The Government Centralization-Decentralization Debate in Metropolitan Areas

The extent of centralized or decentralized government has been an issue in America’s governing system since the Revolutionary War. The major issues debated at the Constitutional Convention revolved around the amount of authority the national government should possess in relation to the states. The centralization-decentralization issue is still a matter of contention, but a major focus of the debate has shifted to the metropolitan area. Despite the differences in time and levels of governments, many of the same arguments made during the constitutional debates are similar to the arguments made for and against government reform in metropolitan areas today. The author reconsiders the centralizationdecentralization issues debated at the Constitutional Convention and the ratification fight in the context of the current debate in metropolitan areas. Theoretical support for this exercise is provided by the international relations model. An application of the issues debated and resolved by the colonists to the current debate on the extent of centralized government in metropolitan areas would favor the establishment of metropolitan government. In 1787 a group met in Philadelphia to improve the Articles of Confederation. Although the group was divided in how to improve the Articles, there was general agreement that the central government needed to have more authority to govern the nation. The major issue to be resolved, which overshadowed all other issues, was the authority relationships between the states and the central government. While many wanted simply to strengthen the Articles, there were a few who felt the Articles allowed too much decentralization, and they wanted to establish an entirely new framework with much more central authority. The intensity of the struggle over the centralization-decentralization issue was evident from the debates at the Constitutional Convention and the fight over the ratification. The colonial nationalists were successful in establishing a government system with more centralized authority at the national level. This was accomplished despite bitter opposition from those who supported a more decentralized system of government. The ratification did not resolve the issue of authority relationships between the states and the national government but, with the exception of the Civil War, shifted it to the courts and the political process within the framework established in the Constitution. The centralization-decentralization issue has also filtered down to the nation’s urban areas. Although the level of government and the time period are different, a number of similar issues that plagued relationships among the states in colonial times are also evident among local governments in urban areas. Advocates of a more centralized governing system in metropolitan regions, as in the colonial era, are working to change the status quo or to reform the current local government system. In this essay, I review the literature on the issue of the amount of authority to give to the central government in the establishment of the Constitution. I review the subsequent results of a stronger central government relative to the arguments presented for and against a more centralized authority. Finally, I compare that