Why do top-down and bottom-up need each other?

There are two prevailing, but opposing, views out there when it comes to us building the elements of urban society – our neighbourhoods, districts or quarters. Should they be driven from the top-down, or does it come from the bottom-up? In other words, do governments alone determine the outcomes, or is it where people are the primary agents of change? This argument is fought out in the town halls of politics, the classrooms of academia, the hubs of social enterprise and the meeting places of our neighbourhoods, throughout the world. So what do we really mean when we talk of these two opposing views that slip so easily off the tongue?

Top-down systems have always been a feature of those in control, whether it rests in the power of the state, the crown or the religious institutions. Witness the effect that many European countries had in shaping towns and cities in colonial times; the impact that royalty had on the shape of many of our city plans; or even the church had in restructuring places for the glory of a higher being. The British Empire, King Philip of Spain, Cardinal Richelieu and even the Dutch East India Company became the role models of this approach, but each relied on their authoritarian positions to make things happen. We can assume that in a perfectly authoritarian state we might see top-down systems thrive without any form of bottom-up activity, although this is unlikely. There will always be the shoots of life at the grass roots.

Top-down systems of today have a different slant. The demands of post war reconstruction saw many governments taking the lead in the last century. Armed with the twin ideologies of Modernism and Garden Cities, they took charge. The feature of this approach was a paternalistic offer – ‘we will look after you, don’t worry, we know best’ – with governments driving change. For many people this brave new world was embraced. Governments will house us, they said. It will look after all our needs. We are safe now.

 In recent decades however, this has mutated into governments saying, ‘Actually, we do not want all this responsibility. We want the private sector to take on this mantle, but we still want to command and control every outcome.” This is backed up with their belief that people can’t be trusted. They need to be told what to do. Armed with an arsenal of policies, they are in charge. People must follow. Paternalism is now being replaces with a more insidious form of authoritarianism, which is not open to challenge.

 Bottom-up ways, on the other hand, have no ideology. They derive from man’s pursuit for survival, from natural instincts, from developed norms and evolving practices. Bottom-up is innate. We don’t design for it. It designs itself from simple rules. Here people are trusted to do the right thing. Civilisation rests on this belief.

The best example is found in history and derives from when man decided to not move on, but settle down with others and lay the roots of urban society. People learnt by trying new things until they become settled in the ways and conventions of the place and time. It was pure evolution at work. Occasionally, it was directed into new forms as society became more sophisticated, but the underlying principles remained largely intact. We still see this process at work in informal, or spontaneous settlements where people adapt the place to their needs for survival, These are different, but often surprisingly similar, forms of development. Here things happen despite government not because of it. Human energy exists in abundance in these settlements and, without romanticizing the poverty of the places, they become the building blocks for new urban societies, that will largely evolve over time into successful pieces of town.

We know from our understanding of complex adaptive systems that bottom-up activity relatively early on in its life, demands the need for top-down assistance. People want to get on with their lives and want someone else to take over. Self-organization is replaced with urban governance as the process involves. But what form does it take? This is the nature of democratic questioning that has plagued us throughout history. People want effective governance, but they want it to work for them.

Certainly the prevailing view now is that governments have failed in their purpose and people should be given a chance. The number of citizen-led initiatives - fuelled by a proliferation of social platforms, apps and fixes - have spawned increased bottom up activity in all its forms. The dynamics of social media have evolved in the last few years to enable enlightened and active citizens to organise rapidly and effectively. This has created a network with a cause where we are witnessing numerous new platforms aimed at engaging citizens in the collaborative development of their own city. This has given rise to many small projects in many places. But is this having any real impact? More importantly, is it scalable? Or might it just be “a stream of micro-distractions to occupy the community while the big boys in government get on with the big stuff”, as Dan Hill from Future Cities Catapult asks? He may be right. Our top down systems stifle bottom-up activity, keeping it within the realm of a ‘few small’, rather than a massive number of small. At the time where we need to do more with less, this is stupid. Top-down has to release the potential of bottom-up activity. Just imagine that if it evolved to harness the collective power of many small ideas and actions, how powerful it could really be. We call this making Massive Small change.

Top-down and bottom-up are not opposing views. They’re both sides on same coin. In a perfect world they are mutually supportive. The one needs the other. They cannot be separated. Ying needs Yang.

Have your say! We welcome your feedback and comments as we look to evolve our thinking. To join the conversation on our MASSIVE SMALL website and see more related content follow our Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn profiles.