What if mayors ruled the world?

Back in 2014 Benjamin Barber incited, and excited, a lot of comment by suggesting that things might be much better If Mayors Ruled The World. Of course that would depend on what Mayor you choose and I am sure a number of New Zealand  towns and cities  would make  a variety of  responses to such a suggestion.  
Yet we should not be so quick to dismiss.  Barber’s focus was on how mayors were able to successfully tackle a social problem by forming their own sub-national networks, collaborations and responses. 
His point is that mayors and local government do or should know their local issues and people better than central government. Therefore, they can proceed from a basis of local knowledge, connections and possibilities in a way central government increasingly fails to implement or initiate.
As one commentator put it, while mayors don’t rule the world, they actually run it. Because as we all know, it is what happens in our localities that impacts and effects how our lives are lived.
Given this, why is New Zealand so welded to a centralised model of government?
Our greatest poet Allen Curnow, in his satirical ‘Whim Wham’ guise coined the term ‘Overseasia’ in 1954 to describe the overseas standards and practices to which we conform.
I’d suggest that in terms of governance and bureaucracy we have seen the rise and imposition of ‘Centralasia’, similar to that place where, in the clash of empires in the 19th century, the Great Game was played out for power and influence. 
Our ‘Centralasia’ is Wellington, and the great powers determined to rule and influence there are a combination of central government, central bureaucracy and, often overlooked, those academics who as court mandarins are committed to the rule and influence of ‘Centralasia’ over the rest of the country.
What is clear is that ‘Centralasia’ is not working, at either the seat of empire or in the provinces, who are starting to champion for greater autonomy, if not independence.
It was thought, in the lead up to the 2023 election that things might possibly be changing.
Local Government NZ was publicly supporting the ‘Levelling Up’ possibilities and options laid out by Britain’s Minister for Levelling Up Michael Gove. At one point his White Paper was on the Local Government NZ website. 
But then, suddenly, it disappeared without trace. Was this a missed opportunity to attempt to rethink a UK policy and try it here in New Zealand?
Recently, the UK political commentator and think-tanker Sam Freedman argued for UK Mayors and combined authorities (rather like a supercity) to be able to take more of lead not only in economic matters but also in the delivery of public and social services.
Though not a member of the Labour party, he has written for the Labour Together think-tank a report setting out a way that public service reform and devolution can enable  the localised delivery and success of  public service provision.
This builds upon existing local government activity and thinking in the UK  that considers what local communities would and could do if they were given devolved power, money and accountability. 
I suggest  we need  the New Zealand equivalent of  the UK’s New Local think-tank, that provides  a variety of reports and resources including Place-based Public Service Budgets and the chance for participating councils to  be involved in innovation exchanges. 
For example  we could learn from the Community Wealth Building undertakings in the UK, looking in particular at  Preston. That Lancashire town increased local procurement spend, added social value initiatives to training and employment, and led local economy investment. We also need to develop and articulate our own versions of  anchor institutions that invest in the local area socially and economically, and anchor local growth, development and provision.  
The mood internationally is swiftly changing towards a decentralised, more bottom-up, localised approach to social and economic issues, concerns and possibilities.
New Zealand however, in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘technocratic expertise,’ has tended to resist such moves and argue for the necessity of Centralasia. 
One thing we could do is make better use of those in New Zealand with international experience and knowledge as to what a more localised approach could offer.
On one side is Oliver Hartwich from the NZ Initiative think-tank, who has been  writing and arguing for a more European-style localised  approach for New Zealand governance and economic  development for a number of years. In particular Hartwich lobbies for a Swiss-canton style competitive localism based on receiving tax revenues.   
Another under-utilised resource is Peter McKinlay who has  decades of experience, insights and contacts, here and internationally, in the area of  local governance and its possibilities, problems and solutions. He argues for social cohesion as the bedrock of local governance, emphasising the need for a philosophy and understanding of governance as dependent on empowering strong communities.  
I’d suggest another model and resource, already in existence, is what iwi and hapū are doing with and for their communities; this is another layer of expertise, knowledge and possibility that could, and sometimes does, intersect with both local and central government.
The real question is whether we wish to empower local communities, or continue to believe the Centralasia model and approach is best?  
What if we got together the right people from the regions to develop a New Zealand move to more empowered, bottom-up regional and local decision-making, responsibility and delivery?
Given tax reform is currently on the table, one issue of the overpowering reach and dominance of Centralasia in New Zealand is how our tax take occurs.
What would a regional sales tax facilitate in New Zealand? Not a sales tax on top of what occurs in GST, but rather a 1.5 percent retention of GST within the region it is spent. GST goes centrally to then get redistributed at the discretion, whim, interests or desires of Centralasia.  We could consider this as similar to the 10 percent of our generated electricity lost as it makes its way along the National Grid.
I’m not suggesting this as a direct analogy, but rather raising a provocative question. What could the regions do with an equivalent retention of GST spend in their local area? Of course, with devolved spending comes devolved responsibility and the need to both attract and retain trained and skilled expertise in our regions.
But as such, this could be understood as a central element of a regional growth strategy. Let’s ‘think local’.