New paper on subsidiarity

Thanks -- yet again -- to Larry Solum for the tip on this paper by Nick Barber, "The Limited Modesty of Subsidiarity." Much of the paper is devoted to exploring what the author regards as the differences between the "Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity" and the version that plays such an important role in the "constitutional structure of the European Union." Barber seems intent on demonstrating that EU subsidiarity can stand on its own, and should be evaluated on its own, wholly and apart from the Catholic model. As he puts it, "the European model could gain support from a variety of political positions, and need not rest on the same ideological arguments as the Catholic doctrine."

In particular -- and this seems quite relevant to many of the policy disagreements that we have already seen on this blog! -- Barber spends time developing the claim that, unlike the EU doctrine, the Catholic version of subsidiarity contains "no bias against centralisation." Rather, "the Catholic doctrine requires that . . . power be allocated to the correct institution."

Barber also notes that European doctrine, unlike (in his view) Catholic doctrine, "takes account of human weaknesses," and "recognises that apparent advantages of centralising can sometimes be overstated, or can evaporate after the shift has taken place."

I would appreciate the reactions of my colleagues -- including Paolo, Rob, and Steve -- who have written recently about the notion of subsidiarity. I found the paper quite provocative and interesting, particularly the (largely, but not always, implicit) claim that while the Catholic notion of subsidiarity is compelling when it comes to civil society, families, and mediating associations, it is -- precisely because it (allegedly) worries too little about centralization -- less helpful when it comes to questions of allocating state power.

Rick