I was reminded of decentralisation after Fractelle mentioned it recently on another thread.

I have good memories of that time when our NSW government actively promoted the concept. Local councils were also trying to get busnesses to move to their area and country centres benefited.

I am interested to know if posters think the concept will come again and what their thoughts were about the concept.

Could it be partly an answer to the larger cities many current problems?

Remember when we all learnt about decentralisation in Geography at school? It has become a lost cause in recent times.

I am all for it Banjo. It is the only way to share the economic wealth and government services around equitably and halt the massive growth of major urban centres which brings with it all sorts of problems in maintaining and developing infrastructure in line with growth.

Why we can't learn from the lessons of other great conurbations beats me.

"Economic Rationialism" killed Decentralisation.
Gov' decided to run itself in "business" mode, and that was the end of it. Once they could use computerisation to run things, they did, and that brought an end to regional centres, services, and development.
I don't see it returning till we can switch off business-mode and get Gov' back into serving the people, as people, and not some vague "consumer data" they can play with on their shiny new toys. It's like the health and social services, they call us "clients", but we're not, we're not purchasing anything, they are supposed to be our "servants", that's where the name came from, "Public Service".

I remember Goughs plans for a new city between Bathurst and Orange.
It still strikes me as a good idea. Even more so as starting with a fresh site could mean a proper sustainable community. Renewables and recycling etc built in from the start.

Where would the water come from?

Banjo, in the mid eighties the largest companies, particularly multi-nationals, decided to eliminate hierarchical structures and adopted flatter management. The decision making was then distributed to local levels. The centralized authority, responsibility and, most importantly, accountability became shared with all levels.

To work effectively, all employees needed to fully understand and share the common goals and values of the organization. This was critical because day to day “control” was being divested.

This has worked extraordinarily well in the private sector but is very difficult, but not impossible in the public sector. The common goals and values in the private sector are the political ideology and policies of the public sector. Given the way governments gain control of parliament, consensus is impossible. Most western governments win by a majority of less that 10%. Obama 2.2%, Rudd by 4.7%. This tells us that about 48% of voters are in one camp and 48% in the other, the swinging voters always determine government. Thus, no consensus.

The left of politics likes centralized control (less trust), the right likes less centralization (more trust). We have governments and bureaucracies that love authority and responsibility; sadly they will never accept the all important “accountability”. These are possibly the key reasons why it seems so hard to decentralize. Additionally in Australia we have three levels of government. Labor State governments traditionally weaken or eliminate local government because it is a threat to centralized control. Liberal State governments tend to be much more supportive of stronger local government as this can enable decentralization.

There also needs to be some thought given to the types of “collective goods and services” we purchase, through our taxes, from all levels of government. Sorry Maximillion, but you are a client and you are purchasing.

CJ Morgan has a point when the issue of as water is raised. Perhaps some essential services need to be centrally controlled and managed with the distribution/delivery divested to local levels. Outsourcing and privatization don’t fit this model and have as many problems as the centralized models.

Good thread Banjo, will follow with interest.

Decentralisation was replaced by Social- Economic- ethical value destabilization; - and any Idea out of that sphere is a good Idea, but 30 years too late.
I don’t know how many will survive when slamming into a mountain at speeds of Mac 8 ; I can presume – Not many.

"There also needs to be some thought given to the types of “collective goods and services” we purchase, through our taxes, from all levels of government. Sorry Maximillion, but you are a client and you are purchasing."
Hang on there Spindoc, taxes are collected in OUR name, by Gov, which in our so-called Democracy is supposed to be OUR Representatives, acting in OUR name, for OUR good. If I have an employee or agent, and give them money to perform a function, I am NOT buying anything from them, they are acting FOR me. How can I "buy" a service that I already own, as a tax-payer, and that is funded by MY money, administrated by MY "servants", it just doesn't make sense. Unless you hold to the "business model" of Gov', and that is precisely my point, when did the ethos change, and why, since it HAS changed, are we all now receiving far less "services" that our taxes fund, yet massive, profitable, private businesses are getting huge hand-outs of OUR money?

Spindoc and others
Banjo I remember Monarto, The Multi Function Polis outer Adelaide, Albury- Wodonga et al the lot. My take on decentralization is that it’s a Great idea was killed by the concept that “big (markets) is best”(economic rationalism).

What was missing at that time was awareness/realization that:
1. Absolute anything has both +&- . In those days the minuses were simply not recognized. Incl. causes for the latest financial crash.
2. There is a difference between centralized control and centralized service delivery.
3. That Australia/ world aren’t Magic puddings i.e. they have finite limitations.
Among these limitations are Ecological ones (all of them).
4. That “economic”, “big is best” “efficiencies of scale” aren’t always the best for the above reasons or necessarily for the people. Clearly the “business model’s” first criteria is to minimize expenditure and increase $ for the owners (government). In this model service delivery is towards the more efficient areas. Fine in theory but ask some of our decentralized population about reliability of power, medical services, and phone services.
5. To facilitate large commercial “set up” expenditures uncalculated offsets were offered and hidden costs (3) were ignored.
To me the tetradactyls are coming home to roost.
In recent posts I have suggested several times that a linked but self sufficient decentralized hub system of some industry, services and infrastructure is better than Megatropolis’. I would argue that there are a number of long term advantages with decentralization, amongst which are social, environmental, financial, environmental and reduce single point failures

You are sort of right Maximillion but far too literal. Just because you are a member of the public and something is described as "public ownership" does not mean you own it. You can be a shareholder, you can have equity, you can even have a vote but you don't actually own anything.

You contribute through your taxes to the creation and operation of government ministries. The government creates public ministries to provide say water, electricity, education, public transport, libraries, hospitals etc., etc. You don't own them, its fee for service, you pay for what you use. You are therefore a customer or client for the collective goods and services that government provides.

Yes you have contributed to the establishment costs but you do not own it. If as you say,"If I have an employee or agent, and give them money to perform a function, I am NOT buying anything from them, they are acting FOR me". Of course you are buying, you are buying whatever product or service you have contracted to purchase. You do own the contract, you can dictate the terms of that contract, you can specify the required outcome and you can determine if it meets your expectations. But you do not "own them", they are not your servants and they will provide you with absolutely nothing outside your contract with them. So why should it be any different with government?

Spindoc, what you are describing IS the "business model" of Government, exactly what I'm disputing. We all ARE the country, we DO own it, we are not "shareholders", we cannot sell our holdings, nor buy others, mostly.And as for our "contributing" to the Ministries, why else do they even exist if not to service OUR needs? They were set up, by US, to provide a service to US, and are funded by US, through taxation, why should we then be expected to purchase a service we paid for in the first place, and continue to do so? The way you describe things is as if Government was in some way a separate individual, that owns the lot, not dependent on us, but taking the right to rule and tax us.
This is supposedly a Democracy, "The Rule of the People", Government is supposed to be US, acting through our elected rep's, run by OUR Public Service, isn't it? It's NOT a corporation, a "corporate citizen", (another subject I may pursue in a later thread), it's NOT a God-given Right to Rule of the rich. It's all of us, even you.
And I feel you've entirely missed the point about servants and agents, if I hire someone to perform a function for me, I expect it to be performed. If that function is to purchase a thing for me, it does not then belong to them, it's mine. I pay them, that's my contract with them, the goods and services they purchase in my name, using MY money, ARE mine, not theirs, to re-sell to me! The government IS me, and you, and acting in our names, under the "electoral contract", as it were.
"Why should it be any different with Gov'"?
Because it IS! "The Government" does not own the country, or the services, WE do, as a nation, they are hired to run it FOR US, that's the contract, making them OUR employees.

Or, for those with realllly long memories, Whitlam's attempts such as Bathurst-Orange/Armidale-New England even Albury-Wondonga. All such ideas fail when there are INCENTIVES to implement them
As with EU farming subsidies, people farm the grant not the cow.
Instead why not try the much vaunted (but much more ignored) claim to let the market decide, providing of course that the hidden subsidies of staying in the nega cities are dealt with. Little things like transport infrastructure, water supply and that little thing of labour supply. All currently over featherbedded on the coast, first for historical reasons then later and NOW for pusillanimous political reasons - are there any other?

i feel that an important point is being missed ,we created govt to serve us[specificlly for our peace and well being , govt has subverted the colective power into an abuser /user relation ship

here is the legalities of what they did, first constitutionally the acts of the con are to control govt, [the beuro roc rats didnt like that so have adopted the rule of buisness, we the people have become serfs by a clever trick

under rules of buisness you apply [beg] for a service, so to gety a drivers licence we apply [apply means beg] we beg for a licence, this created persona[to wit a licenced driver thus falls subject to the act covering the laws of the road

well the acts of the act state punitive punishments[because you joined the group of licenced drivers [itself created under the act [you fall subject to the act]...thus not under constitutional protections ,thus whereas under real law a criminal is needed to have legal standing in court [any driver stands in court simply for violating the clubs rules ,

the court under contract juristiction dosnt need a victim only to show you are the 'licenced person'' ,thus subject to the rules of the act

[or worse YOU DIDNT DENEY it, thus the act has a presumed authority over you[as silence signifies concent]

no lawyer is going to explain it to you,[but look at the franchise to rake in cash,thus we now have the absurd state where the london law society rules the world via their lawyer members ACTUALLY MAKING THE NEO [new] revenue raising laws at whim

its unconstitutional but hey the judges were lawyers[lol]they are in on the globally centralised scam ,they wont tell you that by voting you hand over YOUR power of autorney for them to do as they chose, the dont need to tell you legally we are inmisiles[a legal term, meaning wards of the state]not capable of handeling your own affairs
and they are right

how many of the happy chappies in Canberra are lawyers who make their living by making your word nul and void.

The lefts continuing failed plans to deliver proper social & affordable housing and their albeit stacked dense dwellings "less than again ran constructive "outcomes", That,s right, No comment from the left as their answers are nondescript poems,abstract dreams based on a drug induced nimby orgasm, with a never ending drama, wrapped in solid nothingness while keeping the ones who need housing and shelter,wet and suffering to the delight of the non suffering and impervious servants public,snobs anonymous.

It's all too simple, & anti vote buying for government. Just one law to pass, & then a few from the private sector to implement.

Every government, state, or fedral must spend the same amount of its public service wages, & accommodation budgets, in each electorate. This to be effected over 10 years.

The public servants tell us they can work from home, with no loss of efficiency. That being the case, they can definately do it from country towns, & there's all those empty bank buildings to put them in.

In the states we would still have about 50% in the capitals, but many would be spread through out the state. They would expect, & demand, a level of service, not even dreamed of by country people. The services would follow the people. Even industry, if we still have any would also follow. Lets face it, there is no more proffitable customer, than government.

Just imaging the reduced congestion, & bottlenecks, if we got 60% of the state public servants out of capital city centres. Just imagine the improvement in services, if we got the majority of fedral servants out of Canberra.