[devonin]

I think the issue is that while decentralization can move a service away from a single point of failure, making it more resistant to a catastrophic failure of the system, each additional point of relegation is an addition source of inefficiencies. It's a risk/efficiency proposition as far as I've ever considered it.

One central authority, if it is actually doing a good job is far more efficient. Better able to implement changes across the whole system, ensure it is functioning consistently and properly, and better deal with a crisis anywhere in the system.

Of course if that central authority isn't doing a good job, everybody is basically screwed because, who else you going to get to do it?

It's an interesting dichotomy, because for a lot of things (sanitation, fire departments) decentralization seems perfectly safe and reasonable and a good way to unbloat bureaucracy, but for a lot of things (education, health care) I care far more about ensuring that everybody has equal access to services than I am that those services be as efficient as possible. Product of my Canadian upbringing I'm sure.