Implementation of Subsidiarity

The principle of subsidiarity—perhaps longest known for its role in Catholic social teaching though also described as “fundamental to the functioning of the European Union”—has an undeniable allure for all serious persons. Succinctly described, subsidiarity holds that governing decisions ought to be made at the lowest level of competence. In a concrete example, decisions about marketing in a large company, employing a marketing director, should not typically need to be decided upon by the CEO. Similarly, decisions about your town’s motto should not be determined at the state or federal level—and, arguably, a great deal more about your town should not be either (but often is).

Modern industrialized society often makes implementation of subsidiarity more difficult, however. So much that enters into our lives comes from afar. Mass media communication turns our eyes away from the local community and to bigger, more exciting events—about which we can usually do nothing. The import of products made far cheaper in distant lands correspondingly raises the price of goods made locally—often to the point of being impossible to afford with regularity for most people. As such, how can we pull ourselves back from the mass of society and into a structure of subsidiarity?

Clarifying the Conception of Subsidiarity

First, I believe we need to clarify what subsidiarity means. This clarification is twofold: for we need both a sharper theoretical definition and the ability to understand how we might implement it practically. Identifying the principle by “making decisions at the lowest level of competence”, while useful, both presupposes something important and implies a negation. The European Union explicitly defines the principle as what aims at “determining the level of intervention that is most relevant in the areas of competences shared between the EU and the EU countries.” Intervention tells us a lot about how the principle here is being conceived. This definition frames subsidiarity as a principle of restraining and exercising power. Is this how we should really think of it?

I would like to ask, therefore, whether we can conceive subsidiarity as something positive. To answer this question, I believe we need to consider what is presupposed: namely, making decisions and having competence. What does it mean to have competence to make a decision? How is this decided? Who decides it?

Structures for Implementation

Second, the practical application of subsidiarity—following upon the theoretical clarification—proves consistently challenging for one primary reason (at least, so I would like to argue): namely, everyone keeps waiting for someone else to tell them how to do it. We seem to believe there is a determinate way of things being done, known only by someone else. In truth, it seems, nobody knows what to do. We wait for… what, we do not even know. Thus, action eludes us.

Perhaps, I would suggest, the digital environment may offer a way out of this witless waiting. Ostensibly, digital life exacerbates our inept passivity. But much centralization has been the product of industrial distance. Spread out and anesthetized through individualism, we do not communicate. And by not communicating, we fail to take responsibility. Contrariwise, the digital environment, if we open our eyes, can allow us better methods of communication. Retrieving communication, we can begin again to take responsibility.

Join our Conversation

To investigate both the theoretical and the practical questions of subsidiarity, we invite you to join our Philosophical Happy Hour this Wednesday (28 February 2024). Take responsibility! We may discuss many relevant issues of economics, politics, and human action. But a few questions to be explicitly explored include:

• How can we positively define subsidiarity?
• How do we attain competence in decision making?
• Is subsidiarity “top-down” or “bottom-up”?
• In what practical scenarios does subsidiarity play a role?
• How can improved communication help us implement subsidiarity?
• and what challenges are presented to subsidiarity by technocracy?