text:
Decentralization

Decentralization or decentralisation is the process by which the activities of an organization, particularly those regarding planning and decision-making, are distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group and given to smaller factions within it.

Concepts of decentralization have been applied to group dynamics and management science in private businesses and organizations, political science, law and public administration, technology, economics and money.

History
The word "centralisation" came into use in France in 1794 as the post-Revolution French Directory leadership created a new government structure. The word "décentralisation" came into usage in the 1820s. "Centralization" entered written English in the first third of the 1800s; mentions of decentralization also first appear during those years. In the mid-1800s Tocqueville would write that the French Revolution began with "a push towards decentralization" but became, "in the end, an extension of centralization." In 1863, retired French bureaucrat Maurice Block wrote an article called "Decentralization" for a French journal that reviewed the dynamics of government and bureaucratic centralization and recent French efforts at decentralization of government functions.

Ideas of liberty and decentralization were carried to their logical conclusions during the 19th and 20th centuries by anti-state political activists calling themselves "anarchists", "libertarians", and even decentralists. Tocqueville was an advocate, writing: "Decentralization has, not only an administrative value but also a civic dimension since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom. And from the accumulation of these local, active, persnickety freedoms, is born the most efficient counterweight against the claims of the central government, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865), influential anarchist theorist wrote: "All my economic ideas as developed over twenty-five years can be summed up in the words: agricultural-industrial federation. All my political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political federation or decentralization."

In the early 20th century, America's response to the centralization of economic wealth and political power was a decentralist movement. It blamed large-scale industrial production for destroying middle-class shop keepers and small manufacturers and promoted increased property ownership and a return to small scale living. The decentralist movement attracted Southern Agrarians like Robert Penn Warren, as well as journalist Herbert Agar. New Left and libertarian individuals who identified with social, economic, and often political decentralism through the ensuing years included Ralph Borsodi, Wendell Berry, Paul Goodman, Carl Oglesby, Karl Hess, Donald Livingston, Kirkpatrick Sale (author of Human Scale), Murray Bookchin, Dorothy Day, Senator Mark O. Hatfield, Mildred J. Loomis and Bill Kauffman.

Leopold Kohr, author of the 1957 book The Breakdown of Nations – known for its statement "Whenever something is wrong, something is too big" – was a major influence on E. F. Schumacher, author of the 1973 bestseller Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered. In the next few years a number of best-selling books promoted decentralization.

Daniel Bell's The Coming of Post-Industrial Society discussed the need for decentralization and a "comprehensive overhaul of government structure to find the appropriate size and scope of units", as well as the need to detach functions from current state boundaries, creating regions based on functions like water, transport, education and economics which might have "different 'overlays' on the map." Alvin Toffler published Future Shock (1970) and The Third Wave (1980). Discussing the books in a later interview, Toffler said that industrial-style, centralized, top-down bureaucratic planning would be replaced by a more open, democratic, decentralized style which he called "anticipatory democracy". Futurist John Naisbitt's 1982 book "Megatrends" was on The New York Times Best Seller list for more than two years and sold 14 million copies. Naisbitt's book outlines 10 "megatrends", the fifth of which is from centralization to decentralization. In 1996 David Osborne and Ted Gaebler had a best selling book Reinventing Government proposing decentralist public administration theories which became labeled the "New Public Management".

Stephen Cummings wrote that decentralization became a "revolutionary megatrend" in the 1980s. In 1983 Diana Conyers asked if decentralization was the "latest fashion" in development administration. Cornell University's project on Restructuring Local Government states that decentralization refers to the "global trend" of devolving responsibilities to regional or local governments. Robert J. Bennett's Decentralization, Intergovernmental Relations and Markets: Towards a Post-Welfare Agenda describes how after World War II governments pursued a centralized "welfarist" policy of entitlements which now has become a "post-welfare" policy of intergovernmental and market-based decentralization.

In 1983, "Decentralization" was identified as one of the "Ten Key Values" of the Green Movement in the United States.

A 1999 United Nations Development Programme report stated: "'A large number of developing and transitional countries have embarked on some form of decentralization programmes. This trend is coupled with a growing interest in the role of civil society and the private sector as partners to governments in seeking new ways of service delivery ... Decentralization of governance and the strengthening of local governing capacity is in part also a function of broader societal trends. These include, for example, the growing distrust of government generally, the spectacular demise of some of the most centralized regimes in the world (especially the Soviet Union) and the emerging separatist demands that seem to routinely pop up in one or another part of the world. The movement toward local accountability and greater control over one's destiny is, however, not solely the result of the negative attitude towards central government. Rather, these developments, as we have already noted, are principally being driven by a strong desire for greater participation of citizens and private sector organizations in governance.'"

Systems approach
Those studying the goals and processes of implementing decentralization often use a systems theory approach, which according to the United Nations Development Programme report applies to the topic of decentralization "a whole systems perspective, including levels, spheres, sectors and functions and seeing the community level as the entry point at which holistic definitions of development goals are from the people themselves and where it is most practical to support them. It involves seeing multi-level frameworks and continuous, synergistic processes of interaction and iteration of cycles as critical for achieving wholeness in a decentralized system and for sustaining its development."

However, it has been seen as part of a systems approach. Norman Johnson of Los Alamos National Laboratory wrote in a 1999 paper: "A decentralized system is where some decisions by the agents are made without centralized control or processing. An important property of agent systems is the degree of connectivity or connectedness between the agents, a measure global flow of information or influence. If each agent is connected (exchange states or influence) to all other agents, then the system is highly connected."

University of California, Irvine's Institute for Software Research's "PACE" project is creating an "architectural style for trust management in decentralized applications." It adopted Rohit Khare's definition of decentralization: "A decentralized system is one which requires multiple parties to make their own independent decisions" and applies it to Peer-to-peer software creation, writing: "In such a decentralized system, there is no single centralized authority that makes decisions on behalf of all the parties. Instead each party, also called a peer, makes local autonomous decisions towards its individual goals which may possibly conflict with those of other peers. Peers directly interact with each other and share information or provide service to other peers. An open decentralized system is one in which the entry of peers is not regulated. Any peer can enter or leave the system at any time ..."

Goals
Decentralization in any area is a response to the problems of centralized systems. Decentralization in government, the topic most studied, has been seen as a solution to problems like economic decline, government inability to fund services and their general decline in performance of overloaded services, the demands of minorities for a greater say in local governance, the general weakening legitimacy of the public sector and global and international pressure on countries with inefficient, undemocratic, overly centralized systems. The following four goals or objectives are frequently stated in various analyses of decentralization.

 * Participation

In decentralization, the principle of subsidiarity is often invoked. It holds that the lowest or least centralized authority that is capable of addressing an issue effectively should do so. According to one definition: "Decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers to the restructuring or reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of governance while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels."

Decentralization is often linked to concepts of participation in decision-making, democracy, equality and liberty from a higher authority. Decentralization enhances the democratic voice. Theorists believe that local representative authorities with actual discretionary powers are the basis of decentralization that can lead to local efficiency, equity and development." Columbia University's Earth Institute identified one of three major trends relating to decentralization: "increased involvement of local jurisdictions and civil society in the management of their affairs, with new forms of participation, consultation, and partnerships."

Decentralization has been described as a "counterpoint to globalization [which] removes decisions from the local and national stage to the global sphere of multi-national or non-national interests. Decentralization brings decision-making back to the sub-national levels". Decentralization strategies must account for the interrelations of global, regional, national, sub-national, and local levels.

Norman L. Johnson writes that diversity plays an important role in decentralized systems like ecosystems, social groups, large organizations, political systems. "Diversity is defined to be unique properties of entities, agents, or individuals that are not shared by the larger group, population, structure. Decentralized is defined as a property of a system where the agents have some ability to operate "locally." Both decentralization and diversity are necessary attributes to achieve the self-organizing properties of interest."
 * Diversity

Advocates of political decentralization hold that greater participation by better informed diverse interests in society will lead to more relevant decisions than those made only by authorities on the national level. Decentralization has been described as a response to demands for diversity.

In business, decentralization leads to a management by results philosophy which focuses on definite objectives to be achieved by unit results. Decentralization of government programs is said to increase efficiency – and effectiveness – due to reduction of congestion in communications, quicker reaction to unanticipated problems, improved ability to deliver services, improved information about local conditions, and more support from beneficiaries of programs.
 * Efficiency

Firms may prefer decentralization because it ensures efficiency by making sure that managers closest to the local information make decisions and in a more timely fashion; that their taking responsibility frees upper management for long term strategics rather than day-to-day decision-making; that managers have hands on training to prepare them to move up the management hierarchy; that managers are motivated by having the freedom to exercise their own initiative and creativity; that managers and divisions are encouraged to prove that they are profitable, instead of allowing their failures to be masked by the overall profitability of the company.

The same principles can be applied to the government. Decentralization promises to enhance efficiency through both inter-governmental competitions with market features and fiscal discipline which assigns tax and expenditure authority to the lowest level of government possible. It works best where members of the subnational government have strong traditions of democracy, accountability, and professionalism.

Economic and/or political decentralization can help prevent or reduce conflict because they reduce actual or perceived inequities between various regions or between a region and the central government. Dawn Brancati finds that political decentralization reduces intrastate conflict unless politicians create political parties that mobilize minority and even extremist groups to demand more resources and power within national governments. However, the likelihood this will be done depends on factors like how democratic transitions happen and features like a regional party's proportion of legislative seats, a country's number of regional legislatures, elector procedures, and the order in which national and regional elections occur. Brancati holds that decentralization can promote peace if it encourages statewide parties to incorporate regional demands and limit the power of regional parties.
 * Conflict resolution

Processes
The processes by which entities move from a more to a less centralized state vary. They can be initiated from the centers of authority ("top-down") or from individuals, localities or regions ("bottom-up"), or from a "mutually desired" combination of authorities and localities working together. Bottom-up decentralization usually stresses political values like local responsiveness and increased participation and tends to increase political stability. Top-down decentralization may be motivated by the desire to "shift deficits downwards" and find more resources to pay for services or pay off government debt. Some hold that decentralization should not be imposed, but done in a respectful manner.
 * Initiation

Gauging the appropriate size or scale of decentralized units has been studied in relation to the size of sub-units of hospitals and schools, road networks, administrative units in business and public administration, and especially town and city governmental areas and decision-making bodies.
 * Appropriate size

In creating planned communities ("new towns"), it is important to determine the appropriate population and geographical size. While in earlier years small towns were considered appropriate, by the 1960s, 60,000 inhabitants was considered the size necessary to support a diversified job market and an adequate shopping center and array of services and entertainment. Appropriate size of governmental units for revenue raising also is a consideration.

Even in bioregionalism, which seeks to reorder many functions and even the boundaries of governments according to physical and environmental features, including watershed boundaries and soil and terrain characteristics, appropriate size must be considered. The unit may be larger than many decentralist-bioregionalists prefer.

Decentralization ideally happens as a careful, rational, and orderly process, but it often takes place during times of economic and political crisis, the fall of a regime and the resultant power struggles. Even when it happens slowly, there is a need for experimentation, testing, adjusting, and replicating successful experiments in other contexts. There is no one blueprint for decentralization since it depends on the initial state of a country and the power and views of political interests and whether they support or oppose decentralization.
 * Inadvertent or silent

Decentralization usually is a conscious process based on explicit policies. However, it may occur as "silent decentralization" in the absence of reforms as changes in networks, policy emphasize and resource availability lead inevitably to a more decentralized system.

Decentralization may be uneven and "asymmetric" given any one country's population, political, ethnic and other forms of diversity. In many countries, political, economic and administrative responsibilities may be decentralized to the larger urban areas, while rural areas are administered by the central government. Decentralization of responsibilities to provinces may be limited only to those provinces or states which want or are capable of handling responsibility. Some privatization may be more appropriate to an urban than a rural area; some types of privatization may be more appropriate for some states and provinces but not others.
 * Asymmetry

Determinants
The academic literature frequently mentions the following factors as determinants of decentralization:
 * "The number of major ethnic groups"
 * "The degree of territorial concentration of those groups"
 * "The existence of ethnic networks and communities across the border of the state"
 * "The country's dependence on natural resources and the degree to which those resources are concentrated in the region's territory"
 * "The country's per capita income relative to that in other regions"
 * The presence of self-determination movements

In government policy
Historians have described the history of governments and empires in terms of centralization and decentralization. In his 1910 The History of Nations Henry Cabot Lodge wrote that Persian king Darius I (550–486 BC) was a master of organization and "for the first time in history centralization becomes a political fact." He also noted that this contrasted with the decentralization of Ancient Greece. Since the 1980s a number of scholars have written about cycles of centralization and decentralization. Stephen K. Sanderson wrote that over the last 4000 years chiefdoms and actual states have gone through sequences of centralization and decentralization of economic, political and social power. Yildiz Atasoy writes this process has been going on "since the Stone Age" through not just chiefdoms and states, but empires and today's "hegemonic core states". Christopher K. Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall review other works that detail these cycles, including works which analyze the concept of core elites which compete with state accumulation of wealth and how their "intra-ruling-class competition accounts for the rise and fall of states" and their phases of centralization and decentralization.

Rising government expenditures, poor economic performance and the rise of free market-influenced ideas have convinced governments to decentralize their operations, to induce competition within their services, to contract out to private firms operating in the market, and to privatize some functions and services entirely.

Government decentralization has both political and administrative aspects. Its decentralization may be territorial, moving power from a central city to other localities, and it may be functional, moving decision-making from the top administrator of any branch of government to lower level officials, or divesting of the function entirely through privatization. It has been called the "new public management" which has been described as decentralization, management by objectives, contracting out, competition within government and consumer orientation.

Political
Political decentralization signifies a reduction in the authority of national governments over policy-making. This process is accomplished by the institution of reforms that either delegate a certain degree of meaningful decision-making autonomy to sub-national tiers of government, or grant citizens the right to elect lower-level officials, like local or regional representatives. Depending on the country, this may require constitutional or statutory reforms, the development of new political parties, increased power for legislatures, the creation of local political units, and encouragement of advocacy groups.

A national government may decide to decentralize its authority and responsibilities for a variety of reasons. Decentralization reforms may occur for administrative reasons, when government officials decide that certain responsibilities and decisions would be handled best at the regional or local level. In democracies, traditionally conservative parties include political decentralization as a directive in their platforms because rightist parties tend to advocate for a decrease in the role of central government. There is also strong evidence to support the idea that government stability increases the probability of political decentralization, since instability brought on by gridlock between opposing parties in legislatures often impedes a government's overall ability to enact sweeping reforms.

The rise of regional ethnic parties in the national politics of parliamentary democracies is also heavily associated with the implementation of decentralization reforms. Ethnic parties may endeavor to transfer more autonomy to their respective regions, and as a partisan strategy, ruling parties within the central government may cooperate by establishing regional assemblies in order to curb the rise of ethnic parties in national elections. This phenomenon famously occurred in 1999, when the United Kingdom's Labour Party appealed to Scottish constituents by creating a semi-autonomous Scottish Parliament in order to neutralize the threat from the increasingly popular Scottish National Party at the national level.

In addition to increasing the administrative efficacy of government and endowing citizens with more power, there are many projected advantages to political decentralization. Individuals who take advantage of their right to elect local and regional authorities have been shown to have more positive attitudes toward politics, and increased opportunities for civic decision-making through participatory democracy mechanisms like public consultations and participatory budgeting are believed to help legitimize government institutions in the eyes of marginalized groups. Moreover, political decentralization is perceived as a valid means of protecting marginalized communities at a local level from the detrimental aspects of development and globalization driven by the state, like the degradation of local customs, codes, and beliefs. In his 2013 book, Democracy and Political Ignorance, George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin argued that political decentralization in a federal democracy confronts the widespread issue of political ignorance by allowing citizens to engage in foot voting, or moving to other jurisdictions with more favorable laws. He cites the mass migration of over one million southern-born African Americans to the North or the West to evade discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

The European Union follows the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that decision-making should be made by the most local competent authority. The EU should decide only on enumerated issues that a local or member state authority cannot address themselves. Furthermore, enforcement is exclusively the domain of member states. In Finland, the Centre Party explicitly supports decentralization. For example, government departments have been moved from the capital Helsinki to the provinces. The centre supports substantial subsidies that limit potential economic and political centralization to Helsinki.

Political decentralization does not come without its drawbacks. A study by Fan concludes that there is an increase in corruption and rent-seeking when there are more vertical tiers in the government, as well as when there are higher levels of subnational government employment. Other studies warn of high-level politicians that may intentionally deprive regional and local authorities of power and resources when conflicts arise. In order to combat these negative forces, experts believe that political decentralization should be supplemented with other conflict management mechanisms like power-sharing, particularly in regions with ethnic tensions.

Administrative
Four major forms of administrative decentralization have been described.
 * Deconcentration, the weakest form of decentralization, shifts responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain public functions from officials of central governments to those in existing districts or, if necessary, new ones under direct control of the central government.
 * Delegation passes down responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation. It involves the creation of public-private enterprises or corporations, or of "authorities", special projects or service districts. All of them will have a great deal of decision-making discretion and they may be exempt from civil service requirements and may be permitted to charge users for services.
 * Devolution transfers responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain public functions to the sub-national level, such as a regional, local, or state government.
 * Divestment, also called privatization, may mean merely contracting out services to private companies. Or it may mean relinquishing totally all responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain public functions. Facilities will be sold off, workers transferred or fired and private companies or non-for-profit organizations allowed to provide the services. Many of these functions originally were done by private individuals, companies, or associations and later taken over by the government, either directly, or by regulating out of business entities which competed with newly created government programs.

Fiscal
Fiscal decentralization means decentralizing revenue raising and/or expenditure of moneys to a lower level of government while maintaining financial responsibility. While this process usually is called fiscal federalism, it may be relevant to unitary, federal, or confederal governments. Fiscal federalism also concerns the "vertical imbalances" where the central government gives too much or too little money to the lower levels. It actually can be a way of increasing central government control of lower levels of government, if it is not linked to other kinds of responsibilities and authority.

Fiscal decentralization can be achieved through user fees, user participation through monetary or labor contributions, expansion of local property or sales taxes, intergovernmental transfers of central government tax monies to local governments through transfer payments or grants, and authorization of municipal borrowing with national government loan guarantees. Transfers of money may be given conditionally with instructions or unconditionally without them.

Market
Market decentralization can be done through privatization of public owned functions and businesses, as described briefly above. But it also is done through deregulation, the abolition of restrictions on businesses competing with government services, for example, postal services, schools, garbage collection. Even as private companies and corporations have worked to have such services contracted out to or privatized by them, others have worked to have these turned over to non-profit organizations or associations.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, there was deregulation of some industries, like banking, trucking, airlines and telecommunications, which resulted generally in more competition and lower prices. According to the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think-tank, in some cases deregulation in some aspects of an industry were offset by increased regulation in other aspects, the electricity industry being a prime example. For example, in banking, Cato Institute believes some deregulation allowed banks to compete across state lines, increasing consumer choice, while an actual increase in regulators and regulations forced banks to make loans to individuals incapable of repaying them, leading eventually to the financial crisis of 2007–2008.

One example of economic decentralization, which is based on a libertarian socialist model, is decentralized economic planning. Decentralized planning is a type of economic system in which decision-making is distributed amongst various economic agents or localized within production agents. An example of this method in practice is in Kerala, India which experimented in 1996 with the People's Plan campaign.

Emmanuelle Auriol and Michel Benaim write about the "comparative benefits" of decentralization versus government regulation in the setting of standards. They find that while there may be a need for public regulation if public safety is at stake, private creation of standards usually is better because "regulators or 'experts' might misrepresent consumers' tastes and needs." As long as companies are averse to incompatible standards, standards will be created that satisfy needs of a modern economy.

Environmental
Central governments themselves may own large tracts of land and control the forest, water, mineral, wildlife and other resources they contain. They may manage them through government operations or leasing them to private businesses; or they may neglect them to be exploited by individuals or groups who defy non-enforced laws against exploitation. It also may control most private land through land-use, zoning, environmental and other regulations. Selling off or leasing lands can be profitable for governments willing to relinquish control, but such programs can face public scrutiny because of fear of a loss of heritage or of environmental damage. Devolution of control to regional or local governments has been found to be an effective way of dealing with these concerns. Such decentralization has happened in India and other developing nations.

Libertarian socialism
Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy that promotes a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the various social relations of capitalism, such as wage slavery. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised". Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, or workers' councils. Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism. Adherents propose achieving this through decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale private property and enterprise (while retaining respect for personal property). Libertarian socialism tends to deny the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, viewing capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual freedom.

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarcho-communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, social anarchism and mutualism) as well as autonomism, communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism, and some versions of utopian socialism and individualist anarchism. For Murray Bookchin "In the modern world, anarchism first appeared as a movement of the peasantry and yeomanry against declining feudal institutions. In Germany its foremost spokesman during the Peasant Wars was Thomas Muenzer; in England, Gerrard Winstanley, a leading participant in the Digger movement. The concepts held by Muenzer and Winstanley were superbly attuned to the needs of their time –  a historical period when the majority of the population lived in the countryside and when the most militant revolutionary forces came from an agrarian world. It would be painfully academic to argue whether Muenzer and Winstanley could have achieved their ideals. What is of real importance is that they spoke to their time; their anarchist concepts followed naturally from the rural society that furnished the bands of the peasant armies in Germany and the New Model in England." The term "anarchist" first entered the English language in 1642, during the English Civil War, as a term of abuse, used by Royalists against their Roundhead opponents. By the time of the French Revolution some, such as the Enragés, began to use the term positively, in opposition to Jacobin centralization of power, seeing "revolutionary government" as oxymoronic. By the turn of the 19th century, the English word "anarchism" had lost its initial negative connotation.

For Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, mutualism involved creating "industrial democracy", a system where workplaces would be "handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . . We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social Republic." He urged "workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism." This would result in "Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed." Workers would no longer sell their labour to a capitalist but rather work for themselves in co-operatives. Anarcho-communism calls for a confederal form in relationships of mutual aid and free association between communes as an alternative to the centralism of the nation-state. Peter Kropotkin thus suggested that "Representative government has accomplished its historical mission; it has given a mortal blow to court-rule; and by its debates it has awakened public interest in public questions. But to see in it the government of the future socialist society is to commit a gross error. Each economic phase of life implies its own political phase; and it is impossible to touch the very basis of the present economic life-private property – without a corresponding change in the very basis of the political organization. Life already shows in which direction the change will be made. Not in increasing the powers of the State, but in resorting to free organization and free federation in all those branches which are now considered as attributes of the State." When the First Spanish Republic was established in 1873 after the abdication of King Amadeo, the first president, Estanislao Figueras, named Francesc Pi i Margall Minister of the Interior. His acquaintance with Proudhon enabled Pi to warm relations between the Republicans and the socialists in Spain. Pi i Margall became the principal translator of Proudhon's works into Spanish and later briefly became president of Spain in 1873 while being the leader of the Democratic Republican Federal Party. According to George Woodcock "These translations were to have a profound and lasting effect on the development of Spanish anarchism after 1870, but before that time Proudhonian ideas, as interpreted by Pi, already provided much of the inspiration for the federalist movement which sprang up in the early 1860s." According to the Encyclopædia Britannica "During the Spanish revolution of 1873, Pi y Margall attempted to establish a decentralized, cantonalist political system on Proudhonian lines."

The best-known examples of an anarchist communist society (i.e., established around the ideas as they exist today and achieving worldwide attention and knowledge in the historical canon), are the anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution and the Makhnovshchina during the Russian Revolution. Through the efforts and influence of the Spanish anarchists during the Spanish Revolution within the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936 anarchist communism existed in most of Aragon, parts of the Levante and Andalusia, as well as in the stronghold of Anarchist Catalonia before being crushed by the combined forces of the regime that won the war, Hitler, Mussolini, Spanish Communist Party repression (backed by the USSR) as well as economic and armaments blockades from the capitalist countries and the Second Spanish Republic itself. During the Russian Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend – through the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine – anarchist communism in Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921. Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky among others, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism (see libertarian Marxism) such as the council communism of Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky's Notes on Anarchism, he suggests the possibility "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a 'vanguard' party, or a State bureaucracy."

Free market
Free market ideas popular in the 19th century such as those of Adam Smith returned to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. Austrian School economist Friedrich von Hayek argued that free markets themselves are decentralized systems where outcomes are produced without explicit agreement or coordination by individuals who use prices as their guide. Eleanor Doyle writes that "[e]conomic decision-making in free markets is decentralized across all the individuals dispersed in each market and is synchronized or coordinated by the price system," and holds that an individual right to property is part of this decentralized system. Criticizing central government control, Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom:

"There would be no difficulty about efficient control or planning were conditions so simple that a single person or board could effectively survey all the relevant facts. It is only as the factors which have to be taken into account become so numerous that it is impossible to gain a synoptic view of them that decentralization becomes imperative."

According to Bruce M. Owen, this does not mean that all firms themselves have to be equally decentralized. He writes: "markets allocate resources through arms-length transactions among decentralized actors. Much of the time, markets work very efficiently, but there is a variety of conditions under which firms do better. Hence, goods and services are produced and sold by firms with various degrees of horizontal and vertical integration." Additionally, he writes that the "economic incentive to expand horizontally or vertically is usually, but not always, compatible with the social interest in maximizing long-run consumer welfare."

It is often claimed that free markets and private property generate centralized monopolies and other ills; free market advocates counter with the argument that government is the source of monopoly. Historian Gabriel Kolko in his book The Triumph of Conservatism argued that in the first decade of the 20th century businesses were highly decentralized and competitive, with new businesses constantly entering existing industries. In his view, there was no trend towards concentration and monopolization. While there were a wave of mergers of companies trying to corner markets, they found there was too much competition to do so. According to Kolko, this was also true in banking and finance, which saw decentralization as leading to instability as state and local banks competed with the big New York City firms. He argues that, as a result, the largest firms turned to the power of the state and worked with leaders like United States Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft and Woodrow Wilson to pass as "progressive reforms" centralizing laws like The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that gave control of the monetary system to the wealthiest bankers; the formation of monopoly "public utilities" that made competition with those monopolies illegal; federal inspection of meat packers biased against small companies; extending Interstate Commerce Commission to regulating telephone companies and keeping rates high to benefit AT&T; and using the Sherman Antitrust Act against companies which might combine to threaten larger or monopoly companies. D. T. Armentano, writing for the Cato Institute, argues that when government licensing, franchises, and other legal restrictions create monopoly and protect companies from open competition, deregulation is the solution.

Author and activist Jane Jacobs's influential 1961 book The Death and Life of American Cities criticized large-scale redevelopment projects which were part of government-planned decentralization of population and businesses to suburbs. She believed it destroyed cities' economies and impoverished remaining residents. Her 1980 book The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over Sovereignty supported secession of Quebec from Canada. Her 1984 book Cities and the Wealth of Nations proposed a solution to the problems faced by cities whose economies were being ruined by centralized national governments: decentralization through the "multiplication of sovereignties", meaning an acceptance of the right of cities to secede from the larger nation states that were greatly limiting their ability to produce wealth.

In the organizational structure of a firm
In managerial economics, the principal-agent problem is a challenge faced by every firm. In response to these incentive and information conflicts, a firm can either centralize their organizational structure by concentrating decision-making to upper management, or decentralize their organizational structure by delegating authority throughout the organization. The delegation of authority comes with a basic trade-off: while it can increase efficiency and information flow, the central authority consequentially suffers a loss of control. However, through creating an environment of trust and allocating authority formally in the firm, coupled with a stronger rule of law in the geographical location of the firm, the negative consequences of the trade-off can be minimized.

In having a decentralized organizational structure, a firm can remain agile to external shocks and competing trends. Decision-making in a centralized organization can face information flow inefficiencies and barriers to effective communication which decreases the speed and accuracy in which decisions are made. A decentralized firm is said to hold greater flexibility given the efficiency in which it can analyze information and implement relevant outcomes. Additionally, having decision-making power spread across different areas allows for local knowledge to inform decisions, increasing their relevancy and implementational effectiveness. In the process of developing new products or services, the decentralization enable the firm gain advantages of closely meet particular division's needs.

Decentralization also impacts human resource management. The high level of individual agency that workers experience within a decentralized firm can create job enrichment. Studies have shown this enhances the development of new ideas and innovations given the sense of involvement that comes from responsibility. The impacts of decentralization on innovation are furthered by the ease of information flow that comes from this organizational structure. With increased knowledge sharing, workers are more able to use relevant information to inform decision-making. These benefits are enhanced in firms with skill-intensive environments. Skilled workers are more able to analyze information, they pose less risk of information duplication given increased communication abilities, and the productivity cost of multi-tasking is lower. These outcomes of decentralizion make it a particularly effective organizational structure for entrepreneurial and competitive firm environments, such as start-up companies. The flexibility, efficiency of information flow and higher worker autonomy complement the rapid growth and innovation seen in successful start up companies.

In technology and the internet
Technological decentralization can be defined as a shift from concentrated to distributed modes of production and consumption of goods and services. Generally, such shifts are accompanied by transformations in technology and different technologies are applied for either system. Technology includes tools, materials, skills, techniques and processes by which goals are accomplished in the public and private spheres. Concepts of decentralization of technology are used throughout all types of technology, including especially information technology and appropriate technology.

Technologies often mentioned as best implemented in a decentralized manner, include: water purification, delivery and waste water disposal, agricultural technology and energy technology. Advancing technology may allow decentralized, privatized and free market solutions for what have been public services, such utilities producing and/or delivering power, water, mail, telecommunications and services like consumer product safety, money and banking, medical licensing and detection and metering technologies for highways, parking, and auto emissions. However, in terms of technology, a clear distinction between fully centralized or decentralized technical solutions is often not possible and therefore finding an optimal degree of centralization difficult from an infrastructure planning perspective.

Information technology
Information technology encompasses computers and computer networks, as well as information distribution technologies such as television and telephones. The whole computer industry of computer hardware, software, electronics, internet, telecommunications equipment, e-commerce and computer services are included.

Executives and managers face a constant tension between centralizing and decentralizing information technology for their organizations. They must find the right balance of centralizing which lowers costs and allows more control by upper management, and decentralizing which allows sub-units and users more control. This will depend on analysis of the specific situation. Decentralization is particularly applicable to business or management units which have a high level of independence, complicated products and customers, and technology less relevant to other units.

Information technology applied to government communications with citizens, often called e-Government, is supposed to support decentralization and democratization. Various forms have been instituted in most nations worldwide.

The internet is an example of an extremely decentralized network, having no owners at all (although some have argued that this is less the case in recent years ). "No one is in charge of internet, and everyone is." As long as they follow a certain minimal number of rules, anyone can be a service provider or a user. Voluntary boards establish protocols, but cannot stop anyone from developing new ones. Other examples of open source or decentralized movements are Wikis which allow users to add, modify, or delete content via the internet. Wikipedia has been described as decentralized (although it is a centralized web site, with a single entity operating the servers). Smartphones have been described as being an important part of the decentralizing effects of smaller and cheaper computers worldwide.

Decentralization continues throughout the industry, for example as the decentralized architecture of wireless routers installed in homes and offices supplement and even replace phone companies' relatively centralized long-range cell towers.

Inspired by system and cybernetics theorists like Norbert Wiener, Marshall McLuhan and Buckminster Fuller, in the 1960s Stewart Brand started the Whole Earth Catalog and later computer networking efforts to bring Silicon Valley computer technologists and entrepreneurs together with countercultural ideas. This resulted in ideas like personal computing, virtual communities and the vision of an "electronic frontier" which would be a more decentralized, egalitarian and free-market libertarian society. Related ideas coming out of Silicon Valley included the free software and creative commons movements which produced visions of a "networked information economy".

Because human interactions in cyberspace transcend physical geography, there is a necessity for new theories in legal and other rule-making systems to deal with decentralized decision-making processes in such systems. For example, what rules should apply to conduct on the global digital network and who should set them? The laws of which nations govern issues of internet transactions (like seller disclosure requirements or definitions of "fraud"), copyright and trademark?

Centralization and re-decentralization of the Internet
The New Yorker reports that although the Internet was originally decentralized, by 2013 it had become less so: "a staggering percentage of communications flow through a small set of corporations – and thus, under the profound influence of those companies and other institutions [...] One solution, espoused by some programmers, is to make the Internet more like it used to be – less centralized and more distributed."

Examples of projects that attempt to contribute to the re-decentralization of the Internet include ArkOS, Diaspora, FreedomBox, IndieWeb, Namecoin, SAFE Network, twtxt and ZeroNet as well as advocacy group Redecentralize.org, which provides support for projects that aim to make the Web less centralized.

In an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live one of the co-founders of Redecentralize.org explained that: "'As we've gone on there's been more and more internet traffic focused through particular nodes such as Google or Facebook. [...] Centralised services that hold all the user data and host it themselves have become increasingly popular because that business model has worked. As the Internet has become more mass market, people are not necessarily willing or knowledgable to host it themselves, so where that hosting is outsourced it's become the default, which allows a centralization of power and a centralization of data that I think is worrying.'"

Blockchain technology
In blockchain, decentralization refers to the transfer of control and decision-making from a centralized entity (individual, organization, or group thereof) to a distributed network. Decentralized networks strive to reduce the level of trust that participants must place in one another, and deter their ability to exert authority or control over one another in ways that degrade the functionality of the network.

Cryptocurrencies use cryptographic proofs such as proof of work (e.g. Bitcoin) or proof of stake (e.g. Cardano) as a means of establishing decentralized consensus.

Decentralized protocols, applications, and ledgers (used in Web3 ) could be more difficult for governments to regulate, similar to difficulties regulating BitTorrent (which is not a blockchain technology).

Appropriate technology
"Appropriate technology", originally described as "intermediate technology" by economist E. F. Schumacher in Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered, is generally recognized as encompassing technologies that are small-scale, decentralized, labor-intensive, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, and locally controlled.

Criticism
Factors hindering decentralization include weak local administrative or technical capacity, which may result in inefficient or ineffective services; inadequate financial resources available to perform new local responsibilities, especially in the start-up phase when they are most needed; or inequitable distribution of resources. Decentralization can make national policy coordination too complex; it may allow local elites to capture functions; local cooperation may be undermined by any distrust between private and public sectors; decentralization may result in higher enforcement costs and conflict for resources if there is no higher level of authority. Additionally, decentralization may not be as efficient for standardized, routine, network-based services, as opposed to those that need more complicated inputs. If there is a loss of economies of scale in procurement of labor or resources, the expense of decentralization can rise, even as central governments lose control over financial resources.

Other challenges, and even dangers, include the possibility that corrupt local elites can capture regional or local power centers, while constituents lose representation; patronage politics will become rampant and civil servants feel compromised; further necessary decentralization can be stymied; incomplete information and hidden decision-making can occur up and down the hierarchies; centralized power centers can find reasons to frustrate decentralization and bring power back to themselves.

It has been noted that while decentralization may increase "productive efficiency" it may undermine "allocative efficiency" by making redistribution of wealth more difficult. Decentralization will cause greater disparities between rich and poor regions, especially during times of crisis when the national government may not be able to help regions needing it.

title: Decentralization


text:
960

Year 960 (CMLX) was a leap year starting on Sunday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. It was the 960th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 960th year of the first millennium, the 60th year of the 10th century, and the first year of the 960s decade.

Byzantine Empire

 * Summer – Siege of Chandax: A Byzantine fleet with an expeditionary force (comprising about 50,000 men) under Nikephoros Phokas lands on Crete. Nikephoros defeats the Muslim resistance and begins a siege at the capital of Chandax. He decides to blockade the city for the winter, while his engineers begin to construct siege engines. Emir Abd al-Aziz ibn Shu'ayb sends for aid by the Fatimids in Ifriqiya and the Caliphate of Córdoba (modern Spain).
 * November 8 – Battle of Andrassos: The Byzantines under Leo Phokas the Younger defeat the Hamdanid army (30,000 men) in an ambush in the passages of the Cilician mountains, in south Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Emir Sayf al-Dawla barely manages to escape, and returns to Aleppo with only 300 horsemen. The Hamdanids can no longer afford to raid in Anatolia, which is a turning point in the Arab-Byzantine wars in the East.

Europe

 * Mieszko I, a duke of the Piast Dynasty, becomes prince (de facto ruler) of Poland on the death of his father Siemomysł. Mieszko continues to subdue the neighbouring tribes under his control. Two obstacles to this plan are the Western Slav tribal group, the Veleti (also known as the Wilzi or "Wolf people") who are raiding Mieszko's lands for plunder; and the Saxon border dukes, who are pushing eastwards in search of new lands to conquer.
 * Harald Bluetooth, king of Denmark, consolidates his rule over Jutland and Zealand. He adopts Christianity, erecting a carved stone at Jelling to honour his parents. It features a runic inscription (best-known in Denmark) and an image of Christ surrounded by interlace. The other Scandinavian kingdoms slowly convert to Christianity (approximate date).
 * June/July – Adalbert II, co-ruler and the son of King Berengar II, with the support of Duke Hugh of Tuscany, invades the Papal States under Pope John XII. With Lombard forces closing in on Rome, a papal delegation is sent to King Otto I (the Great) to appeal for assistance.
 * Autumn – Oberto I, margrave of the Obertenghi family, takes refuge in Germany. He travels with influential Italian leaders to the Saxon court of Otto I to intervene in Italy to protect him from Berengar II.
 * Richard I (the Fearless), duke of Normandy, marries Emma of Paris. She is the daughter of Hugh the Great, former Duke of the Franks. The union gives him a permanent status to the House of Capet.

England

 * Dunstan receives the pallium as archbishop of Canterbury from Pope John XII. He reforms monasteries and enforces the rule of Saint Benedict: poverty, chastity and obedience for monks.

Africa

 * The Kingdom of Aksum (modern Eritrea) is destroyed by Beta Israel invaders, under the leadership of Queen Gudit (approximate date).

Asia

 * February 4 – The Song Dynasty is established at Kaifeng by the 33-year-old military leader Zhao Kuangyin. He begins to unify the empire by conquering other lands and becomes the first emperor, called as Taizu of Song. The Song Dynasty will rule northern China for over 300 years (until 1279).

Religion

 * Dunstan founds the Church of St. Dunstan in East Sussex.

Births

 * Abu Nasr Mansur, Persian mathematician (approximate date)
 * Aimoin, French monk and chronicler (approximate date)
 * Arnulf II (the Younger), Frankish nobleman (or 961)
 * Bagrat III, king of Abkhazia (Georgia) (d. 1014)
 * Bernward, bishop of Hildesheim (approximate date)
 * Constantine VIII, Byzantine emperor (d. 1028)
 * Eckard I, German nobleman (approximate date)
 * Fan Kuan, Chinese landscape painter (approximate date)
 * Gershom ben Judah, German rabbi (approximate date)
 * Gormflaith ingen Murchada, Irish queen (d. 1030)
 * Gotthard, bishop of Hildesheim (d. 1038)
 * Hugh III, French nobleman (approximate date)
 * Indra Pala, king of Kamarupa (India) (d. 990)
 * Li, empress consort of the Song Dynasty (d. 1004)
 * Mazu, Chinese fisherman's daughter and worshipped as Taoist goddess (approximate date)
 * Sharaf al-Dawla, Buyid emir of Kerman and Fars (approximate date)
 * Sigurd the Stout, Viking nobleman (earl) (approximate date)
 * Sweyn Forkbeard, king of Denmark and England (d. 1014)
 * Xu You, official and court minister of Southern Tang

Deaths

 * May 31 – Fujiwara no Morosuke, Japanese statesman (b. 909)
 * June 15 – Eadburh of Winchester, English princess and saint
 * June 23 – Feng Yanji, chancellor of Southern Tang (b. 903)
 * August 12 – Li Gu, chancellor of Later Zhou (b. 903)
 * Ælfric, bishop of Hereford (approximate date)
 * Adele of Vermandois, Frankish noblewoman
 * Arnold I of Astarac, Frankish nobleman
 * Bernard the Dane, Viking nobleman (approximate date)
 * Časlav, prince of Serbia (approximate date)
 * Emmanuel I, patriarch of the Church of the East
 * Fulk II (the Good), Frankish nobleman
 * Gao Baorong, king of Nanping (Ten Kingdoms) (b. 920)
 * George II, king of Abkhazia (Georgia)
 * Gopala II, ruler of the Pala Empire (India)
 * Guan Tong, Chinese landscape painter
 * Justan I ibn Marzuban, Sallarid ruler
 * Lhachen Dpalgyimgon, king of Mauyul (Tibet)
 * Murchadh mac Aodha, king of Uí Maine (Ireland)
 * Ratna Pala, king of Kamarupa (India) (b. 920)
 * Siemomysł, duke of the Piast Dynasty (Poland)
 * William Garés, Frankish nobleman
 * Yelü Lihu, prince of the Khitan Empire (b. 911)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 960


text:
956

Year 956 (CMLVI) was a leap year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.

Byzantine Empire

 * Summer – Emperor Constantine VII appoints Nikephoros Phokas to commander of the Byzantine field army (Domestic of the Schools) in the East. He gives him order to prepare a campaign against the Hamdanid emir Sayf al-Dawla. Constantine makes treaties with neighbouring rulers, to seek military aid.
 * September - October – A Byzantine fleet under Basil Hexamilites deals a crushing defeat to the Hamdanid fleet at Tarsus in Cilicia (modern Turkey).

Europe

 * Liudolf, the eldest son of King Otto I (the Great), reconciles with his father and asks again for installation as duke of Swabia. Otto refuses, but at the instigation of his uncle Bruno I (duke of Lotharingia) allows Liudolf to lead an expedition to Italy to bring the vassal Berengar of Ivrea to heel.
 * Berengar of Ivrea dispatches a Lombard army under his son Adalbert II to counter Liudolf, while he guards Pavia himself. In two battles Liudolf defeats the Lombard forces and enters Pavia, there to receive the homage of the Italian nobles and clergy on behalf of Otto I.
 * June 16 – Hugh the Great, count of Paris, dies at Dourdan. He is succeeded by his eldest son Hugh Capet, who is recognized as Duke of the Franks by his cousin Lothair III, king of the West Frankish Kingdom.
 * King Ordoño III dies at Zamora after a 5-year reign. He is succeeded by his half-brother Sancho I as ruler of León (modern Spain).

Egypt

 * An earthquake badly damages the Lighthouse of Alexandria: one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

Religion

 * Dunstan, an abbot of Glastonbury Abbey, is sent into exile by King Eadwig. He takes refuge in Flanders (modern Belgium), where Count Arnulf I gives him shelter in the Abbey of Mont Blandin, near Ghent.

Births

 * Siegfried II, count of Stade (d. 1037)
 * probable
 * Adalbert of Prague, Bohemian bishop (approximate date)
 * Sampiro, Spanish bishop (approximate date)

Deaths

 * February 15 – Su Yugui, Chinese chancellor (b. 895)
 * February 27 – Theophylact, Byzantine patriarch (b. 917)
 * April 8 – Gilbert, duke of Burgundy
 * April 15 – Lin Yanyu, Chinese court official and eunuch
 * May 19 – Robert, archbishop of Trier
 * June 4 – Muhammad III of Shirvan, Muslim ruler
 * June 16 – Hugh the Great, Frankish nobleman (b. 898)
 * July/August – Fulbert of Cambrai, bishop
 * August – Ordoño III, king of León
 * August 29 – Fu (the Elder), Chinese empress consort
 * September/October – Al-Masudi, Muslim historian and geographer
 * December 21 – Sun Sheng, Chinese chancellor
 * December 26 – Wulfstan, archbishop of York
 * date unknown
 * Ahmad al-Muhajir, Muslim scholar and imam (b. 873)
 * Congalach Cnogba, High King of Ireland
 * Gandaraditya, ruler of Chola Kingdom
 * Zhao Hongyin, Chinese general

title: 956


text:
Talk:Decentralization

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgt10196. Peer reviewers: Sanguinestate.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitions
Hi, I've been posting this on the Capitalism, Socialism, Free Market, Command Economy, and Planned Economy wikipages. I post this here because I think this is the best article that fits the Decentralized economy model.

I don't think, however, that it would be quite fair to change this article into a Decentralized Economy article (obviously), but am wondering about taking out the aspects of decentralized economies out from here and into a separate article named that.

Here is my post on those other pages:

I actually think there should be a separate series for Captalism vs. Socialism vs. Free Market vs. Command Economy vs. Planned Economy vs. Decentralized Economies vs. Mixed Economies, as their definitions are somewhat intertwined.

I got out my econ notes from a while back, if someone wants to rewrite the article with these definitions assuming they get no objections, go ahead:

There are two different ways to catergorize an economy into two.

Little Regulation Heavy Regulation

and

Low Government Expenditure High Government Expenditure

Heavy regulation AND high government expenditure are command economies, heavily regulated economies are planned (price wages enforced by the Nazis for example (although I didn't mean the example to be so extreme)), little regulation is decentralized, low government expenditure is capitalist, high government expenditure is socialist, and free market is both low government expenditure and little regulation.

Note that these are very subjective, and are not as simple as saying "Above 50% government expenditure as a portion of the GDP is socialist," because France has above 50% government expenditure as a portion of GDP and some people refer to it as Capitalist and some as Socialist. Similarly the argument goes for little and heavy regulation, some may say that the U.S. is decentralized while others are extreme enough to say it's a planned economy, the difference in opinion comes from the subjectivity of the two terms (I, for example, say that the U.S. is a planned economy because I'm pissed off and opposed to the regulations on power companies; but that's my opinion). China considers itself Socialist, while many other consider it Capitalist. Some consider the Soviet Union Capitalist because of it's Black Market activities. And so on.

In other words:

Little Regulation AND low government expenditure=Free Market Economy

Little Regulation=Decentralized Heavy Regulation=Planned

and

Low Government Expenditure=Capitalist High Government Expenditure=Socialist

High government Expenditure AND heavy Regulation=Command Economy

Oh! And a mixed economy is any economy that is thought of as a mix between socialist and Capitalist, technically this is all countries, but it is also a subjective factor (Subjective in that the percentiles aren't really placed, it's not like below 10% government expenditure is Capitlist, from 10-90 is mixed, and Socialist is >90). Fephisto 16:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There are much more specific names for more technical kinds of decentralisation, and when the ordinary person hears it, it's in the management or political context. Therefore, this article covers the political focus heavily and tries to finish with the point that there is usually a balance or limit where centralisation versus decentralisation applies.

This is tough, but worth hashing out. The political case is the hardest case as it involves decentralising assessment of risks of bodily harm, so that's why it gets such attention here.

An article on dialectical materialism could include the links to Darwin and Freud instead, I thought that the article on natural selection, and one on Freud's id, ego, superego theory should all refer to each other for the major influence that these views had on 19th century thought.

I'm not trying to advance Marx by crediting him with the theory of political decentralization, that's as much due to Smith's "invisible hand" and Ricardo's theories on labour, but the balance between Marx and Engels is actually the clearest statement of the *balance* between de/centralisation, and the way the state did and didn't act in arbitrary ways (that classicals had taken for granted), that the 19th century produced. Marx later become a real decentralizer in all ways, post 1872, and washed his hands of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" somehow being able to control bourgeois professionals (whose social capital and ability to deceive he considered himself to have under-estimated after the Paris Commune showed that bankers and lawyers and such could still reverse a workers' revolution by being sneaky ;-)).

--

This isn't true.....

 * In the more social sciences, however, decentralisation is not presumed to be quite so amenable to mathematical models. Throughout the 20th century, in parallel with the mathematical models, heuristics describing desirable means of political and of social decentralisation have relied more on dialectic methods or informal analysis.  The modern study of this, and the origins of studies of decentralisation processes in sociology and in the political economy of socialism, dialectial materialism, is often traced to the two authors of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels.  Their views on this subject, along with Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and Sigmund Freud's theory of id, ego, superego, were part of a very broad 19th century European movement opposed to both rationalism and the morality arising from the centralised systems of religious fundamentalism.

Much of 20th century sociological thinking is based on Michel's Iron law of oligarchy, which is at its heart is a mathmatical model of how organizations work.
 * Hmm... I think that depends on the country... some would say Weber and his thinking about bureaucracy and specialization defined it... but I grant the central importance of that thesis for this topic of decentralisation, and should drastically weaken the claim as stated. It's probably wrong way 'round... the 19th century thought was more dialectic and informal and challenged rationalist models, and the 20th century thought froze it into Weber's and Michel's respective models... which, now that I think about it, I learned about in object oriented analysis class, making the assertion totally wrong... hmm... shall you rewrite this, or shall I?  What's wrong with it is the claims of what was driving what... not the statements of what was going on... 24
 * OK, the whole question of Weber's bureaucracy and Michel's oligarchy is irrelevant to this article... it reads far better jumping from Marx to Engels directly, since the only value that paragraph added was reference to centralized religious fundamentalism... which is a very tiny and maybe misleading part of Marx's analysis in this context. Sociology as such is more interesting here for studies of community/village *size* not structure, and that's mentioned near the end... finally, the Marx/Darwin/Freud thing definitely belongs in dialectical materialism, not here.
 * I'd be happy if a real sociologist commented on Weber and Michel here, but I'm not qualified to do it. What I know about them comes from technology circles...

umm... on the part: "total decentralization...anarchism" -this is wrong. Total decentralization is the antithesis of anarchism via the hyperextension of Foucault's panoptician. (esp. through media technologies such as the Internet and cell phones (see Marshall McLuhan) ) -- Kevin Baas

on engels, 2 more points. I agree that we should have a npov. (duh!) which means, ofcourse, that we should present objections and so forth, but when those objections miss the point, we should also show that, so as not to confuse people.
 * 1) from the article, it appears that engels misses the point. Esp. in contrast to the first part, where it describes decentralization in the foucaltian sense of subliminal and automatic social power relations.
 * 2) "in critical times" ... "division and dissent" -> this assumes that the right decision would otherwise be made. How can one justify this?  This assumes that whoever is in power has "divine knowledge".  Isn't it more dangerous, in critical times, to leave the decision in the hands of a few, or one? Especially in that those few or one have partial information, and must rely completely on their own self-discipline. (which is not something manufactured, but constructed by the discipline of society, which is in this case absent.)  Is it less dangerous if few people decide or many?  Which is more likely to produce the "right" decision?  Which has more information, and more power to process that information?  In any case, I think this argument should be presented along with engels'.  It is a point of contention; it's a popular debate, and shouldn't be presented as "accepted valid reasoning", esp. if a "NPOV" is desired.

One additional point: it was brought up that there are different types of or aspects to decentralization. maybe this should be clarified; these separate territories discussed? Might we take into account, at this point, the general phenomena of the overlapping of different territories in a signifier? i.e. that different territories have encoded these signifiers differently; that semiotics is fragmented? might we accept this as a general principle? Esp. insofar that we are inclined to ask for a "NPOV", which implies the conflict of different territories? -Kevin Baas

The definition of decentralization in this section is quite different from the one that i am familiar with. Refer to page of mine for details. I see this as a major flaw. Most crucially, the definition that exists here is a mix between a modernist and a pre-modernist approach, when the term itself is a post-modern term. -Kevin Baas

wikify
I want to explain that I added this template not because the article is missing wikilinks--seems to have plenty. What it doesn't have is sections; it's one long introduction. This template was the closest fit I could find. --Trovatore 06:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Decentralism
I disagree with Decentralism redirecting to Decentralization. The latter term defines a process in business, economics, and politics, whilst the former is a philosophy advocating the breakdown of large institutions (be they nation-states, corporations, or governments) into smaller, more easily managable, and more democratic forms. In the latter half of the 20th century, men like E. F. Schumacher, Leopold Kohr, and Ivan Illich emerged as radical advocates for Decentralism, and there ought to be an article to explore their ideas, as well as their predecessors (such as Ralph Borsodi). It is my intention, in future, to create such an article. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  18:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously a full article needs to be created. On my long to do list. In the meantime, I think I'll add to intro to political theory. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing
I am editing to make the introduction a bit better.Rajankila (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this?
I was reading the Political Theory section and it's horrible. I don't want to sound like a jerk, although I am a jerk, but it's biased AND poorly written. I'm thinking of removing it, putting the text here on the talk page as not to lose it. Anyone disagree? Beam 19:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Too focused on politics
I feel this article is too focused on the political aspects of decentralisation - it's all about decentralisation of state and society. But decentralisation is also an important concept in corporate governance, as demonstrated by Jan Wallander of Handelsbanken, for example. How could this aspect be fitted in? Tamino (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely re-written
This article is full of spam, promotions, and nonsense. The real meaning of decentralization is lost. Needs to be completely re-written. I'm not an expert on the subject and that's why I'm not taking this endeavor myself. Pm master 15:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is very good, it can still be made better (there is always scope for improvement)
Don't just say that the article is bad or nonsense or horrible etc. The article is reasonably good, though it can be made better. There is always a scope for improvement. This article clarifies many concepts and I found some of its sections to be very useful.

If you can't edit it constructively, don't say it is nonsense. BE CONSTRUCTIVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpingforum (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Decentralization of Environmental Management
First, thanks for this article. I'm researching the underlying causes of deforestation, and I was wondering what the hell all the World Bank papers talking about "decentralization" of forest management actually meant. On that note, however, there's a couple issues that should probably be addressed. The first is Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario. While it did provide a useful justification for the privatization of natural resources, its acceptance has been far from universal. Even the World Bank has recently admitted that privatizing formerly public land has exacerbated deforestation in some cases, particularly when dealing with lands formerly managed under communal tenure arrangements (e.g. indigenous communities). A number of other, less guarded assessments of the World Bank's decentralization efforts describe them as anything from "largely ineffective" to "devastating." One of the more common objections to TotC is that it creates a false dichotomy. In actuality, lands that Hardin describes as "commons" are frequently governed, either at a communal level or a societal level. In many cases, privatization has disrupted this governance and resulted in an even more rapid depletion of the resource. World systems theorists have also pointed out that the international composition of power is such that when natural resources in a developing, non-industrialized, or--in their terms--periphery country are "decentralized" from public management, control frequently ends up shifting to a multinational corporation based in a core country (i.e. control over the resource moves even further from the local level). That said, the State has obviously not always been an exemplary steward of public resources, either, and some conflicts take place between common property institutions and the State (this is particularly true in Southeast Asia, where States have displaced indigenous communities or tried to force them into peasant production in the name of conservation). I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I can try to come back and make some of these changes when I have a moment. A few sources I'd suggest offhand would be Monboit's "The Tragedy of Enclosure," Peluso's "Rich Forests, Poor People," Reddy's "Communal Forests, Political Spaces," and Richards' "Common Property Resource Institutions and Forest Management in Latin America" (okay, so four sources).
 * Napzilla (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of article
Ok, it took two weeks but per the tags {Essay-like|December 2010} and {Refimprove|April 2011}, I rewrote it. Did use most of the substantive material from good sources and actually inlined sourced it; found sources for a couple good things that were unsourced; removed a lot of WP:OR.

Still in progress: Will do another copyedit tomorrow. Also: Need to put further reading in better order, add a few things. A couple refs have to find or misplaced are noted; have more info for the "challenges" section (including the ref to source that described it that way), some of it more critical; could use more on technology. And I have some miscellaneous points made by WP:RS in a list of things I probably will add at some future time, depending on any commentary here. CarolMooreDC 21:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Decentralization
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Decentralization's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Noam Chomsky 2004, p. 739": From Libertarianism: Chomsky, Noam and Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and Politics. AK Press, 2004, p. 739 From Libertarian socialism: Chomsky (2004) p. 739

Reference named "Ostergaard 1991. p. 21": From Libertarianism: Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". Limited A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing, 1991. p. 21. From Individualism: Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing, 1991. p. 21.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR section on "Libertarian socialist decentralization"
Having see User:Euden add much of the same material to libertarianism, even though a complete reference check showed little of it even mentioned libertarianism, I have a feeling that most of it does not even mention decentralization at all and is WP:OR. I've tagged it and when get a chance will remove irrelevant material. Or the editor can actually quote in the text of footnotes material that explicitly uses "decentralization". Thanks. User:Carolmooredc  12:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I was just about to write the exact same thing here. I can see the editor reverted whatever I did. Well, will put it higher on my list and check sources more thoroughly to remove those that do not mention decentralization explicitly.
 * I realized it is best to create a new major section on ideological decentralization (there are more forms than current two sections on libertarian socialism and free market, including various other libertarian political decentralist solutions. Also moved some more general material to government section. User:Carolmooredc  16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Section on Libertarian Socialist Decentralization.. This section focusses [sic] on anarchism and is largely irrelevant for decentralization."

Libertarian socialism variant (social anarchy) is very much about decentralization and subsidiarity. However, within an overall structure that maintains rights and duties. The emphasis on the balance and reconciliation between individuality and sociality stronger suggests this concept. Hence, libertarian socialism...

Nantucketnoon (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you. (Decentralized planning (economics))
The article about economic planning is the only relevant article that exists here. At least people have some sort of idea as to how decentralization works within economies. That's why it says, see also and not, main article. But if you have an aversion to socialism then leave it out. Just know that theoretical socialism is very far from what has been practiced in countries like, say, China. China is actually state capitalism. Soviet Russia was also said to be state capitalism. See the second paragraph in the article, Marxism-Leninism. Decentralization has its roots in theoretical socialism, whether you want to accept it or not. To be fair, it also has as its foundation libertarianism, something I see you're fond of.  Lighthead  þ 19:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Frankly, I haven't been able to work on the article for more than a year. I only noticed onr really off thing haven't had a chance to fix. Hope to look at it soon - maybe even this week!! Anyway, I definitely think a summary of the article Decentralized planning (economics) can have it's own section or issues mention in both the Government decentralization sections (especially where already practiced) and the ideological decentralization sections. It's just not the main article for either. I put it in the section header as a reminder to myself or anyone else. Or feel free to work on it yourself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 * What I can do is write something in that section about economic planning, and quote something directly from that article, as well as use a reference from that article. Do you mind if I do that? I'll get started on it, but just let me know here if you have any problems with it.  Lighthead  þ 21:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I just put it in that section. You can modify it or move the paragraph up or down as you wish.  Lighthead  þ 21:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Shah's comment on this article
Dr. Shah has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"General Comments: This article almost completely ignores the mainstream literature on decentralization; fails to provide a balanced view of the concept, its development and real world applications; mis-defines basic concepts and misinforms the reader about the relevant literature and its contributions. The article is replete with long quotations that do not inform but often mislead about the subject. A reader would be well advised not to treat this article as a useful reference on this subject.

Specific Comments "Decentralization is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority.[1]" No, decentralization is not about "dispersing people or things.

"Economic and/or political decentralization can help prevent or reduce conflict because they reduce actual or perceived inequities between various regions or between a region and the central government." Quite the opposite most likely to happen unless national government ensures a common internal market free of barriers to trade and factor mobility accompanied by equalization programs that ensure universal access to reasonably comparable level  of public services at comparable burden of taxation nationwide.

It is "more than a process, it is a way of life and a state of mind." Hyperbole with little clarity of its meaning.

"Political decentralization aims to give citizens or their elected representatives more power". Very imprecise. Political decentralization refers to the local residents' empowerment to elect or appoint representatives directly and hold them to account, and the right to provide direct oversight of local institutions, including the recall of elected officials, overturning local council decisions through referenda (direct democracy provisions).

Administrative decentralization not defined. It refer the ability of local governments to hire, fire and set terms of reference for own employees and on the human resource management and government organization framework.

 * "The European Union follows the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that decision-making should be made by the most local competent authority." No, it states that public decision making for all function rests with the lowest order of government unless a convincing case can be made for higher order assignment.

"Deconcentration, the weakest form of decentralization, shifts responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain public functions[72] from officials of central governments to those in existing districts or, if necessary, new ones under direct control of the central government." No, under de-concentration, some central government decision making is shifted from the capital to the central government officials and agencies with physical presence in regional and local/municipal locations in rest of the country.

"Delegation passes down responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain public functions to semi-autonomous organizations not wholly controlled by the central government, but ultimately accountable to it. It involves the creation of public-private enterprises or corporations, or of "authorities", special projects or service districts." No. it means local governments are authorized to deliver specified central functions.

"Fiscal decentralization means decentralizing revenue raising and/or expenditure of moneys to a lower level of government while maintaining financial responsibility." No, "while (central government) maintaining financial responsibility" is not correct.

"Fiscal decentralization means decentralizing revenue raising and/or expenditure of moneys to a lower level of government while maintaining financial responsibility.[50] While this process usually is called fiscal federalism." No, it is not fiscal federalism. Fiscal federalism refer to appropriate balance and divisions of power within a multi-order governance system to suit local circumstances - implying both centralization of certain functions while decentralization of others.

Section on Libertarian Socialist Decentralization.. This section focusses on anarchism and is largely irrelevant for decentralization.

Section on Free market decentralization. The discussion in this section is about private monopolies and cartels and not relevant for decentralization.

Section on Technological decentralization. Not very useful.

Section on critique. Need to be integrated with various sections.

"It has been noted that while decentralization may increase "productive efficiency" it may undermine "allocative efficiency" by making redistribution of wealth more difficult." No, allocative efficiency relate to appropriate sectoral allocation choices consistent with local people preferences to advance local welfare.

"Effective Judicial System, Citizens’ Oversight and Anticorruption Bodies to prevent Decentralization of Corruption. " Empirical evidence shows that in most developing countries ant-corruption bodies lead to a higher incidence of corruption."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Anwar Shah (Ph.D. economics) is Senior Fellow Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA, Advisor/Consultant, World Bank and Director of the Centre for Public Economics, SWUFE, Wenjiang, Chengdu, China  He has previously served  the World Bank (23 years), Asian Development Bank, Canadian Ministry of Finance,  the Government of Alberta and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At the Canadian Ministry of Finance, he was responsible for federal fiscal transfers to provinces for health, education and equalization. With the Government of Alberta, he was responsible for provincial fiscal transfers to local governments and municipal annexation and incorporation issues. He has published more than two dozen books and numerous articles in leading journals. His recent books include Fiscal Federalism (with Robin Boadway), by the Cambridge University Press, The Practice of Fiscal Federalism: Comparative Perspectives, published by McGill-Queen’s University Press, Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers, Local Governance in Developing Countries and Performance Accountability and Combating Corruption by the World Bank and Fiscal Incentives for Investment and Innovation, by the Oxford University.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Anwar: you say at end, "Empirical evidence shows that in most developing countries ant-corruption bodies lead to a higher incidence of corruption."  That seems unlikely.  Maybe not higher incidence but higher level of reporting, which would be a sign of success. Errantius (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Cyberocracy
I feel like cyberocracy fits in this article somewhere. I don't have any citations to refer to, so I am not appending it just yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide124 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

False Fact
"[The] first decade of the 20th century businesses were highly decentralized and competitive, with new businesses constantly entering existing industries. There was no trend towards concentration and monopolization."

>>>

"The formation of the Standard Oil Trust in 1882 effectively established a monopoly..." "Although consolidation did advance the large-scale production and distribution of oil products, many critics believed that the resulting concentration of economic power was becoming excessive. In 1906 the U.S. government brought suit against Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890; in 1911 the New Jersey company was ordered to divest itself of its major holdings—33 companies in all." "...[C]ontrolling 90% of the industry's refineries and pipelines."

So, obviously, that first statement, included in the article, is false.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"Socialist confederalism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Socialist confederalism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Decentralized finance
Need to add "Decentralized Finance (DeFi)", which seems to be growing in the crypto market - example. Errantius (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

New Section for Economics
I am looking at adding a microeconomic discussion of decentralization - that is, discussing decentralization in the context of the organization of a firm. I was thinking of creating a new section in the article titled 'Economic Decentralization', putting it after section 5 - Ideological Decentralization, and before section 6 - Technological Decentralization. I would create a sub section under this titled 'Organisational Structure of a Firm'. Does anyone have any opposition to this? Additionally, I was thinking of shifting the sub section 4.2 titled 'Free Market' to the new 'Economic Decentralization' section given it pertains to economic theory. Would the author be okay with that? MReid43549467 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC).

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Jessssy (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

citation tool hanging up
I'll have to come back to thisGreyStar456 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference to 'Blockchain disruption and decentralized finance: The rise of decentralized business models'
@Grayfell The phrase “This is seen as having the potential to create new ways of doing business in the finance industry” is a terse summary of the paper. Would you prefer me to quote directly from the paper: "As a new area of financial technology, decentralized finance may reshape the structure of modern finance"? Or I could expand by summarising the section: "Blockchain technology can reduce transaction costs, generate distributed trust, and empower decentralized platforms, potentially becoming a new foundation for decentralized business models. In the financial industry, blockchain technology allows for the rise of decentralized financial services, which tend to be more decentralized, innovative, interoperable, borderless, and transparent. Empowered by blockchain technology, decentralized financial services have the potential to broaden financial inclusion, facilitate open access, encourage permissionless innovation, and create new opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators."GreyStar456 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Arguing in bad faith to preserve bland filler language is not persuasive. All of this is still far, far too vague to be informative, and none of this is falsifiable. Perhaps it hypothetically could "empower a new era of innovative blah blah blah" but Wikipedia isn't a platform for insipid hype, so you would need a reliable source to directly explain both what any of these buzzwords actually mean and why anyone who hasn't already bought into this hype should care. Because as it is, this is basically meaningless. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"SoK: a stratified approach to blockchain decentralization"
@Grayfell Why do you say this paper is not reliable? It has been peer-reviewed for a well-established conference.GreyStar456 (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 * As above, the cited statement was facile and uninformative. Even if the source was reliable, which is absolutely not a settled issue, this vague filler language would not help readers understand the topic. It would, however, artificially inflate the significance of this study by implying that it has some lasting encyclopedic significance. People study things all the time, but this is an tertiary source. We should summarize this according to reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources. This source doesn't appear to be reliable, nor is it a secondary source for this extremely vague claim.
 * The cited source appears to have been a pre-print submission. If it was published, your citation did not indicate where it was published.
 * Please also disclose you conflict of interest with Aggelos Kiayias, as a significant percentage of your activity on Wikipedia has been to subtly (or not-so-subtly) promote this academic.
 * Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an unreviewed pre-print. The paper was peer reviewed for the conference. As the call for papers page says: "Research papers should describe novel, previously unpublished scientific contributions to the field, and they will be subject to rigorous peer review. Accepted submissions will be included in the conference proceedings to be published in the Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series." The version published on the website is the "Final pre-proceedings paper". https://fc24.ifca.ai/cfp.html
 * This conference is run by the International Financial Cryptography Association. These conferences go back to 1997. The IFCA predates cryptocurrencies.
 * I shall address to so-called COI on the Kiayias talk pageGreyStar456 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, the cited statement was facile and uninformative. If the best case for its inclusion is that the cite is technically reliable, than it still doesn't belong at all.
 * If a paper has been published, cite that version of the paper, with a clear indication of where it has been published. Template:DOI is good for this.
 * But even so, that list of nothing but shady cryptocurrency companies in the "Platinum", "Gold", and "Silver" sponsors on the side of that submission page doesn't really assuage my concerns. The age of the conference itself is mostly irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Decentralization