What this axis measures
The scale axis asks where decisions should be made. At the Local pole is the view that power is best held by communities, municipalities, regions and voluntary associations, close to the people affected. At the Central pole is the view that decisions are best made by a strong national government that can ensure consistency, fairness and coordination across the whole country.
This axis is often confused with the authority axis, but they are different. The authority axis asks how much power the state should have over individuals. The scale axis asks at which level public power should sit. A person can want a powerful state at the local level, such as active city governments with strong regulatory power, or a limited state at the national level. Many federalists and localists are not libertarians, and many centralists are not authoritarians.
The Local pole
People scoring towards Local believe that communities understand their own needs best, that local government is more accountable and responsive, that diversity of local policies allows experimentation and choice, and that civic participation thrives at small scales. Items such as "Decisions should be made at the lowest level possible" and "Neighbourhood assemblies should have real decision-making power" sit here.
Anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism score most strongly Local, since both imagine societies built from voluntary communities. Distributism, libertarian socialism, green politics, libertarianism and communitarianism also lean Local. The principle of subsidiarity, from Catholic social teaching, expresses this idea: higher levels should not take over what lower levels can do.
The Central pole
People scoring towards Central believe that national standards ensure equal treatment regardless of where people live, that big problems require coordinated national solutions, that local elites can be as oppressive as national ones, and that fragmentation can weaken a country. Items such as "National standards should override regional differences" and "Big problems require big, centralised solutions" sit here.
Historical fascism, Marxism-Leninism and state capitalism score furthest towards Central, all relying on centralised direction. Technocracy also leans strongly Central. Within democratic politics, centralist positions often come from egalitarians who worry that local control produces unequal services, or from nation-builders worried about national unity.
The middle
Many people support a mix: national standards for some things, such as civil rights and basic welfare, and local control for others, such as schools, planning and policing. This is the logic of most federal systems. Social democrats, social liberals, centrists and conservatives often score near the middle.
Federalism and subsidiarity
Two related ideas shape this axis. Federalism divides power constitutionally between national and regional governments, as in the United States, Germany, Switzerland, India and Canada. Subsidiarity, a principle in the EU treaties and Catholic social teaching, holds that decisions should be taken as close to citizens as possible. Switzerland is often cited as a highly decentralised democracy, with cantons and municipalities holding significant powers, including taxation, and frequent referendums. France has traditionally been cited as a centralised state, though it has decentralised since the 1980s.
A short history of the debate
Debates over centralisation are as old as states themselves. In the founding of the United States, Federalists like Alexander Hamilton favoured a stronger central government, while Anti-Federalists feared it. Tocqueville praised American local self-government. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw centralisation through nation-building, welfare states and war. Since the late twentieth century, many countries have devolved power to regions, such as Scotland and Wales in the UK in 1999, while international bodies have taken on new powers. Independence movements, such as those in Catalonia and Scotland, are also connected to this axis.
A common misreading
A Local score is sometimes assumed to mean small-government or right-wing views, but the history of localism is politically mixed. Left-wing municipalism, cooperative movements and participatory budgeting all favour local control, as do conservative traditions of county and parish government and libertarian federalism. Similarly, Central scores appear among egalitarians who want uniform national services and among nationalists who want a unified state. That diversity is the reason we measure scale independently of the economic and authority axes.
How the test measures it
Items cover local decision-making, regional taxation, national standards, schools, policing, healthcare organisation, referendums on independence, cooperatives and local businesses. Scenarios ask whether particular decisions should be made locally or nationally.
How to read your score
Scores run from −100 (Central) to +100 (Local). A strongly Local score suggests you trust communities and smaller units; a strongly Central score suggests you favour national coordination and uniform standards. Moderate scores suggest you want the right level for each issue.
Questions to reflect on
- Should schools follow a national curriculum or be designed by local communities?
- If local control leads to unequal services across regions, is that acceptable?
- Do you trust your local government more than your national government?
- Should regions be able to vote on independence?