GRF · Governance Nexus
Subnational governance
Many risks are met first by cities, regions and communities: floods, heat, outbreaks, service failures and local conflict. Subnational governments often hold the closest knowledge and the operational duty, but not the revenue, legal authority or data to match. This page sets out how governance gaps develop between levels of government, how local institutional quality can be read, and which decisions belong to mayors, councils, regional governments, national ministries and local audit bodies.
Subnational governance in seven parts.
- 01The questionSubnational governance: how the risk develops
- 02IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 03SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 04DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 05Core questionsThe questions experts ask
- 06MechanismsDecentralisation and its gaps
- 07Methods and dataMethods and their limits
Subnational governance: how the risk develops.
Cities, communities and local institutions. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Mandates move without means
Responsibilities for services, planning and emergency management are decentralised while revenue, borrowing powers and technical staff stay central. Local governments become accountable for outcomes they cannot finance.
Jurisdictions fragment
Metropolitan areas span many municipalities, special districts and agencies. Risks such as flooding, transport failure or water shortage cross their boundaries, while planning and budgets stop at them.
Local scrutiny is thin
Local councils often lack independent audit, active local media and a resourced opposition. Weak scrutiny lets procurement irregularities and deferred maintenance accumulate unnoticed until a service fails.
Coordination fails in crisis
In an emergency, local, regional and national bodies each act on their own legal basis. Unclear lines of command, incompatible information and disputes over cost delay the response where it is needed most.
People and hazards in Asia.
Population density, night lights and flood water over Asia, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
People and hazards, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
People and hazards, framed on Asia.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date. They are indicators, not assessments of any place.
Data: NASA GIBS · ASTER GDEM · Blue Marble · © OpenStreetMap contributors · Natural Earth · NASA EONET · U.S. Geological Survey · NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColorSources and licences
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University. 2018. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density, Revision 11. NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). doi:10.7927/H49C6VHW. CC BY 4.0
- VIIRS Black Marble night-time lights, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; distributed by the NASA Level-1 and Atmosphere Archive and Distribution System (LAADS DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- VIIRS near-real-time products (flood, land surface temperature, snow cover, corrected reflectance), NASA LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), VIIRS 375 m active fire product, NASA LANCE; vector tiles via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA (ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003, NASA LP DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). Cite as: NASA/METI/AIST/Japan Spacesystems and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team (2019). ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003. doi:10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM.003. NASA open data
- Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com. Public domain
- © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), via NASA GIBS (coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). ODbL
- Blue Marble, NASA Earth Observatory; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Context on the globe and flat map: coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names from NASA GIBS reference layers (OpenStreetMap data, ODbL, © OpenStreetMap contributors); Blue Marble imagery as an optional base; 3D terrain and the elevation read-out from the ASTER GDEM elevation colour index (5 m to 200 m classes, exaggerated for legibility). Boundaries are drawn as published and imply no position on any territory.
- Live events: NASA Earth Observatory Natural Event Tracker (EONET); events are indicative and keep their original source links.
- Live: NASA EONET Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: U.S. Geological Survey Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColor (CIRA). We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- NASA GIBS: We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- Optional layers (5 sources in the layer list: live, forecast, observed and context) print their provider credit on the map and here when switched on; forecasts are model output and derived indices are estimates.
Layers and dates
- Population density, 2020: Population: CIESIN, Columbia University, Gridded Population of the World v4.11 (2018), NASA SEDAC, CC BY 4.0 · static
- Night-time lights, daily: VIIRS Black Marble (VNP46A2), NASA LAADS DAAC · 12 Oct 2026
- Flood water, 3-day composite: VIIRS Global Flood Product, NASA LANCE · 14 Oct 2026
- Active fires and thermal anomalies: VIIRS NOAA-20 375 m (FIRMS), NASA LANCE FIRMS · 13 Oct 2026
- Land surface temperature, day, 8-day composite: VIIRS NOAA-20 Level 3, 8-day, NASA LANCE · 14 Sep 2026
- True colour: VIIRS NOAA-20 corrected reflectance, NASA LANCE · 13 Oct 2026
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subnational share of public expenditure and revenue | share of general government total | annual | OECD-UCLG World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment | Published statistics |
| Own-source revenue of local budgets | share of local revenue raised locally | annual | Local government accounts and national statistics | Published statistics |
| Local disaster risk reduction strategies | share of local governments with strategies aligned to the national strategy | annual | Sendai Framework Monitor, target E | REPORTED |
| Local government audit coverage and opinion | audited entities and opinion type | annual | Supreme or regional audit institution reports | Published statistics |
| Local budget transparency | key budget documents published, by type | annual | Local government publications | OBSERVED |
| Local open government commitments | number of commitments and implementation stage | per action plan | Open Government Partnership local programme reviews | REPORTED |
| Local election participation and competition | share of registered voters; candidates per seat | per election | Electoral management bodies | Published statistics |
Deliberation and decision desk.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Deliberation and decision desk
Subnational governance · Council A · Meeting 19
Agenda
| Risk appetite statement | P-754 | Approve | None | Discussing |
| New member admission | P-591 | Approve | Declared | Next |
| Safeguards annual review | P-587 | Note | None | Next |
| Data charter | P-789 | Consult | None | Done |
Anti-capture safeguards
in place, of 12
Decision record
- M-14DECAppetite statement approved with two dissents recorded
- M-12ACTSecretariat to publish reasons within 30 days
- M-15REVReview date set
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| OECD-UCLG World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment | Comparable data on subnational structure, responsibilities, spending, revenue and debt | Free, attribution |
| OECD Regional and Metropolitan databases | Regional and metropolitan statistics on economy, services and well-being | Free and open, attribution (OECD terms) |
| Sendai Framework Monitor | National reporting on local disaster risk reduction strategies under target E | Free, attribution and UNDRR terms |
| Open Government Partnership local programme records | Local action plans, commitments and independent review reports | Free and open, attribution |
| Regional and local audit institution reports | Financial and performance audits of municipalities and regional bodies | Public records, terms per audit institution |
| Subnational PEFA assessments | Public financial management assessments of subnational governments | Public reports, terms per assessment |
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast. The map on this page shows Asia; the model itself is not tied to a place.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page's map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Governance Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Governance Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Governance Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Governance Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Mayors and city councils | Which risks the city owns, which it shares, and what it needs from other levels | Multi-level responsibility maps, local finance data, comparable cities |
| Regional governments and metropolitan bodies | How to coordinate planning and investment across municipal boundaries | Jurisdictional maps, cases of cross-boundary risk |
| National ministries of local government and finance | How to align transfers, borrowing rules and mandates with local responsibilities | Comparisons of mandate with revenue, OECD-UCLG data, audit findings |
| Regional and local audit bodies | Which local entities and functions to audit for risk management and service continuity | Audit coverage, opinion records, service failure cases |
Outputs this topic produces
- Multi-level responsibility maps for a risk across municipal, regional and national bodies
- Case studies of local governance in emergencies and service failures
- Methods for matching local mandates with revenue, staff and data
- Comparative notes on local accountability and audit arrangements
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction. The map on this page shows Asia; the model itself is not tied to a place.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Governance Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Governance Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Governance Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
The questions experts ask.
- Which risk-related powers sit at local level, and which are retained nationally?
- Do local governments have the revenue and capability to match their responsibilities?
- How do local and national authorities coordinate in a crisis?
- How do community organisations and traditional authorities share in governance?
- How are informal settlements and services governed?
Exercise a cascade in subnational governance with the people who decide.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Political and governance risk standards: the hazards it names, the systems and communities that carry the loss, the controls and institutions that dampen it and the data that observe it. Pick an initiating event and step through the cascade to see where mandates meet and which decisions fall to whom. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every weight is a stated assumption. An exercise for dialogue, not a forecast, an assessment or a position. To model a place of your own choosing, open the full System Builder.
Systems and couplings
Controls
NS-0Constitution and principlesNS-9Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)NS-10Policies and clauses (machine-readable obligations: definition, binding, evaluation and enforcement)NS-11Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NRS-H112Hazard family: Governance and institutional failure (NHS-1 soc.governance)NRS-U9Universe platform profile: Financial Regulation NexusNRS-H59Hazard family: Economic shocks and governance failure (NHS-1 soc.economic)NRS-H118Hazard family: Organised crime and illicit economies (NHS-1 soc.crime)NRS-A5Built-in licensing and rightsNRS-U24Universe platform profile: Policy Nexus
Observation
- Worldwide Governance Indicators (listed for reference)
- V-Dem dataset (listed for reference)
- Global SDG Indicators Database (listed for reference)
- Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services
- Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive
- Number of countries that adopt and implement national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework
Decentralisation and its gaps.
Decentralisation transfers responsibilities to subnational governments, but often without matching revenue, staff or legal authority, creating unfunded mandates. Cities may be responsible for flood management while national agencies control river basins, or for emergency response without control of the utilities on which it depends. Metropolitan areas often span many municipalities with no body responsible for the whole.
Local governance includes more than local government. Community organisations, traditional and religious authorities, residents' associations and informal providers govern access to land, water, security and dispute resolution in many places. Effective local risk governance often depends on how formal and informal institutions work together.
Cities also act beyond their borders, through networks that share practice and through commitments on climate and resilience, raising questions about how such commitments relate to national policy and accountability.
Fiscal capacity often decides outcomes. Local governments that depend on transfers from national budgets may struggle to plan multi-year resilience investments, and access to borrowing or insurance can be constrained by credit standing and legal limits. These constraints shape what local leaders can realistically do, whatever their mandate says.
Crisis coordination reveals the arrangements most clearly. When an event exceeds local capacity, authority and resources move up to regional or national levels, and the speed and clarity of that transition, and of the return afterwards, are decisive for outcomes.
Why now: cities and regions carry much of the delivery of adaptation, emergency management and services, often without matching authority or funds. Governance Nexus compares multi-level arrangements and convenes subnational governments with national bodies on shared risks.
How subnational governance is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on subnational governance, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
Methods and their limits.
Multi-level role mapping
Mapping responsibilities across levels of government; formal and actual roles often differ.
Fiscal analysis
Analysing local revenue and spending against mandates.
Community methods
Participatory research with residents and local institutions.
Limits: local data are often scarce and inconsistent, and practices that work in one city may not transfer to another with different powers.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Policy, institutional and decision scienceInstitutional role mapping · Comparative governance case studiesApplied here
- 02Systems engineeringDecision-rights and interface mapping · Assurance and control designApplied here
- 03Decision analysis under uncertaintyRisk appetite and tolerance setting · Multi-criteria appraisal of institutional optionsApplied here
Questions and answers.
Why focus on subnational governance for risk?
What is multi-level governance?
How are informal institutions treated?
Does the platform work with cities directly?
Are traditional authorities included?
Does the platform advise local governments?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.