Centralized vs. Decentralized Government in Relation to Democracy

“Centralized vs. Decentralized Government in Relation to Democracy: a review of the arguments advanced in the literature of various nations”. (New York: Columbia U. Teachers College, 1941)

Summary:

The Merits of Decentralization:

1. Adapt public services to local needs
2. Freedom, democracy, responsive government
3. Local unity, responsibility, self-reliance, mutual aid
4. Beneficial inter-community competition
5. Experimentation
6. Political stability
7. National unity & security
8. Relieves congestion at the Center

Problems of Centralization:

1. Unresponsive national bureaucracy, destroys democracy
2. Neglect of local needs
3. Destroys local initiative and responsibility
4. Political instability
5. Inefficiency and waste
6. Congestion of business, arts at the Center
7. Weakens national unity and security

From the cited book, pp. 67-69:

RECAPITULATION

It is now possible to summarize this review of the discussion by various European and American writers of the issue of central versus local control of governmental services.

1. Theoretically central versus local control is an issue between extreme centralization of government on the one hand, and extreme decentralization of it on the other. In actual practice, however, the issue is generally far from being so broad in character. It is limited in most cases to a consideration of whether certain functions of government should be centralized or decentralized, and of the extent to which such centralization or decentralization of them should be carried. The discussions of these narrower issues are generally carried on in much more realistic terms than the discussions of the broader theoretical issues, for they take into account particular situations and problems.
2. It is conceded by the more thoughtful students of the subject, such as Laski and Finer in England, or Goodnow and Willoughby in America, that only a few types of public service are solely of national, state (or provincial), or local concern. It is generally held that most of the services are of concern to all the three classes of government, each being interested in different phases of the service and being particularly fitted to administer them.
3. The necessity of complete and direct central control over certain spheres of public affairs, such as national defense, foreign affairs, and foreign trade, is admitted by all writers. No one would seriously propose today that these functions be administered locally.
4. In most spheres of public affairs, however, the sharing of control by the central and local authorities is generally deemed most advisable. Central and local control are considered to possess different advantages deemed equally essential to the national welfare in the administration of public services. This sharing of control, it is noted, may take the form of (a) the exercise by the central and local governments, respectively, of independent authority- over different spheres of the same functions as exemplified by the present control of most of the federal and state functions, (b) the supervision by the central government of the operations of the local governments, as exemplified by state supervision over local educational administration and, more recently, by federal supervision over state administration of highways, social security, relief, etc., or (c) joint or cooperative management by the central government and the local authorities of certain of their affairs as exemplified by the proposals for a joint federal-state management of specific public works.
5. The advantages that the well-conceived central and local types of control, respectively, possess, as stated by careful students, differ from, and complement, one another. Thus, central control applied in its proper sphere unifies the nation, provides for the common or national needs of the population, and for a coordinated development of the nation’s resources. Local control, properly conceived, secures a close adaptation of the public services to local needs, promotes local unit, sense of neighborhood responsibility, spirit of self-reliance, and capacity for group action whereas the central government in a democracy safeguards the liberties of the people and makes provision for the equality of social, economic, and educational opportunities in the various sections of the country. The local governments are the sources from which democracy springs and are the training ground in which its most elementary forms-are exercised. The central government possesses the advantage of quick adjustability to new national situations, and is therefore able to meet emergencies or to take care of rapid political, social, and economic changes affecting the nation, as soon as they occur. Local governments taken as a whole, on the other hand, promote political stability by checking the tendency of the central government to establish policies of far-reaching social and economic consequences too rapidly. At the same time, local governments function for the nation as the laboratories in which experimentation with new forms of government and new policies can be carried on in a safe manner. They increase the flexibility of the country’s political organization and development in the long run. The central government gives a common direction to local governments, impels them to maintain certain minimum standards of public service, and generally helps them to operate more effectively. On the other hand, local governments relieve the national government of the details of local affairs, thus enabling it to give better attention to national affairs. Central governments are most efficient and economic in certain respects, local governments in others. Thus, the central government and the local governments not only benefit the nation in different ways, but also reciprocally enhance their individual beneficial effects.
6. The evils of extreme centralization and extreme decentralization
are equally serious. Both of them undermine democracy. Overcentralization promotes the rule of an irresponsible national bureaucracy, destroying local civic interest, capacity for group action, individual initiative, and self-reliance. Extreme decentralization destroys democracy by fostering local autocratic rule by petty officials and powerful minority groups, weakening national unity, and producing extreme inequalities in the standards of public service and in the protection of civil rights afforded in different parts of the country. Both types of control result in an inefficient and uneconomic management of local affairs. Centralization neglects local needs. It results in the application of uniform rules to situations which are fundamentally different. Decentralization results in a neglect of the broader needs of the population and in an extremely ineffectual local administration. Extreme decentralization produces evils of an opposite sort—those of inertia and rigidity of government. Both of them lessen national security.
7. The national interest can best be served by striking a fair balance between centralization and decentralization so that the advantages of both of those types of control may be maintained and the disadvantages of their extreme manifestations avoided. The exact degree of centralization and decentralization which may be advisable in the case of different countries must necessarily depend on the size of the country, the stage of its economic development, and the particular political, social, and economic situation with which it may be confronted at the moment. A small country would necessarily require a more centralized government than a large one. So, too, a country exposed to the dangers of attack requires a more centralized organization than one that is relatively secure from external aggression. Each country should seek to blend central control with local control in its major public services so as best to promote its social ideals under the particular circumstances of its life.