Introduction
The principle of subsidiarity is most famously defined in a 1931 letter written by Pope Pius XI (1857-1939). As he defines the principle, Pius is particularly concerned with the growth of the modern state and its tendency to absorb the functions of family and church. Pius writes:
“As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.”
Pope John Paul II restates this definition with different language and emphases in his letter Centesimus Annus, published in 1991. A striking similarity between the two definitions, however, is the concern that both popes have for higher authorities undercutting the responsibilities and functions of lower authorities, which results in “grave evil” and a “disturbance of right order,” to use Pius’ language.
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State,” John Paul writes. “Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected.” He then defines the principle of subsidiarity as follows:
“[A] community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
The principle of subsidiarity does not, it should be emphasized, suggest that the modern welfare state or large NGOs are illegitimate. Each “order” of society has its proper functions. The principle does emphasize, however, the responsibility of “higher associations”—which might include central governments, large nonprofits, denominational authorities, or mega corporations—in respecting the integrity and authority of “lesser organizations,” which would include the family, the parish, the local government, and the small business. Ignoring this principle in the realm of social services, John Paul warns, leads to “a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”
Subsidiarity in the Bible
The biblical foundation for the principle of subsidiarity begins with Genesis, where we read that man is made in the image and likeness of God. The implication of this extraordinary claim is that men and women possess dignity, as well as authority and responsibility over ourselves and creation. Whenever he is able, scripture tells us, man is the first person responsible for addressing his own needs. St. Paul writes bluntly in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “If a man shall not work, he shall not eat.” God has equipped the majority of men and women to be productive and provide for themselves and their dependents.
Man is also called to help others, a duty which begins within the family. The life and story of Ruth beautifully illustrates this mandate and privilege, being just one of many places in the Bible where the care of family members is commanded and praised. In 1 Timothy 5:3-8, for instance, Paul exhorts Christians to care for their widowed mothers and grandmothers. He saves harsh words for the person who neglects family members in need, describing such a person as “worse than an unbeliever.” Paul goes on to describe the responsibility that Christians have to care for widows and orphans, beginning first with the needy among their relations. This way church leaders can focus on those without family to take care of them. St. Paul’s exhortation highlights both the moral and practical dimensions of subsidiarity.
Christians also have a duty to their neighbors. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus answers the question of what it means to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Showing compassion to people in need and getting directly involved are fundamentally Christian actions. The Bible frequently exhorts readers to take stock of how God has equipped them to address the needs around them before calling on other people or institutions to intervene.
Notably, the Bible almost always speaks of caring for needs as a form of service to one another. In other words, generosity takes place in the context of personal relationship. Money and other resources are not seen as the primary solution to social problems. Rather, solutions begin with the acknowledgment that we exist in relation to God and to one another. Meeting these needs in the most effective manner—and in such a way that honors the dignity of our brothers and sisters made in the image of God—is a great responsibility and privilege.
Subsidiarity in Protestant Thought
The principle of subsidiarity is generally associated with Catholic social teaching, but it is well represented in the Protestant tradition as well. The German Calvinist political thinker Johannes Althusius (1563-1638), for instance, is a key figure in the development of the principle of subsidiarity and concepts like federalism. Althusius’ Dicaeologicae aimed to construct a single comprehensive juridical system synthesizing Jewish law, Roman law, and various other traditions of European law. Other important sources for the development of the concept of subsidiarity appear in the Reformed churches of Holland and France during the 16th century.
A later important figure in this tradition is the Dutch Reformed theologian, political theorist, and politician Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper developed the concept of “sphere sovereignty,” which divides society into a variety of domains (“spheres”) that possess their own authority and responsibilities. No single sphere should dominate or encroach upon another unnecessarily, ensuring balance, respect, and autonomy among the spheres. This approach recognizes that each sphere is accountable to God and has intrinsic duties that others should not override.
To promote Kuyper’s thought, the Acton Institute and Lexham Press have published the Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology, which can be found in the Acton bookshop here.
Subsidiarity & the Knowledge Problem
The principle of subsidiarity, while a particular concern of Christian social theorists, enriches (and is enriched by) the work of notable figures in the secular fields of economics and sociology. Here we’ll highlight the work of two such figures: F.A. Hayek and James C. Scott. Their work explains how knowledge is dispersed throughout a society and how successful social action depends on practical wisdom earned through experience. The principle of subsidiarity provides a framework that clarifies how Hayek’s and Scott’s insights might be applied—insights that are becoming only more relevant, even critically so, as rapid technological progress promises to augment our ability to process and act on data.
Hayek (1899-1992) published a famous essay in 1945 called “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” in which he articulated the chief challenge faced by central authorities attempting to manage a society’s economy. He called this challenge “the knowledge problem.”
“The knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form,” Hayek writes, “but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.”
In other words, knowledge is scattered throughout society in countless fragments and held by a wide diversity of people and institutions, including thousands or millions of ordinary people who know their particular circumstances best. Gathering this knowledge and interpreting it is a difficult task, perhaps an impossible one. Even when armed with sophisticated graphs and data, leaders in charge of social policy make decisions relatively blind. Already in Hayek’s own era, many planners, economists, and statisticians placed sincere hope in the newest tools—national income accounts, input–output tables, cybernetics, and early computers—believing these advances would finally tame social complexity. Their faith in these technologies often proved misplaced.
In the age of artificial intelligence and advanced language models, economists attentive to the knowledge problem remind us that much of our knowledge remains deeply personal, subjective, and tacit, even as tools for interpreting data become more sophisticated. Some kinds of knowledge are so bound up in individual experience and context that they resist codification by any database or model. Even artificial intelligence, however powerful, cannot perfectly capture what Hayek describes as “the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.”
In a recent Acton Institute event on “Hayek’s Use of Knowledge in Society”, a panel of economists discuss how the strength of human decision making, including in the economic realm, lies in the ordinary person’s ability to adapt to local circumstances—something no model can fully replicate.
Machines can process data, but they cannot access or assess the unquantifiable earned wisdom of human communities and particular circumstances. People embedded in local contexts—families, neighborhoods, congregations, businesses—carry insights that cannot be seen from afar or summarized in an Excel document. The principle of subsidiarity anticipates and describes this reality: truly understanding a problem requires a certain closeness to it. Efforts to help people in poverty, including those aided by sophisticated tools and technology, must be attentive to this dynamic.
In his book Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott (1936-2024) considers the knowledge problem from another angle. He emphasizes the importance of local, practical knowledge for the success of any project. Scott shows that large-scale projects to improve society have often failed because they ignored the nuanced, experiential knowledge of local people. He uses the Greek word mētis (translated roughly as “cunning” or “cunning intelligence”) to describe this kind of wisdom—knowledge that cannot be captured easily by abstract plans or policies but which is essential for adapting to particular circumstances and complexities. In an age when we imagine technology can map everything, Scott reminds us that human mētis cannot be digitized. For large-scale efforts to succeed, they must incorporate and respect local knowledge, allowing for flexibility and responsiveness to real-world circumstances.
Both Hayek and Scott help illustrate why it is essential that the principle of subsidiarity guide humanitarian projects. It ensures that decisions affecting a community respect the community’s integrity and authority, a respect that is owed to any community of human persons, who are made in the image and likeness of God.