Is subsidiarity a conditio sine qua non for sustainability?

Abstract

This paper argues that subsidiarity is a condicio sine qua non for sustainability. Through the complexity paradigm, the paper provides a historical reconstruction of both concepts to the end of elucidating their interdependence. The main thesis is that subsidiarity to sustainability is what self-organisation is to emergence. The paper ends with a sketch of future global governance structures based on a subsidiarity where cities take the lead on sustainability.

Keywords:

• Attractors
• cities
• collapse
• complexity
• emergence
• self-organisation
• Spinoza
• stability
• subsidiarity
• sustainability

Notes on contributor

Benjamen F. Gussen is a law and economics lecturer in the School of Law and Justice at the University of Southern Queensland. His main research focus is on the principle of subsidiarity and its application in unitary and federal polities. Ben’s other research interests include the amelioration of Australian federalism, the role of city-regions within ‘world–systems’, and the application of complexity theory to the analysis of legal polycentricity. Ben holds graduate degrees in law, economics, engineering, business administration, and education.

Notes

1. Emergence on the other hand relates to the cooperation of unlike components (think of cities interacting with each other) which results in behaviour that cannot be reduced to the sum of their individual modus operandi.

2. See for example Espinosa Salazar and Walker (2011). See also Tainter (1988, 1995, 2000).

3. See for example Mainzer (2005, Chapter 6).

4. See Hobsbawm (1992).

5. See Ostrom (2009, 2010a, 2010b).

6. The author would like here to acknowledge the valuable remarks posted on el Hombre del Sur by DCK on a previous version of this paper. See http://elhombredelsur.com/2014/02/25/new-thinking-on-sustainability-conference-summary-part-2.

7. See also Marshall (2008). Marshall and Ostrom sterilise the political economy aspects of subsidiarity, for example, when it comes to organising governance around Spinoza's rendition of sovereignty (Gussen 2013b).

8. See the analysis in Gussen (2012).

9. Note that since 1972, and especially since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, the concept of sustainability lost its contours. The current approach of ‘Sustainable development’ has no bearing on the original meaning of sustainability. However, sustainability remains a distinct, relevant principle. The 1987 Brundtland Report shaped the new concept of ‘sustainable development’ around the old concept of sustainability. It did so by demanding global, long-term economic justice without sacrificing the Earth's ecological integrity. But this one-size-fits-all approach is also suboptimal. The continued existence of the principle of sustainability has two important consequences: (1) sustainable development is given meaning and direction; (2) the existing treaties, laws, and legal principles need to be interpreted in light of the principle of sustainability.

10. Note that this paper emphasises the role of vertical subsidiarity rather than horizontal subsidiarity (more autonomy to the private sector rather than the public one).

11. See generally De Wolf and Holvoet (2005). See also Di Marzo Serugendo (2004). Some of the classic works on complexity would also be useful for readers new to the topic. See for example Waldrop (1992).

12. Hereafter referred to as The Statement.

13. For the classic work on emergent evolution see Morgan (1923).

14. The Statement, 46.

15. New Studies, 42.

16. New Studies, 46; emphasis in the original.

17. New Studies, 48–49.

18. For a definitive work on the history of emergence see Blitz (1992).

19. See Polanyi (1968).

20. See Laughlin (2005).

21. Wolf and Holvoet, above n 15.

22. See for example Pavé (2006). See also Jantsch (1975).

23. See Halley and Winkler (2008).

24. For a general introduction to the principle of sustainability see Bosselmann (2008).

25. This proposition has already been put forward by others, although no connection was made with subsidiarity. See for example, Bawden (2004), Rees (2008, 2010a, 2010b) and Weinstein, Turner, and Ibáñez (2012).

26. See further Marion (1999, 155–158).

27. See Allen (1997) and Portugali (1997).

28. The work by Mark Granovetter is useful here to explain further the nature of coupling (see Granovetter 1973, 1983, 1985).

29. See the seminal work by Nelson (1982).

30. As with many other political concepts, subsidiarity is a complex construct. For a critical review of this concept see Føllesdal (1998).

31. See statistics and training of the Lombardy Region (IReR 2009).

32. See generally Backhaus (1999).

33. See generally Backhaus (1999, 137–138).

34. For a critique of the principle of subsidiarity in the context of the European Union see Kirchner (1998).

35. Carozza, above n 60 at 58.

36. Hopkins, above n 58 at 29.

37. Macdonald and Nielsson, above n 59.

38. See Gosepath (2005).

39. See Floriani (2012, 82–83).

40. See for example Kohr (1986).

41. See also the arguments in Lee (2010). See also Blank (2006) and Vischer (2001–2002).

42. For a review article on the concept of polycentricity see (Aligica and Tarko 2012).

43. Spinoza, above n TP I 6.

44. Spinoza, above n TP II 7.

45. Spinoza, above n TP IX 4.

46. See in particular Jacobs (1985, 2000).

47. Jacobs, above n 75 The Nature of Economies at 63.

48. Jacobs, above n 75 The Nature of Economies at 63.

49. Jacobs, above n 75 The Nature of Economies at 63.

50. Jacobs, above n 75 The Nature of Economies at 106.

51. Jacobs, above n 75 Cities and the Wealth of Nations at 158–162.