On 9/5/08, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With all due respect, what I was writing about was not subsidiarity. Nor has > subsidiarity (senu stricto) anything to do with the > proposal for how the EU and its Member States should deal with issues, > despite the abuse of the term "subsidiarity" in this context. > The EU proposals are all about devolution, i.e. handing down. (Never forget: > "Power devolved is power retained.") Subsidiarity, on > the other hand, is about building decision-making structures from the bottom > up, i.e. a lower (smaller, more local) group > voluntarily giving power to a higher (larger, more widespread) group only > because the required decision can be made only at that > higher level or because the decision will be better made at that higher > level.
Erm, that *is* what the EU is about. The EU member countries are giving up some of their power (the so-called 'pooled' sovereignty), so that decisions on those issues can be handled at the EU level. I did say in theory, because, it isn't really followed. The EU wants as much power as it can get its hands on irrespective of the optimal level of making decisions. In any case, it can only take new powers if all countries agree. However, the EU doesn't mandate that members actually implement subsidiarity in their own countries. > If the larger assembly is deciding if power should be DELEGATED, it is > devolution that is > in operation, not subsidiarity. I guess it depends on how you want do define the term. I don't think subsidiarity is determined by actual power, it is determined by where the decisions are made. >From wiki "Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority." For example, if the UK Parliament passed a bill setting up the structure you recommend for schools. Then there would be subsidiarity, even though Parliament would retain the power to reverse its decisions and take direct rule again. If Parliament decides the levels that each type of decision is made, then you would expect that they would assign more powers to larger councils than is optimal (i.e. decide more centrally than is optimal). OTOH, if all powers are given to the individual school boards, then you would expect that powers would decided at smaller councils than is optimal. Generally, political bodies will keep powers to themselves, if at all reasonable. > > In the US, the federal government decides to a certain extent > > what power the States should have. > This is devolution, not subsidiarity. It may have started out as > subsidiarity, i.e. the States agreed to give certain powers to the > federal centre, but that's not how it is today. I would say that the federal government is still somewhat restricted, but certainly not as restricted as it was. It has large authority, but not unlimited. Btw, on the schools issue, how would you decide who can vote. Would voters get to vote for the nearest school? Alternatively, only parents with children in the school might be allowed to vote (or maybe parents who have expressed an interest in sending their children to that school). Where should the decision on the question "Should parents be allowed to send their children to any school that they want to?" be made? Also, what is optimal for "Should we use subsidiarity to make decisions?". ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
