Does a centrally managed CMP work in a federal system?

My director of studies recommended to read some of John Urry’s work. So I started with reading “Mobile sociology” (British Journal of Sociology Vol. No. 51, Issue No. 1 (January / March 2000) pp 185-203…..)

On page 186 Urry refers to Zygmunt Bauman (1987 “Legislators and Interpreters”) – well, no idea who this guy is. Lucky me – found loads in google and springer link. Bauman takes the metaphor of a modern state being comparable to a gardener culture vs the earlier form of gamekeeping. While the gamekeeper is not interested in detail but in the overall condition the gardener is into patterns, regularity and ordering with what is growing. He weeds out what doesn’t fit the concept.
“Giving the world a modern structure mainly rests on classifying. (…) Modern culture is a garden culture since it assigns itself the mission to arrange an ideal life and perfect human conditions. For doing so it requires tools and raw materials but also the strategy against the insistent danger of disorder.”

What a match for the implementation of city management platforms (CMP)! The transfer from a “normal” city to a “smart” city is like going from a gamekeeper to a gardener culture. Working and living together is subject of planning and administration. The CMP is the tool to process assets that were once decided to be in- or excluded. Municipality would be the gardener the subsystems the plants. However that means that all the subsystems are under the control of the municipality… If the subsystem wants to remain self-governed is that the weed then? Huuu…. Scary!
This could entail the conclusion that centrally managed CMP wouldn’t work in a federal system. But how should a holistic approach for smartness work without central directive of the municipality? Food for thought….

Well… back to Urry… he states: “… the new global order appears to involve a return to the gamekeeper state and away from that of the gardener….”