Particularly, the government as representative of the people ought to offer solutions to the problems that are facing its people. As such, the question as to the necessary policy concerning localism and implementation of the same will be featured in this paper.
It is hard for some people to make out the difference between Localism and which concepts are involved in the metropolitan area governance. Localism is the belief on the existing system of a greater number of fairly small governments, wielding authority over such serious issues as land use guideline, local levying, and the financial support of the municipal services that ought to be preserved. Regionalism, on the other hand, seems to connote centralization and against the decentralization represented by the localism. America is dominated by metropolitan areas. Regionalism does not only oppose regionalism, but it is localism regional extension. Localism may also be based on the set of row as to the function of the local governments in endorsing the governmental efficiency, democracy and the public (Tam et al., 2002).
In the modern metropolitan areas, economic, social and ecological local areas are regularly prevalent. The concerns on the efficiency, democracy and the community should lead to a shift in power from the existing localities and delegate it to the new processes, structures or organization that can support the decision making on behalf of the area. It can, therefore, be concluded that regionalism is the localism of the metropolitan regions. A localism is also a means of protecting the interests of the people who get benefits from the existing government structures (Gregg, 2003). Localism involves the shift of the power from the government to the local governments. The transformation is not only economic, but also social in nature. Localism makes people appreciate and identify with their new neighborhood and their ...Show more