Localized Government's role in Sustainable governance (Part 2)

Recap

      I previously discussed the role localized government could play in benefiting citizens of large democracies, but stopped before I discussed the respective benefits such an arrangement might bring. That, and the detriments of such an arrangement, will be the content of this post.
      
      Two caveats before I begin. The majority of research I cite deals with third world nations. I don't think that discredits the conclusions though; all are from a sociological perspective and aren't grounding their statements in quantitative facts. Rather, the benefits and concerns they outline can be applied to any scenario where localized governance shifts begin.
      
      Second, most papers cover decentralization, a broad-sweeping term that covers many types of power transfers away from state level. I'm talking about the same thing; broadly speaking, my conceptualization of localizing government deals with moving power and authority from the national to the regional level.

Benefits of Localized Government

      Case studies seemingly indicate that localized governance accomplishes the aims of national governments better than they do. Grasa and Camps found that service offerings were improved across several African regions by the integration of decentralization, while the TRA reported that similar results were true in Latin American and Caribbean case studies as well. Remington argues that there are several key features of the local scale that contribute to this success.

• First, the size of resources are far more manageable on a smaller scale. Compared to the tight budgets, large land areas, and numerous priorities of national institutions, local governments can easily focus on their areas and abilities to make effective decisions. This directly helps environmental efforts by allowing leaders control over the outcomes of their areas.

• Second, any scarcity problems are known and felt by the community. Balancing usage rates is far easier when all know how much is left and are adversely affected by said things disappearance. 

• Third, social norms can more easily pressure people into doing the right thing. Whether indirect or direct, corruption levels can decrease merely because the people operating the governance feel bound by the communal rules of the place in which they live. The direct connection mayors have to the people plays a crucial role here; more sides of more issues can be considered by the leaders when they know many of the important problems of their area. 

    
      As a result of these factors, localized governance can do a number of things that national governments can't or don't concern themselves with. One of these is the resource distribution changes that the case studies noted. Why can they provide more? Because they both know the needs of the community and don't have to waste money on the administration side of politics. But there are further benefits. 

• First, localized governments can bring representation to the minority peoples typically disenfranchised by larger, more nationalistic institutions. At the large scale, minority interests are ignored, at the small scale, they're important parts of a community. A smaller scale government could easily consider opinions from fringe groups that have no chance in national elections. 

• Second, they can increase the accountability of the local command by allowing greater oversight to be implemented. When a community has closer connections to their leaders and have members of their community in office, they have a far closer connection to policy decisions, preventing corruption and increasing general approval. 

• Third, as a result of these two things, regional stability can be greatly enhanced (Grasa and Camps). If there are factions competing for representation that are no longer ignored and more resources to be shared among everyone, general levels of conflict seem to decrease. 

      Many of these problems aren't even issues in places like America; people may feel slighted over policies, but few fight because of them. The benefits though can be considered similar if applied to first world nations; both accountability and public service offering increases seem like powerful incentives to shift politics towards the local realm. But returning to the stats mentioned in the previous post, people don't seem to think that there's as much of a reason to participate in local governments. This is what will bring us to the detriments of such a scheme; even if good for democracies, people might not accept it.

Detriments of Localized Government

      There are essentially three detriments that come with localized governance, but honestly depend a great deal on the given instance in which it was implemented.

• First, these governments might become more corrupt if people aren't willing to become civically engaged. Already we've seen that only around 25% of individuals participate in mayoral elections; if that doesn't change when state or regional offices get more control, they could easily begin to abuse those privileges (TRA). Without oversight or public engagement, this whole schemata could fail.

• Second, regional conflict could potentially increase. Yes, Grasa and Camps note that violence has decreased in Africa with this, but that could again be due to a lack of engagement. If individuals knew that more resources were now at stake that they could more easily access, violence could very well increase.

• Third, in the long-term, national protection could be undermined by localized power. If the nation as a whole was facing an exterior threat, decentralized power would not be best for ensuring the public's safety. This isn't necessarily a problem though; as long as national governments give up only what they shouldn't focus on and concern themselves with the larger priorities like defense, global conflicts would not be an issue.

Conclusion

      There's no reason to think that nationalized government is going the way of the horse and buggy, but it's at least important to think about improving how it functions. In some cases, power centralization can be beneficial for developing regions; Nikolov notes that it dramatically improved the economies and regional cooperation of smaller EU nations. But it seems that localized government has a place in parts of the world that are past those concerns. Sure, corruption might soar and efficacy might stagnate in the short term, but if in the long-term with proper civic engagement education the government can better meet the needs of it's people, I think it's worth considering as a viable change in the way democracy functions. 

      I've discussed bringing power back to a more local level, and while I have generally outlined what that might look like, I think the discussion is worth continuing. I'll likely return later to outline what major areas the United States federal government could decentralize, in a discussion of a government's role in a modern-day democracy. If there's something you think is worth including in that, please leave a comment and further the discussion.

Citations

Brenn, M. City. Flickr.com. 25 Oct, 2010. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1rj0e3d

Grasa, Rafael, and Camps, Arnau G. Conflict Prevention and Decentralized Governance: Some remarks about the state of the art in theory and practice. International Catalan Institute for Peace, Gran Via, Barcelona, 2009. Digital. 

JJ, city lights. Flickr.com. 2009. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1jKxcIS

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. New York City in Winter (NASA, International Space Station, 01/09/11). Flickr.com. 18 Jan, 2011. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1p1Md5w

Nikolov, D. Decentralization and Decentralized Governance for Enhancing Delivery of Services in Transition Conditions. Background Paper for Saint Petersburg 2006 Regional Forum on "Enhancing Trust in Government through Leadership Capacity Building." Digital. 

Remington, S. Sustainable World: Approaches to Analyzing and Resolving Wicked Problems.  Kendall Hunt Publishing; 1 edition, 2013. Print

Tuscany Regional Assembly. Decentralized Governance for Democracy, Peace, Development, and Effective Service Delivery. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Digital.

Simon and His Camera. Urban City Love-London Office Life. Flickr.com. 30 Mar, 2013. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1rvQfJu