It's Time to Bring Decision-Making Down to the Local Level
This is Part 1 of a two-part article from Strong Towns member and longtime contributor Alexander Dukes. Read part 2 here.
We in the United States like to think of ourselves as the greatest democracy in the world. Yet most Americans only participate in governmental decision-making every two or four years. Americans are constantly complaining about decisions being “made in Washington” and about “corrupt” politicians. We spend more time bashing our democracy rather than taking part in it to make our communities better.
Think about it. When was the last time you really participated in a public meeting? Not one where you got up and spoke, but were directly involved in helping to craft a policy in your community? Considering the audience for this article I may be preaching to some of the most involved Strong Citizens in the country, but I imagine most American have never been involved in making any of their local decisions besides going to the ballot box. I believe democracy takes more than this. In a healthy democracy, citizens are at the table with their leaders floating ideas, discussing alternatives, and making decisions together.
I imagine this lack of participation derives from the fact most Americans see government as being distant, dictatorial, and inflexible. Public meetings are rarely held or advertised in such a way that makes them convenient for the public to attend. And when local governments do hold meetings, the public is rarely involved in the decision-making process. Sometimes the decision has already been made. Other times there either is not enough money to fund a decision at the local level, and state and federal grant rules constrain the municipality’s ability to make decisions.
To increase faith in our democracy we must make local decision-making more accessible and meaningful to everyday people. This means lowering decision-making authority to the neighborhood level. This means recognizing that local municipal governments (cities and counties) are the easiest level of governance for the average citizen to interact with. This means allowing municipal governments to raise funds and make their decisions on their own terms. And it means establishing clear lines of communication between municipal, state, and federal governments to keep everyone “in their lane” and working cooperatively.
The Theory of Subsidiarity
This article seeks to solve the problem of a distant, dictatorial, and inflexible government by employing the theory of subsidiarity. In subsidiarity theory, decisions in the government are made at the most local level possible. When decision-making is drawn closer to the people we gain a government that is responsive and adaptive without being overbearing or aloof.
To understand how the concept of subsidiarity can be applied to government remember these two countervailing rules:
If the reasonable externalities of a decision can be confined to the jurisdiction of a lower governance level, the decision must be delegated to a lower level until the reasonable externalities are confined to a single jurisdiction.
If the reasonable externalities of a decision exceed the jurisdiction of a governance level, the decision must be elevated to a higher level until the reasonable externalities are confined to a single jurisdiction.
A “reasonable externality” can be understood to be a consequence of a decision that a reasonable person would be concerned about. For example, if a neighborhood decided to allow gardens on the front lawns of its homes, a reasonable person in an adjacent neighborhood that bans these front lawn gardens wouldn’t care because there were no externalities resulting from this decision that affect him. On the other hand, if an adjacent neighborhood decided to repeal noise ordinances and allow rambunctious parties to proceed at all hours of the night, there would likely be some irritating externalities for our reasonable person to complain about. In fact, our reasonable person could complain to the city council and ask them to impose a noise ordinance. The city would be justified in obliging our reasonable person because the externalities of one neighborhood’s decision are impacting another neighborhood.
As we can see from the noise ordinance example, the subsidiarity concept allows decisions to be elevated when externalities infringe on other jurisdictions. Because the neighborhoods are at the same level of governance, the city must act as the arbiter between them to settle complaints. Similarly, if a city sought to dam a river—and in doing so reduced the amount of water cities downstream received, the state would be justified in vetoing the construction of the dam. However, subsidiarity would not justify a state establishing a tax limit for a city, as the chosen tax rate in a city does not generally affect residents outside of that city. Subsidiarity essentially tells each level of government to “stay in your lane.”
Governments throughout America should adopt this “stay in your lane” ethos by trusting the most local government to make decisions for itself, so long as those decisions do not infringe on other peer governments.
To properly apply subsidiarity throughout the American system we need to understand how the different levels of governance in America operate and interact with one another. Let’s take a look at how the American system of governance works from the neighborhood level to the federal level.
Governance in America
Governance in the United States is split between three major categories: local municipal governments, state governments, and the federal government. Municipal governments are created by the state they are within, and municipalities derive their powers (or lack thereof) from their state. The states of “The United States” are independent governments that are bound together as a single country under the United States Constitution. The only instance the constitution limits state power is by delegating some specific powers to the federal government. These constitutional powers enable the U.S. Federal Government to act as the government that binds the country together by supporting development and ensuring basic rule of law throughout the nation.
Broadly, there are basically seven identifiable levels of government (or quasi-government) jurisdictions in the United States. There may be more or fewer levels of government depending on where you live (this is not intended to be an exhaustive list). These levels of government are listed below and are grouped into the governance categories they are most related to.
I. Municipal Government Category
The Neighborhood
The Ward/District
The City/Township
The County
II. The State Government Category
The Regional Commission
The State
III. The Federal Government Category
Federal Government
Note that neighborhoods, wards, cities, and counties are all municipal forms of government. Because the U.S. constitution does not recognize municipalities as a form of government, municipalities must be incorporated by the states. This means the state grants them all their governing powers, and at any time states may also choose to withdraw municipalities’ powers. State laws concerning municipal governance will have to change for America to embrace subsidiarity. While the federal government’s development programs should be reformed to better support subsidiarity, the states are where subsidiarity theory must be embraced to empower municipal governments and their citizens.
To understand more precisely what needs to change across American governance to make it more local and accessible, let’s use the chart below to examine the relationships between the various levels of government and the people.
As you can see from the chart the average American does not typically receive authoritative representation until we get to the city or county level. Most people do not have a neighborhood or ward level body to represent their interests unless they are part of a homeowner’s association. Unfortunately, this means the only obvious venue for issues to get solved in a city is through its council. While city councilors or county commissioners do represent wards and districts, their authority is diluted amongst the larger city council or county commission. If the issue at hand is unique to only one ward or neighborhood in the municipality, municipal representatives may not see the issue as being relevant to council business. It is better for neighborhoods to develop neighborhood solutions for neighborhood problems and let city councils and county commissions stick to issues that affect the broader municipality.
Image via Christina Morillo on Pexels.
States conflict with subsidiarity theory because they interfere with municipalities’ authority to make decisions on issues that do not concern the state. Taxes are of the most important examples related to this state municipal meddling. Allowing cities and counties to raise taxes at will frees them to take on challenges and opportunities without incurring longterm debt. Using tax hikes to pay for projects is preferable to using debt because the municipality can directly control tax rates at any given moment. Debts are controlled by a lender under the assumption the city will have the funds to pay the debt in the future. In fact, I would argue (as Charles Mahron does) that states should be more concerned about limiting municipal debt loads than tax rates. When a city goes bankrupt the fallout can depress a regional economy or even the whole state, thus creating a clear negative externality outside they city’s jurisdiction. Such negative externalities are a valid concern in subsidiarity theory. Contrast this to a scenario where a city raises taxes too high: When a city’s taxes are too high, residents handle the issue internally by voting out the city’s politicians.
Regional commissions generally violate subsidiarity theory through their representative makeup. Depending on the state, the boards of regional commissions may be appointed by the governor. These political appointees are often disconnected from the people they serve because they were never elected by people in the region. Political appointees often make decisions without taking into account constituents’ perspectives. Regional commissions should be composed of people who are elected to their position by the people of their jurisdiction.
Finally, the federal government’s difficulty with subsidiarity theory is that much of the support it provides to municipalities and states is too constraining. For example, much of the aid the federal government provides to states and municipalities for transportation is specifically allocated to either road maintenance or new road construction. As Strong Towns has made clear, we don’t need new roads, we need to maintain the roads we have. Allowing the states to shift funding between new road construction and maintenance at will (or fund better priorities like bike lanes, bus routes, and pedestrian paths) would enable states to develop the road funding strategy that is right for them. This also applies to a myriad of other federally funded programs like public housing and environmental protection. It would be better for the federal government to grant states and municipalities broad authority on how they use their federal funding.
These problems with status quo governance in America add up to a system that hampers the will of the people at the municipal level and encourages overbearing programmatic solutions at the state and federal levels. Fixing these problems will require a series of reforms that provide citizens with better access to municipal government, a clear means for ideas to travel up and down the governance system, and granting municipalities the power to independently make their decisions. In Part 2 tomorrow, I will propose several such reforms.
About the Author
Rik Adamski is the founder of a planning firm that strives to help cities create thriving places by drawing on the wisdom of the past. He joins this episode of The Bottom-Up Revolution to discuss his approach to planning and the challenges of implementing a new planning approach in cities.