This post is a bit lengthier than my usual ones, but I believe it's important to delve into this topic as part of a brief series on "localism" and its merits. Let's start with a quote from Natanael Rother, A Swiss Research Fellow specialising in and advocating for the concept of "localism", based on the Swiss model.
He states: In recent years, the concept of localism has gained traction as a means of decentralizing governance and empowering communities to take charge of their own affairs. Proponents argue that by devolving responsibilities to local authorities, services such as education can be delivered more efficiently and responsively. However, amidst the enthusiasm for local empowerment lies a cautionary tale: the perilous path of shared responsibility. Rother agrees with localism but he points to a pitfall which needs to be addressed, to achieve a localism that works. Make sure you don’t create shared responsibilities
So what does he mean by Shared Responsibility?
At its core, shared responsibility entails a collaborative effort between different levels of government (National and Regional or other) to fund and administer public services.
A Warning In theory, this arrangement aims to alleviate the burden on individual localities while fostering cooperation and resource pooling. Yet, as with many well-intentioned policies, the reality often diverges from the ideal.
One of the primary pitfalls of shared responsibility lies in its susceptibility to inefficiency and "political manipulation". It's cumbersome and full of temptation to self or other interests. Rather than streamlining decision-making processes, the involvement of multiple government stakeholders introduces layers of bureaucracy and notably, competing interests.
Divergent Agendas
Each level of government seeks to advance its agenda, leading to a fragmented policy landscape rife with conflicts and compromises. Rother aptly points out that shared responsibilities often serve as breeding grounds for "rent-seeking" behaviour among political actors. (rent-seeking is explained below).
This is NOT Good
Instead of prioritizing the common good, officials may engage in strategic manoeuvring to minimize their financial contributions while maximizing their influence. This undermines the integrity of governance, as decisions become mired in partisan squabbles and short-term expediency, rather than long-term sustainability.
Diluted Accountability
Moreover, the very premise of shared responsibility perpetuates a culture of moral hazard, where accountability is diluted and incentives are misaligned.
Leading to Complacency When neither party bears the full weight of their choices, there is little impetus for prudent decision-making or fiscal discipline. Instead, the risk is diffused across multiple actors, fostering a sense of complacency and irresponsibility. It is crucial to recognize that while collaboration is essential in governance, it must be guided by principles of transparency, accountability, and subsidiarity.
Let's go for True Empowerment, Bottom-Up
Rather than merely shifting burdens between levels of government, true empowerment entails equipping local communities with the autonomy and resources necessary to chart their own course. This requires a rethinking of the traditional top-down approach to governance, in favour of a more bottom-up, participatory model. In conclusion, the warning against shared responsibility in localism serves as a sobering reminder of the perils inherent in well-intentioned policies.
While the idea of spreading the load may seem appealing, it often leads to unintended consequences that undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve. To truly unleash the potential of local empowerment, we must heed the call for greater accountability, efficiency, and integrity in our governance structures. Only then can we realize the promise of a more responsive, resilient, and equitable society.
Explanation of Rent-Seeking Behaviour
What does Rother mean by rent-seeking behaviour? Rent-seeking behaviour refers to the actions of individuals or groups who attempt to obtain economic benefits or privileges through the manipulation of the political or social system, rather than by creating new wealth or contributing to society in a productive way. In essence, rent-seeking involves seeking to secure a larger share of existing wealth or resources without creating additional value.
The term "rent" in this context does not refer to payments made for the use of property, as in the case of renting an apartment or a car. Instead, it originates from classical economics, where it denotes income derived from ownership or control over scarce resources, often referred to as economic rents.
These rents can arise from various sources, such as government regulations, monopolies, or special privileges granted by the state. Rent-seeking behaviour typically involves activities such as lobbying for favourable regulations, seeking subsidies or tariffs to protect domestic industries from competition, or capturing government contracts through bribery or collusion. These actions divert resources away from productive activities and can lead to inefficiencies in the allocation of resources, reduced competition, and overall economic distortion.
What about in the Political Arena? In political contexts, rent-seeking behaviour can also manifest as attempts to influence policy decisions or gain access to government resources for personal gain, rather than for the public good. This can include efforts to secure government contracts, subsidies, or favourable tax treatment through political connections or corruption. Overall, rent-seeking behaviour is detrimental to economic efficiency and societal welfare, as it leads to the misallocation of resources, stifles competition, and undermines the integrity of public institutions. Efforts to combat rent-seeking often focus on promoting transparency, accountability, and fair competition in both economic and political spheres.
In the world of politics, rent-seeking happens when politicians focus more on getting benefits for themselves or their group rather than doing what's best for everyone. So instead of working together to make things better for everyone, they're trying to get the most for themselves while doing as little as possible. And that's not what politicians are supposed to do. It's like if your team in a game only cared about winning for themselves, even if it meant cheating or making things harder for others. It's not fair, and it's not what we should expect from our leaders.
Explanation of "Shared Responsibility"
So, imagine you and your friends need to buy a pizza together. You all agree to chip in some money to make it easier for everyone. But, what if some friends start saying they don't want to pay as much, and they want more say in what toppings we get? That's what Rother is talking about with shared responsibilities in localism. Rother is saying that when different levels of government share the responsibility for things like education or healthcare, it can actually make things messy and inefficient.
Politicians might try to pay as little as possible and still have a big say in how things are run. This is called "rent-seeking," which is basically when people try to get benefits for themselves without adding any real value.
So, the warning here is that sharing responsibilities might sound good, but it can lead to problems where nobody takes full responsibility, and politicians start focusing more on their own gain rather than what's best for everyone. #DirectDemocracy
This article could be read with my previous one with the title "Localism in Practice" Achieving Equitable Prosperity though Decentralisation #DirectDemocracy
Comments