Centralized vs. Decentralized

In my "Influencing Public Policy" class we were comparing two different models the UK government has used - the Westminster Model and the Differentiated Model.

We split into groups and argued which model is better. Simply, the Westminster model is the older model in favor of a more centralized government, and the Differentiated Model is a more evolved model that promotes decentralized government for the sake of a society that is primarily diverse. Granted, there are many more points to each model, but for the sake of this post- I elected the argument of centralized vs decentralized.

Centralized
This type of governinig is seen more in a capitalist or communist country (ie. north korea, china, etc). And you see all the internal issues there. The governing comes from one place, and it has a top down type of governance ( all ruling evolves from one person, so a president, prime minister, all similar types qualify). The argument for is that information is not lost between each sector and it all comes from one place. It is easier to implement things nationally, there are less government workers to pay for, so it is more cost effective and traditionalists (those against change) argue that if you are looking at a government that meets the needs of the general interest, a central government is better because it looks at the country and makes broad laws that are able to be molded at times of specific situations (simply the government is not as involved with the people, there is less regulation, and the "laissez-faire" concept is dominent). This is the heart of what a centralized government should look like- however if you look at the governments taht are primarily centralized- "laissez-faire" really only truly exists in non-sovereign states (which are building today).

Decentralized
A more modern approach to governing many different types of people. It allows local and regional governments to govern their areas, and leaves the national power to really deal with foreign policy issues and issues that are posed from the regional level. The "for" stance is that this approach is better for the type of world we live in today; where there are many different types of people, and broad laws do not govern the immigrants in a nation. Setting up local and regional governments allow people in specified areas to be governed the way that works for those areas while still adhering to national law. It's more specific to the needs of the different types of people. The argument against is that once you decentralize the government, it looses power, and reversing that authority may not happen. Giving independence to an area may make the area shy away (which is essentially how we get different countries and governments).

If you consider that the ultimate goal of a government is to secure the interests of its citizens (or people within its borders) and to protect them, which government would be more successful?

My answer is that a decentralized government was created in response to a centralized government, and the lack of regulation is what has helped cause a recession. Public policy should not be created as a response to what our government has done wrong, but rather it should be a preventative step. Allowing people to govern themselves could work if their combine interests do not infringe upon the rights of other territories or persons. The reason this does not work is that people are motivated by power, and if why just govern myself if I could govern my neighbor too. Negotiations take place as a form of compromise- sure I will give up my right to these decisions, if you promise to protect me, type thing. And voila- we have a government. Decentralization gives up a lot of rights because more government is involved- but with a diverse crowd, how will anyone's voice be heard. If you look on an international scale, governments give up power to higher treaties (E.U., UN, NATO) and in favor of alliances. Without these alliances, governments will be able to govern themselves until some sort of problem arises that they can not handle. (war, poverty, something they can't fix by themselves).

Centralized governments do have alliances- but if you agree with my stance, then you can see how difficult it would be to help govern a country- say as big as China that is centralized. And expensive.

Thoughts?