The globalized world is facing a crisis of policy coordination. With regional organizations, countries with some similar traits may pursue policies that are able to provide solutions to their problems. Proximity is a model capable of playing positively on growth in sub-regional integration (see MICHEL FOUQUIN).

However it is difficult have coordination between different regional policies of the same country.

Dear Bruce, I look at that issue from the point of view of sustainability markets and integration;

Three observations that may help you as food for thoughts:

a) traditional markets do better under system dominance, partial regulation and the maximization rule, which may work against what is happen next door or next region:

Maximization, partial regulation, and system dominance: Can they be drivers of true sustainability?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235270181_Maximization_partial_regulation_and_system_dominance_Can_they_be_drivers_of_true_sustainability

b) Top down or top down approaches both have limitations, a balance approach seems to be needed;

Where Should Donors Place Their Monetary and Trade Incentives to Encourage Developing Countries to Implement Balanced Pro-Rich/Pro-Poor Development Programs

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244566_Where_Should_Donors_Place_Their_Monetary_and_Trade_Incentives_to_Encourage_Developing_Countries_to_Implement_Balanced_Pro-RichPro-Poor_Development_Programs

c) Paradigm evolution seems to suggest that a balance approach based on sustainability markets may be the future;

Utilitarianism, Raw Liberalism, Moral Liberalism, and True Sustainability: Basic Paradigm Foundations, Changing Assumptions, and the Evolution of Development Paradigms

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277111_Utilitarianism_Raw_Liberalism_Moral_Liberalism_and_True_Sustainability_Basic_Paradigm_Foundations_Changing_Assumptions_and_the_Evolution_of_Development_Paradigms

Article Maximization, Partial Regulation, and System Dominance: Can ...

Article Where Should Donors Place Their Monetary and Trade Incentive...

Article Utilitarianism, Raw Liberalism, Moral Liberalism, and True S...

Dear Bruce

Your question is very complicated; it would require a book to answer it. Said that, a couple of brief remarks. First, I'm not sure that the planet's dominant model is corporate and top down. It very much depends on the policy area. Secondly, in some areas there's a movement towards centralization, as in the case of monetary policy in the EU, whereas in others, like cultural policy, there's decentralization. Thirdly, a guiding principle is subsidiarity, i.e. decision should be taken at the lowest possible level such that externalities are internalized. Put differently, if a problem can be efficiently and effectively handled at a lower level, a higher order level should not   take over

Dear Henk, thank you for sharing the ideas:  One comment:

a) Under proper government/decision making and monitorings, the susidiary principle seems reasonable and pracitical, but under corrupted governance/decision making and no or biased monitoring it can lead to misuse of power and marginalization....

Many institutions or corporations have an step by step conflict resolution system, under proper government/decision making and monitoring if a decision at the first step of the step by step resolution system is not biased the efficient and effective solution can be found at that level and the problem stops....if the decicion maker provides a biased decision and the complainant appeals to the next level, then an efficient and efective decision can be sought at that level.  If the second decision maker investigates, he is most likely related to the first decision maker than to the complainant perhaps for power difference or status within the instituion.  If the second decision maker decides to correct the biased decision of the first decision maker it looks bad to the institution as there was a failure, but the problem would stop there.  But if the second decision maker decides to protect the reputation of the first decision maker, he would also render a biased decision...And if this second biased decision is appealed to the next step of the step by step resolution system....then at one point the last decision maker has to think about protecting the reputation of the institution or the rights of the original complaninant.....And if the complainant is still alive and willing to continue applealing and he or she has the resources to do so it may force them to solve the issue at the end, but if the original complainant is a member of a minority group and specially poor, there may be a final biased decision knowing that the institution has the resources to keep the complainant without an effective and efficient solution. and avoid accepting systematic subsidiary failure......Using qualitative comparative techniques a sustainability model can be designed to show what happens when there is an step by s tep institutional subsidiary system to resolve conflicts; and all levels of the subsidiary fail and collude with lower levels of decision making to avoid providing at the end the efficient and effecive solution that should have been provided at the firsts subsidiary levels  and avoid accepted systematic institutional subsidiary failure and in doing so victimizing more the orignal complainant.

Dear Lucio

The  issue you're bringing up is very interesting and important. As put in my introductory remark, the topic is very broad and would require  a several hunderds of pages volume to comprehensively address it. I just focused on  the subsidiarity principle under ideal circumstances. Analysis of its pros and cons  under corrupted governance/decision making and no or biased monitoring is a most interesting, but unfortunately under-researched,  topic.

Dear Henk, I wish you are having a nice day.

I have looked at the subsidiary principle from the sustainability point of view, when it should be expected to work fully/always, when it should be expected to work partially/sometimes, and when it should not be expected to work at all/never. Whether the system relates to institutions like universities or corporations or goverment programs, whether vertical or parallel structures.  I intend to publish those ideas in the future as I think they are important to highlight how sustainability failures can be prevented to ensure effective and efficient internalization.

When playing with ideas like these I came out with something I called " the principle of inverse action" and I applying to the process of going from full nationalization to privitization indicating that when we going to full nationalizaion we should  act fast starting with asset of national relevance first, later we move to assets of local relevance to maintain system stablity  , but when we go the opposite way we start privitiazing slowly assets of local relevance first to maintain system stability and later perhaps national asset privatization can take place...

Respectfully yours;

Food for thoughts about this principle and other new concepts are in:

Nationalization as Privatization in Reverse: Understanding the Nature of the Commons to Identify a Possible Point of Optimal Nationalization.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244564_Nationalization_as_Privatization_in_Reverse_Understanding_the_Nature_of_the_Commons_to_Identify_a_Possible_Point_of_Optimal_Nationalization

Article Nationalization as Privatization in Reverse: Understanding t...