise to the first tier beneath the national government, in the case of the Netherlands, the provinces. However, decentralising to provinces seems to be politically unseemly since that's associated with Frisian and Limburgian regionalism and Provincial parliaments have a reputation of being corrupt - though I doubt how deserved that reputation is. In terms of size, most Dutch provinces are in the same league as small-sized European states like Luxemburg or Estonia. They would be perfect candidates for decentralising stuff towards them.
If the USA radically decentralised, California would become pretty interventionist economically. Possibly even more so than Sweden. Only the feds keep California 'in line' with the rest of the states.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
So cash handouts to individuals do not help with food deserts. That's exactly my point with welfare being more than just cash handouts.
I don't think too many people actually move to different places because of laws. It would have to be a really detrimental law and they would need to have the resources and the determination to actually move.
You're thinking that would work out well for them? Sorry, I only have the vaguest notions of the political and economic conditions in the state of California.
