Pattern #40
Pattern Card
Click to enlarge or download Pattern Card.
Buy or Download
To buy or download the complete Wise Democracy Card Deck use the Buy & Download button.
Comments
We invite your participation in evolving this pattern language with us. Use the comment section at the bottom of this page to comment on its contents or to share related ideas and resources.
Glocal Subsidiarity
Glocal Subsidiarity
Credits: Planet: maxstockphoto – Shutterstock / Graph: Martin Rausch inspired by The Role of Government and Subsidsiarity
Pattern Heart
Governance functions are best performed by those closest to the realm being managed, keeping in mind the scope of that realm and its interdependence with broader and narrower realms. So promote governance functions being done at the smallest scale—from personal or local to global—where they can best serve the life of all.
Some related patterns: 16 Consent 46 Inclusive Stakeholder Governance 52 Microcosms and Populations 57 Nature First 68 Prudent Use of Power- Over 77 Self-Organization Fostered 81 Synergy Between Part and Whole
Glocal Subsidiarity – going deeper …
This is an edited version of the video on this page.
As the pattern states, “Subsidiarity is governance functions placed at the lowest scale where they can best be carried out.” So there is a bias in subsidiarity towards decentralization.
I think the concept of subsidiarity arose – or at least spread in political theory – with the creation of the European Union. There are many people questioning how well it has been applied there. Subsidiarity is of course implicit in the concept of a federal system like the United States, where we have a bunch of states and there are lots of states rights – and local powers and personal rights that are not given to the states but are kept by local governments and citizens.
The concept of subsidiarity is not clear about exactly how you’re supposed to apply it, but it does a create a principle to use as a measuring stick to strive for.
Nowadays there are more and more issues that need to be dealt with at a global level – like managing the atmosphere and the ocean. It’s obvious that you can’t leave control of the ocean to local authorities. That’s proven to be a disaster – and most of the ocean is not local to any particular place.
But we don’t have the capacity for true global governance, and we don’t particularly have the capacity for truly democratic – to say nothing of wise democratic – global governance. So this is a very controversial realm, but the idea is still valid.
Consider, for example, who should decide what you’re going to be studying as a student. When you are a young child, there should be a lot influence by your parents. And when you’re going to college the choices should be heavily influenced by you. But a society can say “Well, if you study these things, we’re willing to pay you more when you get a job“. In terms of dictating what you study, I personally think that should mostly be a personal decision. But at many ages and in many ways, an individual lacks certain perspective. That’s why they are getting educated, after all. So other people who have more perspective should probably have a say in it.
That’s just a superficial example of the kind of thinking we’re dealing with when we try to apply subsidiarity. We’re trying to figure out who is closest to the actual handling of this issue, whatever it is. There’s an assumption that whoever is closest to it, is probably going to be best at managing it. But then there’s the question of who else is involved and you need to engage them too. The more people who are involved, the more scope is probably involved.
This is complex, but if you can do this well, it is an important part of a wise democracy. The closer you create the systems to the people who are actually engaged in those systems the more rich and speedy the feedback loops will be. These feedback loops allow for collective learning and moderate abuses of power and if you’re including everybody who is actually involved, then you can include all their perspectives and the area in question gets managed well.
Consider human rights: Is that something that you would leave to the local level? If so, can any local community have slavery? That would mean that some communities could decide they want slavery and deprive some of the people in their midst of being able to participate. So if you are trying to develop collective wisdom, you are going to say NO to this. We would tend to want human rights managed at the national or international level because it is such an important aspect of becoming a wise democracy.
So that’s the idea of subsidiary. I like its bias towards the zone or scale where a function can be best handled, understanding that small is better as a general principle, but knowing that often you can get too small in your governance, too local, too personal in order to have wisdom applied. There are lots of other people who are being impacted by your decisions when you are doing personal and local decisions, and their voices need to be included also if the decision is to actually be wise.
Video Introduction (10 min)
Examples and Resources
- General articles
Link-p2pfoundation
Link-Wikipedia - In Catholic Social Teaching
Link-Catholicmoraltheology
Link-Wikipedia - In European Union law
Link-Wikipedia - “Think Globally, Act Locally”
Link-Wikipedia - Subsidarity in a Global Democratic Vision
Link -
Libertarian Municipalism
Link-Debby Bookchin, - Where am I a local?
Link – Video and transcript - Healthy Cities
Link - Why Care about the Future of Governance?
Link - Which country does the most good for the world?
Link- video - Permaculture Pattern Language – pp. 23-26, 35-38
Link-book - Citizen Action Networks
Link-video
There is a saying from the green movement “think globally, act locally“ link. Some people reverse it – “think locally, act globally” – and some people created the term “glocal“ to embrace both scales simultaneously. We might ask, for example, “How is a particular farming practice impacting the larger world – and how does what’s going in the larger world impact the local farming?”
But subsidiarity is a more differentiated and complex concept. It teases out more levels and dimensions of what the Greens are trying to achieve with their word “glocal”. Subsidiarity allows for more in-between-ness – more levels and scales than just local and global, and clarifying the best roles of each and the most functional relationships between them. We can explore what functions are appropriately the responsibility of global or international governance, national governance, regional governance, bioregional governance, state governance, local community governance, neighborhood governance, family governance, and personal self-governance.
But subsidiarity could even be applied to networks of people, crossing over all those nested scales. It is like the governance of the Web. ICANN and the other Web-governing institutions are neither local nor global. The question in that case is “In what areas should we have experts and government officials governing the Web and in what areas should we have users governing it?” In a way that’s another question of the scale at which management is best carried out.
The same principle applies in business networks. When businesses are trying to decide on something, they need to consider their suppliers and their customers (who may be retailers or final users, depending on the business). What should their roles be? And then there are future generations – what is their proper role in managing a business – or a society?
Whatever you’re doing, there’s a way in which subsidiarity is a governance principle that deals with stakeholders. Who are the stakeholders – the people with an interest, the people and groups who will be affected – and what role should the different stakeholders have in deciding what’s going on in a particular realm at a particular scale of space, time, or management?
I choose this card since its meaning was not clear from the title. Once I read the description, several thoughts came to mind. One was the oft-quoted slogan: Act locally, think globally. Another thought was about “the power of the people – the importance of individuals creating and implementing solutions for themselves and their communities”. I am pondering how these ideas connect with glocal subsidiarity. Then, I read Andy and Tom’s comments and resonated with much of what each of you wrote. Andy, I agree that glocal subsidiarity is complex and challenging. I find the name of the principle daunting! Only after I read Tom’s comments and researched online, did t start to grasp the meaning; and realized that the principle may be easier to understand than I thought. What I really liked from Tom’s comments was the statement: “The essential insight underlying the kind of subsidiarity I’m describing is that certain functions are BEST done – or MOST APPROPRIATE to – particular scales of governance and action.” I think the conversation is occurring, for example, the government health system in Alberta Canada has gone through various centralization and decentralization processes, and now seems to base its structure on determining which functions are best carried out by which levels. As another example, I am currently working with individuals from the governance levels of a municipality and an Indigenous community. After co-creating visionary statements and principles related to truth and reconciliation, they are now considering whether they are the most appropriate people to implement the vision. It’s an interesting conversation and I think I may be able to share the concept of glocal subsidiarity with them.
Really good examples, Barbara! Thank you! It looks like you’ve got it. Often people stumble into this pattern (if not its name!!) while just trying to do a good job of sorting out functions. Knowing the pattern ahead of time CAN (if it is used responsively and not rotely) speed the process and help systems become more adaptable (i.e., if a function is assigned to a particular level, we can notice when and how it doesn’t work so well there and try a different level, perhaps even breaking it into functions that happen at different levels).
Although the term “subsidiarity” is in fairly wide use (especially in the EU) and the term “glocal” is starting to be used more (yes, in the context of “thinking globally and acting locally” – and vice versa!!), I don’t know anyone else who has combined the two terms into one, which seems to me quite natural and useful. Exploring the related patterns on this page may help nuance the concept and your understanding of it….
Thanks for the clarification Tom. I think I see it more clearly now although I do find this topic a difficult one to get my head around. I’m not aware of any conversations “about WHICH ASPECTS/FUNCTIONS/ACTIONS are most appropriately addressed at which different levels of governance.” I agree this pattern would definitely benefit from real examples. I imagine these are the kinds of conversations taking place all the time in corporations and in government. It’s such a complex subject.
The idea of subsidiarity is interesting and does feel very complex. Right now in my own country (Britain) this issue is the heart of the debate around Brexit. The Leavers argument is of “taking back control” from the EU vs whilst many Remainers argue that the level of power given to the EU was appropriate and not excessive.
This was also a hot topic in a discussion I was having with climate change activists recently. There was a proposal to run national deliberative conversations all over the country and that a centralised group would collate all of the info to create the nationwide “answers” emerging from those discussions. Some felt this was a good idea whilst others felt it would create a one size fits all response that may be appropriate say in London but not in Glasgow.
Richard Bartlett of Enspiral has a good twitter thread on decentralisation. It starts with this “I believe the best org structure is a local bespoke design. Global abstractions are intoxicating and sense-killing
e.g. see how badly people implement #agile princples and miss the point by miles” See the whole thread here https://twitter.com/RichDecibels/status/1165967362169942018
The kinds of conversation you mention, Andy, demonstrate people’s lack of understanding regarding Subsidiarity, especially Glocal Subsidiarity. Although the principle is (theoretically) biased towards decentralization and localization, it is not the same as localization or centralization. The essential insight underlying the kind of subsidiarity I’m describing is that certain functions are BEST done – or MOST APPROPRIATE to – particular scales of governance and action. Arguing for or against localization regarding broad issues (like Brexit/EU and climate recommendations) misses the point that SOME aspects of these issues are best addressed at local levels and other aspects are best addressed at national or global levels. The conversation shouldn’t be between polarized generalities but should be about WHICH ASPECTS/FUNCTIONS/ACTIONS are most appropriately addressed at which different levels of governance. Do you see THAT conversation happening anywhere? If so, post links we can post them as examples of applying this pattern.