When a city grows, centralizing its governance seems logical.

Transportation networks cross neighborhood boundaries. Water systems serve entire regions. Infrastructure decisions in one place affect people somewhere else. Someone needs to see the whole system.

But centralization creates another problem.

The farther a decision moves from the people and places it affects, the more local information gets lost.

Auckland has been experimenting with that tension since its 2010 governance reforms. It has a regional governing body responsible for Auckland-wide issues and 21 local boards responsible for many decisions affecting their own communities.

The interesting question isn't whether centralization or decentralization is better.

It is which decisions belong at which level.

Some information exists at scale. A transportation authority can see passenger flows across an entire network. Other information is intensely local. Residents know which parks they use, which facilities sit empty and which neighborhood problems actually matter.

Auckland's structure attempts to put decisions closer to the information necessary to make them while keeping problems requiring system-wide coordination at the regional level.

This principle is usually called subsidiarity: decisions should be made at the lowest level capable of handling them effectively.

That distinction matters for new jurisdictions too. A Free City could reproduce internally the same centralization it was created to escape externally.

As communities grow, authority doesn't merely need limits.

It needs to be located at the right scale.

Too high, and governance loses local knowledge. Too low, and governance loses coordination.

The challenge is to centralize only what actually needs a center.

Read the full article on Substack:

​