(Redirected from Decentralisation)
__FORCETOC__'Decentralization' is the process of dispersing
decision-making closer to the point of service or action. It occurs in a great many contexts in
engineering,
management science,
political science,
political economy,
sociology and
economics—each of which could be said to study mass decision-making by groups, too large to consult with each other very directly.
Law and
science can also be said to be highly decentralized human practices. There are serious studies of how
causality and
correlations of
phenomenon can respectively be determined and agreed across an entire nation, or indeed across the entire human species spread across the planet. While such institutions as the
International Criminal Court or
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seem highly
centralized, in fact they rely so heavily on the underlying
legal and
scientific processes that they can be said to simply reflect, as opposed to impose, global opinion.
A central theme in all kinds of decentralization is the difference between a
hierarchy, based on:
★
authority: two players in an unequal-power relationship; and
★ an interface: a lateral relationship between two players of roughly equal power.
The more decentralized a system is, the more it relies on lateral relationships, and the less it can rely on command or force. In most branches of engineering and economics, decentralization is narrowly defined as the study of
markets and interfaces between parts of a system. This is most highly developed as
general systems theory and
neoclassical political economy.
Organizational Theory
Decentralization is the policy of delegating decision-making authority throughout an organization, relatively away from a central authority. Some features of a decentralized organization are fewer tiers to the organizational structure, wider span of control, and a bottom-to-top flow of decision-effecting ideas.
The organizational structure of the United States Military is an example of a centralized organization. In that organization, many organization-effecting decisions are made by executive level officials or preset policies. These decisions or policies are then enforced by several tiers of the organization upon gradually broader spans of control until it reaches the bottom tier of soldiers or workers. However, theories for highly decentralized military organizations do exist, see for example
Ubiquitous command and control and
Network Centric Warfare.
In a more decentralized organization, the top executives delegate much of their decision-making authority to lower tiers of the organizational structure. As a correlation, the organization is likely to run on less rigid policies and wider spans of control among each officer of the organization. The wider spans of control also reduces the number of tiers within the organization, giving its structure a flat appearance. One advantage of this structure, if the correct controls are in place, will be the bottom-to-top flow of information, allowing all decisions among any official of the organization to be well informed about lower tier operations. For example, an experienced technician at the lowest tier of an organization might know how to increase the efficiency of the production, the bottom-to-top flow of information can allow for this knowledge to pass up to the executive officers.
Political theory
Karl Marx, in ''
Das Kapital'', observed that the historical progress of
economies from
feudalism to
capitalism was a classic example of decentralization. It relied correspondingly less on the authority of a "
nobility", and more on flexible systems of control of
capital—the markets themselves, which were relatively merciless in driving down the price of
labour as one of many
factors of production, or punishing poor
investment strategy—
English nobility could be impoverished by a single bad investment decision, which could not have happened under any feudal system.
Many, if not most,
political theorists believe there are limits to decentralization as a
strategy. They assert that any relaxation of direct control or authority introduces the possibility of
dissent or division at critical moments, especially if what is being decentralized is decision-making among human beings.
Friedrich Engels famously responded to
Bakunin, refuting the argument of total decentralization, or
anarchism, by scoffing "how these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without single management, they of course do not tell us".
However, some
anarchists have, in turn, responded to his argument, by explaining that they ''do'' support a (very limited) amount of centralization, in the form of freely elected and recallable delegates. More to the point from the majority of anarchist perspectives are the real-world successes of
anarchist communities, which for the majority only ended when they were defeated by the overwhelming
military might of the
State or neighboring States. All in all, we do not know what a truly decentralized society would look like over a long period of time since it has never been permitted to exist, however the
Zapatistas of
Mexico are proving to be quite resilient.
In "''
On Authority''", Engels also wrote of democratic workplaces that "particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the
mode of production,
distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote."
Modern
trade unions and
management scientists tend to side strongly with
Engels in this debate, and generally agree that decentralization is very closely related to
standardisation and
subordination, e.g. the
standard commodity contracts traded on the
commodity markets, in which disputes are resolved all according to a
jurisdiction and common regulatory system, within the frame of a larger
democratic electoral system which can restore any imbalances of power, and which generally retains the support of the population for its authority.
Notable exceptions among trade unions are the
Wobblies, and the strong
anarcho-syndicalist movement of
Spain. However, a strategy of decentralization is not always so obviously political, even if it relies implicitly on authority delegated via a political system. For example, engineering standards are a means by which decentralization of supply
inspection and
testing can be achieved—a manufacturer adhering to the standard can participate in decentralised systems of
bidding, e.g. in a parts market. A
building standard, for instance, permits the
building trades to train labour and building supply corporations to provide parts, which enables rapid construction of buildings at remote sites. Decentralization of training and inspection, through the standards themselves, and related schedules of
standardized testing and random spot inspection, achieves a very high
statistical reliability of service, i.e.
automobiles which rarely stall, cars which rarely leak, and the like.
In most cases, an effective decentralization strategy and correspondingly robust systems of
professional education,
vocational education, and
trade certification are critical to creating a modern industrial base. Such robust systems, and
commodity markets to accompany them, are a necessary but not sufficient feature of any
developed nation. A major goal of the industrial
strategy of any
developing nation is to safely decentralise decision-making so that central controls are unnecessary to achieving standards and
safety. It seems that a very high degree of
social capital is required to achieve trust in such standards and systems, and that
ethical codes play some significant roles in building up trust in the professions and in the trades.
The
consumer product markets,
industrial product markets, and
service markets that emerge in a mature industrial economy, however, still ultimately rely, like the simpler
commodity markets, on complex systems of
standardization,
regulation,
jurisdiction, transport, materials and energy supply. The
specification and comparison of these is a major focus of the study of
political economy. Political or other decision-making units typically must be large and leveraged enough for
economy of scale, but also small enough that centralised authority does not become unaccountable to those performing trades or transactions at its perimeter. Large states, as
Benjamin Franklin observed, were prone to becoming
tyrannies, while small states, correspondingly, tended to become
corrupt.
Finding the appropriate size of political states or other decision-making units, determining their optimal relationship to
social capital and to
infrastructural capital, is a major focus of
political science. In
management science there are studies of the ideal size of corporations, and some in
anthropology and
sociology study the ideal size of villages. Dennis Fox, a retired professor of legal studies and psychology, proposed an ideal village size of approximately 150 people in his 1985 paper about the relationship of anarchism to the
tragedy of the commons.
All these fields recognize some factors that encourage centralised authority and other factors that encourage decentralised "democracy"—balances between which are the major focus of
group dynamics. However, decentralization is not only a feature of human society. It is also a feature of
ecology.
Another objection or limit to political decentralization, similar in structure to that of Engels, is that
terrestrial ecoregions impose a certain
fiat by their natural water-circulation, soil, and plant and animal
biodiversity which constitutes a form of (what the
United Nations calls) "
natural capital". Since these natural living systems can be neither changed nor replaced by man, some argue that an
ecoregional democracy which follows their borders strictly is the only form of decentralization of larger political units that will not lead to endless conflict, e.g.
gerrymandering, in struggle between
social groups.
Other similar terms include 'devolution, deconcentration and delegation'.
Decentralization in History
Decentralization and centralization are themes that have played major roles in the history of many societies. An excellent example is the gradual political and organizational changes that have occurred in European history. During the rise and fall of the
Roman Empire,
Europe went through major centralization and decentralization. Although the leaders of the Roman Empire created a European
infrastructure, the fall of the Empire left Europe without a strong political system or military protection.
Viking and other
barbarian attacks further led rich Romans to build up their
latifundia, or large estates, in a way that would protect their families and create a self-sufficient living place. This development led to the growth of the
manorial system in Europe. This system was greatly decentralized, as the lords of the manor had power to defend and control the small agricultural environment that was their manor. The manors of the early
Middle Ages slowly came together as lords took oaths of fielty to other lords in order to have even stronger defense against other manors and barbarian groups. This
feudal system was also greatly decentralized, and the kings of weak "countries" did not hold much significant power over the nobility. Although some view the
Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages as a centralizing factor, it played a strong role in weakening the power of the
secular kings, which gave the nobility more power. As the Middle Ages wore on, corruption in the church and new political ideas began to slowly stregthen the secular powers and bring together the extremely decentralized society. This centralization continued through the
Renaissance and has been changed and reformed until our present centralized system which has an excellent balance between central government and decentral balance of power. The Roman Empire and the Middle Ages demonstrate the problems with both radical decentralization and centralization, further proving the importance of centralized
nation-states with decentral representation.
Links
Decentralization in the Philippines
[1], The determinants of Fiscal Decentralization
[2]
See also
★
Anarchism
★
Centralization
★
Federalism
★
Empowerment
★
Group dynamics
★
Peer-to-peer
★
Political economy
★
Self-ownership
★
Methodological individualism
العربية
ä¸å›½
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€
Italiano
日本語
Português
РуÑÑкий
Español
