Daniel Treisman

This is a very welcome book on political decentralization, a subject which seems to be a bit under the radar in contemporary political theory. The author examines a number of different arguments that support decentralized political decision-making and finds them wanting. His main argument which pops up repeatedly is that the advantages claimed for political decentralization can be achieved equally well, if not better, through merely administrative decentralization - i.e. administration subdivided by a central political authority.

Most of the questions about centralization vs decentralization are not resolvable from general principles alone. Empirical evidence is also very hard to piece together for solid conclusions, as the author shows in a separate chapter. This book uses quite a lot of formal, rational choice type modeling to test hypotheses and broaden conclusions. This will probably be off-putting to everyone except professional scholars in the field, as there really isn't much reward in plowing through two or three pages of equations if you don't have the requisite background. However, I don't think skipping those parts significantly impeded my understanding of the book. There are still more than enough informal arguments here to make a good case.

I found the bibliography interesting: there are the classical works on decentralization vs centralization - Mill, Tocqueville, Madison, Hayek - but every modern source is an article from a specialist journal. Modern book-length treatments appear to be almost nonexistent. Political decentralization may be in fashion in some circles, as the author states on page 1, but political theorists don't seem to have caught up with this fashion yet. With its formal models but broad scope, this work falls somewhere between specialized and general works. Hopefully it will spur further work on both sides.

Overall I think this book is a good resource for general readers interested in political theory. It offers much to think about on this important subject. The writing is fluid and the discussion keeps covering new ground from beginning to end. The author appropriately qualifies his conclusions and often simply declares the impact of decentralization indeterminate, which is a sign of fair consideration for both sides of the debate.… (altro)