Non-Territorial Polycentric Governance
Description
Trent Macdonald:
"Non-territorial polycentric governance offers an innovative approach to managing the complexities of modern, diverse societies by decoupling governance from traditional geographic boundaries. Rooted in the broader theory of polycentric governance, this model emphasises the decentralisation of authority and the coexistence of multiple, overlapping centres of decision-making (Ostrom et al. 1961). These centres operate independently yet interact within a coherent system, allowing for a more dynamic and adaptive approach to governance. This framework, originally articulated by scholars like Elinor and Vincent Ostrom, challenges the monolithic, centralised structures of traditional governance, advocating instead for a system that can better accommodate the diverse needs and preferences of various groups (Ostrom 2010; Aligica & Tarko 2012).
At its core, polycentric governance is defined by the presence of multiple jurisdictions, each catering to specific functions or constituencies. This model contrasts sharply with traditional governance structures that rely on a single, centralised authority with exclusive control over a defined territory. In a polycentric system, the flexibility and adaptability inherent in multiple, overlapping jurisdictions allow for governance that is more responsive to the needs of diverse populations. This approach is particularly relevant in non-territorial contexts, where governance must transcend physical borders to align with the identities and functions of various groups and networks (Ostrom et al. 1961; Aligica & Tarko 2012).
The application of polycentric governance principles to non-territorial models opens new possibilities for organising political and social order.
Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJ) and National Cultural Autonomy (NCA) are two key models that exemplify nonterritorial polycentric governance. FOCJ, developed by scholars like Eichenberger and Frey, represents a shift from traditional territorial federalism to a system where jurisdictions are defined by function rather than geography. This model allows for multiple jurisdictions to coexist and compete, each specialising in specific functions that cater to the needs of different segments of the population (Eichenberger & Frey 2006).
Historical examples, such as the Hanseatic League, demonstrate the practical viability of FOCJ as a non-territorial governance model capable of managing complex social and economic interactions across regions (Fink 2012).
National Cultural Autonomy (NCA) offers another significant model within non-territorial polycentric governance. NCA addresses the governance needs of ethnic and cultural minorities within a state without requiring changes to territorial boundaries. This model allows minority groups to exercise self-governance in areas such as education, culture, and language, thereby preserving their distinct identities while remaining part of the larger state. The historical development and application of NCA, particularly in Europe, provide valuable insights into its strengths and limitations. While successful in some contexts, NCA has also faced challenges in balancing the interests of majority and minority populations, underscoring the need for careful implementation in diverse societies (Coakley 2018).
The potential of non-territorial polycentric governance extends beyond intrastate applications to the realm of international relations. In an increasingly interconnected world, traditional state-based governance models often struggle to manage transnational issues such as migration, climate change, and digital governance. Non-territorial governance models like FOCJ and NCA offer frameworks for creating international federations or networks that transcend traditional state boundaries.
For example, the advent of blockchain technology has introduced new possibilities for decentralised governance on a global scale, allowing for the creation of non-territorial networks where decision-making is distributed and transparent (Allen et al. 2018; MacDonald 2019). These models illustrate the potential of non-territorial governance in addressing global challenges, offering innovative approaches that move beyond the limitations of territoriality.
In summary, non-territorial polycentric governance presents a compelling alternative to traditional governance models. By decoupling governance from geographic boundaries, it provides a more flexible and inclusive framework that can better accommodate the diverse needs and rights of various groups."
(https://isonomiaquarterly.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/macdonald-pfwo.pdf)
History
Trent Macdonald:
"The evolution of polycentric governance into non-territorial models can be traced through various historical and theoretical developments. Aligica and Tarko (2012) detail the origins of polycentric governance, emphasising its roots in the works of Polanyi and the Ostroms, who championed the importance of decentralised decision-making. Over time, these principles have been adapted to non-territorial contexts, supporting concepts such as National Cultural Autonomy (NCA) and Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJ). Coakley (1994) introduces NCA as a significant milestone in this evolution, offering a framework for minority groups to exercise self-governance without requiring territorial sovereignty. This concept is particularly relevant in multiethnic and diverse societies, where traditional territorial approaches to governance often fail to accommodate the needs and rights of minorities."
(https://isonomiaquarterly.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/macdonald-pfwo.pdf)
Article
* Article / Chapter: Non-territorial Polycentric Governance of Intrastate and International Relations. By Trent J. MacDonald. Isonomic Quarterly, 2025
URL = https://isonomiaquarterly.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/macdonald-pfwo.pdf
Chapter 8 of B. Christensen (ed.), Polycentric Federalism and World Orders, Palgrave Studies in International Relations, doi
Non-territorial polycentric governance represents a paradigm shift from traditional territorial governance models, offering innovative solutions for addressing the complex challenges of modern governance. Unlike conventional governance systems, which are typically anchored to specific geographic areas, non-territorial governance is rooted in the concept of governing groups or networks based on shared interests, functions, or identities, irrespective of physical boundaries. This approach allows for multiple centres of decision-making, each operating independently but interdependently, creating a dynamic and flexible governance system. Aligica and Tarko (2012) provide a robust theoretical foundation for understanding polycentric governance, tracing its evolution from the ideas of Michael Polanyi to the influential contributions of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom. Their analysis highlights the adaptability of polycentric governance to various contexts, including non-territorial models where governance transcends physical territories and is shaped by networks and relationship."