Decentralisation is better so that they can know the problem of people there and can better solve them.

As Friedrich Hayek said “information/knowledge is dispersed and incomplete. It is decentralized in that each of us has our own unique knowledge of time and place (and that is often tacit) … All the information is never given to a single mind. Accordingly, to secure the best use of known resources/knowledge, Hayek suggests that planning and control should be decentralized so that people can take advantage of those unique forms of knowledge that only they possess… He argued that problems arise from constant little changes and that central planning cannot address all these changes since “all the information is never given to a single mind”. Personally, I share Hayek's opinion presented in the paper "Use of knowledge in society" (1945).

Planning developed and targeted through the Centralised level is much more efficient and powerful. It reduces lots of workforce, human resources, funding, prevents massive corruptions, time and leads to uniform implementation.

Dear Ahmed.

It is an interesting question, coming from Baghdad! You are living in a country with an ancient history, and the location of one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, the Hanging Gardens. Mesopotamia was also where humanity made an important change in their way of living, from hunter-gatherers to a sedentary lifestyle that could arguably be called one of the most important transformations in 'planning', or, more broadly, decision-making (cf. the books by Jared Diamond). Residing ('living') in one fixed place for an extended period of time was possible because of the fertility of Mesopotamia (around 14,000 years ago) and the opportunity that offered for people to harvest a surplus to last them through the year, as well as start a revolution: using the surplus harvest to provide to non-farmers who would conduct jobs to serve the community. This was also the beginning of government, and the 'social contract': for the payment (at first in kind) of those non-farmers they were expected to deliver services to the community, for the common interest. And that also is the origin of the 'commons', including the 'tragedy of the commons', that is the emergence of community members who do not automatically make decisions that are best for the community. And that is where your question about centralised or decentralised decision-making pops up.

I have to disagree with the previous colleagues that one or the other is better. Some decisions are best taken at the central level, and other decisions are best left to lower level decision-makers.There is this Harvard article that may be helpful: https://hbr.org/2017/12/when-to-decentralize-decision-making-and-when-not-to, in which the 'subsidiarity principle' is mentioned: let decisions be made, or tasks be performed, at the lowest level possible where those decisions can be made or tasks can be performed. The Dinar is Iraq is managed at the central level, but garbage collection can be a local government responsibility. Income tax decisions are taken in Baghdad, while local government may collect fees from vendors using an open market. Etc. Coming back to the Hanging Gardens, who do you think would have 'planned' that? It is not impossible that individuals got the idea and worked together, but more likely is was someone who ruled ('central planning').

We have international organisations who we have entrusted with responsibilities to manage issues that cross country borders, that need to be dealt with at a higher level than that of the country. In deciding at what level to 'plan', 'budget' or make decisions and conduct tasks more generally, there is another principle than that of the subsidiarity principle: the principle to try and choose the level that minimises 'external effects', especially negative external effects. Example. A chemical plant could pour waste water in a river in one county and kill fish that fishermen downstream in another country depended on for a living. Who should manage this problem? Neither county may be able to solve this problem, and an authority at a higher level may have to solve this. A scholar associated with publications on these issues is E.J. Mishan.

An economist and political scientist, and Economics Nobel Prize Winner, who I can recommend that you read work from is Elinor Ostrom. She has done a lot of work in this field of finding optimal solutions for centralising and decentralising government and decision-making. She has also done important work on policing, which is now such a controversial issue in the United States. Ostrom doesn't live anymore, but she would otherwise have been interviewed on TV. Her recommendations would have been to reduce policing, especially limit the tasks that they have been given (cf. https://peterlevine.ws/?p=19603). There are 18,000 police agencies in the US, while the number of counties is 3,100. At what level is decided how policing is organised in the US may well be among the reasons of the present problems. I hope this helps.

in general, decentralization has advantages. however, the great danger is the trend towards regional autonomy.

the main condition is the existence of a strong bond which will ensure eternal unity.

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Jaap van der Straaten , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards.

Thank you Dear Dr. Jaap van der Straaten for your kind words.

Centralized and decentralized planning have their places in public administration. If town planning for example is decentralized, the national plan will be disconnected. It can start with decentralization and finally harmonies by a centralized system

It depends what kind of planning is applied. At present many countries, especially developing, suffer because of the lack of holistic and sustainable understanding, which is attributed more towards centralized planning. But there are kinds of questions and problems which can not be solved otherwise than by decentralization, especially those of communities development.

Centralized planning need resources and manpower. Not easy to plan without information. Decentralized is letting the market decides and creating an environment for the market to function freely and efficiently.

I think It depends on society's nature. For heterogeneous society, decentralization may be more appropriate as its concentration on localism, as well as culture and local resources. Also, decentralization enhances sustainability. However, the centralization generally getting success in a homogenous society. In a heterogeneous society, it is getting trouble and promotes conflict.

the best way to ensure unity is education and strengthening of the culture of the people. the better united the people, the more one should not be afraid of decentralization. it is effective but it should not be a source of separatism.

Hi! I think hybrid is better. Certain planning should be done centralised and other plans that help to accomplish the centralised plan in the SBU's should be decentralised for better outcomes. Thanks.

The centralized system is much efficient that the other ones due to the better monitoring and controls.

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Vishnu Kumar Gupta , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards.

It depends on the type of organization. There is a tendency to centralize planning in international corporations. Managers of subsidiaries implement plans taken in the parent company. Sometimes they have no influence on these decisions (plans).Generally, in multinational corporations there are many advantages to centralized planning.

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Dariusz Sobotkiewicz , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards.