Concept,Origin / Context,Core Idea
| Concept |
Origin / Context |
Core Idea
|
| Subsidiarity |
Catholic social teaching (1891–present), EU law, federalist theory |
Decisions must be taken at the lowest level competent to achieve the goal effectively for the common good. Higher levels only act when lower levels cannot.
|
| Multi-Scale Competency Architecture |
Systems theory, complexity science, modern heterodox governance thinking (e.g., Elinor Ostrom’s polycentricity, Jordan Hall, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Bonnitta Roy, Nora Bateson, etc.) |
Governance should be organized across multiple nested and overlapping scales, with each scale handling exactly the competencies it is best suited for, based on empirical capacity rather than ideology or tradition. Scales are dynamically adjustable and can be non-hierarchical or heterarchical.
|
Simple Analogy
- Subsidiarity is like a well-run cathedral: beautiful fixed hierarchy, clear ranks (parish → diocese → national conference → Vatican), but every rank only does what the rank below cannot.
- Multi-Scale Competency Architecture is like a living coral reef or a resilient city’s response to a disaster: new nodes pop up, old ones dissolve, organisms/scales cooperate or compete based on real-time fitness, and there is no single “apex” organism that is always in charge.
In One Sentence
- Subsidiarity: “Never do at a higher level what can be done well at a lower level — within a relatively stable, morally ordered hierarchy.”
- Multi-Scale Competency Architecture: “Let every scale do exactly what it is uniquely competent to do, and continuously reorganize the scales themselves according to empirical performance in a complex world.”
Both converge on the same practical outcome in many cases, but Multi-Scale Competency Architecture is more radical, future-oriented, and comfortable with fluid, non-hierarchical arrangements, whereas traditional subsidiarity remains anchored in ordered hierarchy and historical social forms.
Similarities
- Both are anti-centralist: Neither wants everything decided at the national or global level by default.
- Both use competency as the key criterion: The question is always: “Which scale/level is actually able to handle this issue effectively?”
- Both accept multiple scales of governance: Family, neighborhood, city, bioregion, nation-state, planetary institutions can all have legitimate roles.
- Both are pragmatic rather than dogmatic: They reject “smaller is always better” and “bigger is always better” in favor of fitness-for-purpose.
- Both support devolution by default: There is a strong presumption in favor of lower/more local scales whenever possible.
- Both allow upward escalation when needed: If a lower scale is overwhelmed or incompetent, authority/responsibility moves up (temporarily or permanently).
Key Differences
| Aspect |
Subsidiarity |
Multi-Scale Competency Architecture
|
| Philosophical/historical root |
19th–20th century Catholic social doctrine (Catholic → Christian-Democrat → EU) |
21st century complexity science, systems thinking, post-progressive theory
|
| View of hierarchy |
Explicitly hierarchical (family → municipality → province → nation → …) with a clear chain |
Can be heterarchical, networked, overlapping, or even acentric; hierarchy is only one possible pattern
|
| Direction of justification |
Top-down presumption with downward delegation (“higher should not do what lower can”) |
Bottom-up emergence with upward integration when necessary; no privileged direction
|
| Stability of scales |
Scales are relatively fixed and traditionally defined (the nation-state, the Church diocese, the municipality, etc.) |
Scales are dynamic, emergent, and adjustable; new scales can form or dissolve as competencies change
|
| Role of tradition / ontology |
Heavily informed by natural law and pre-existing social ontologies (the family is ontologically prior, etc.) |
Agnostic or skeptical about ontological priority; focuses on observable capacity and feedback loops
|
| Decision rule |
Common good + human dignity (normative) |
Systemic viability, anti-fragility, requisite variety (cybernetic/functional)
|
| Typical institutional examples |
Germany, Switzerland, EU, Catholic Church governance |
Theoretical so far, but closest real-world approximations: Ostrom’s polycentric resource regimes, some blockchain DAOs, Rojava’s democratic confederalism (partly), certain resilient city networks
|
| Attitude toward the nation-state |
Generally accepts it as a natural and necessary level |
Sees the nation-state as just one (often obsolescent) scale among many
|
| Conflict resolution between scales |
Higher level has ultimate authority if lower fails |
Uses negotiation, game-theoretic mechanisms, or meta-scale arbitration; no automatic primacy
|
| Time horizon & adaptability |
Relatively conservative; changes slowly |
Designed for rapid adaptation in high-complexity, fast-changing environments
|
See also
Governance, Self organization