Theory meets Reality: FAQ's

Direct matches or perfect representation are not to be expected. What exists should be differing examples of the realization of the Framework.

However, although there is enormous variety in the way nations organize government of their territory, the Framework is readily recognized in the arrangements. 

Physical reality is always messy. The rivers, oil-fields, fertile soils, and passable terrain are where they are, not where we might like them to be. Societies and borders adapt to the geography as best they can. They adapt with an unconscious mindset related to the Framework of political territories just outlined.

It is possible to link the evolution of political organization with the evolution of man and society.

Social community boundaries are messy and problematic in most places. You can expect controversy, often intense, over where the boundaries should be placed and how services might be provided.

In making decisions in such an atmosphere, it is essential to work to a framework of general principles that can command general support. This THEE-framework is self-explanatory. Its principles are easily acceptable and can be used to constrain and channel thinking about particular social territories—without specifying or demanding a particular boundary or governmental structure.

The decision will always be a matter of fine social judgement based on proper local consultation. The end result is often a compromise. Even then, THEE principles can indicate (predict) problems and issues that will emerge and have to be accepted and managed.

This framework, like most THEEframeworks, was developed to deal with an actual serious problem in the UK. Applying the analysis there contributed to the reorganization of local government that was mandated via the Local Government Act of 1992. The Act enabled creation of «unitary authorities» to replace a two-tier system.

The problem in England, Scotland and Wales was the common, but not universal, division of L3-Local Government into two territorial tiers (larger «Counties» or «Shires» and smaller «Districts»). Responsibilities were allocated for traditional reasons and also according to whether the service required a larger or smaller catchment. In general, the 1974 reorganization that created the tiers had given service efficiency priority over communal realities. Some responsibilities (e.g. recreation, culture) existed at both tiers. Duplicate sets of politicians, duplicate elections and duplicate administrations were a sure recipe for fights over responsiveness to the needs of the same constituents. It led to inordinate confusion, tensions, inefficiency and waste.

Community changes are never easy: there are a lot of vested interests. However, by 1996, unitary councils had come into being throughout Scotland and Wales. In England, with most created in the 1990s and a further tranche in 2009, they have been established in many (but not all) parts of the country.

More UK Experience: It was not possible to just abolish one tier. Some Counties were natural communities (e.g. Cornwall), whereas other Counties (e.g. Devon) contained several natural communities. Some Districts were natural communities (e.g. Bristol), whereas others were artificial (e.g. Wansdyke).

Sometimes.

L7-Globe is fixed and unchangeable (until we colonize the moon and other planets).

L6-Adjacent Countries can cover just a few countries, but the size often increases.

Examples: 

• The Arab League started with 7 countries (1945) and by 2009 had 22 members.
• The European Union started with 6 members and by 2009 had 27 members.

L5-Countries have sizes based on geographic, historical and ethnic factors. Geographically, Iceland is small and Australia is vast. In population terms, Iceland is tiny, Australia is small, and India is vast.

The difficulty with being very small (e.g. Monaco, Liechtenstein) is that the cost of running a national government is far too high. Many such countries realistically outsource their foreign policy and monetary policy to a friendly and vastly larger neighbouring nation-state.

L4-Regions are highly varied and many could well become nation-states if things worked out that way. California, for example, is a big US state, has 37 million people, a distinctive culture and an economy that was the 8^th largest in the world (by GDP) in 2009.

L3-Towns/Districts contain most services and therefore the optimum size in terms of people might be between 100,000 and 250,000. Many local governments run towns or districts with far smaller populations. Physical territory must not be so large or so awkward as to prevent travel across it within, say, a couple of hours. If small towns can collaborate with each other, then they can ensure appropriate services are provided. Often there is a jealousy or rivalry that prevents efficient cooperation. 

In large areas, especially with difficult terrain separating communities, the L3-territory might contain fewer people, perhaps no more than 3000-4000, and perhaps with a distinct dialect or patois.

Smallness has limits: some communes in Switzerland have populations under 1000, which is more like a L2-neighbourhood. At this size, it becomes very difficult to find people willing and capable to take political responsibility and do the work required.

L2-Neighbourhoods probably commence around 20 households and might comfortably cover up to 250.

L1-Households contain from 1 person to up to about 10 in an extended family or with friends sharing. If the household is a fenced compound of several buildings, then up to 20 or more family members might live together.