2025: Decentralisation, Authority, and the New Social Order

As we step into 2025, we find ourselves navigating profound societal transformations. The systems that have structured our world for centuries—hierarchies, traditions, and codified authority—are giving way to new modes of governance, organisation, and collaboration. This is more than a moment of change; it’s a paradigm shift, one that challenges us to rethink the fundamental ways we live, work, and govern ourselves.

For over two centuries, the Industrial Era provided a framework for stability and progress. Through standardisation, professions flourished, institutions governed, and economies thrived. But today, these structures are struggling to adapt to a world defined by fluidity, individuality, and technological disruption. The emerging “new order”—or perhaps more aptly, this “new disorder”—is decentralised and dynamic, creating opportunities for innovation while also generating uncertainty and tension.

Tradition vs. Change: The Tension of Our Time

Periods of societal upheaval inevitably generate tension between those who cling to tradition and those who embrace change. This moment is no different. For some, the dismantling of long-standing structures is destabilising, pushing them toward authoritarian leaders and systems that promise order and predictability. We see this reflected in the rise of nationalist governments, a resurgence of traditional hegemonies like the church, and the polarisation of political ideologies.

On the other side, those who are more liberal in their willingness to embrace change view this transition as an opportunity. For them, decentralised systems offer flexibility, creativity, and a chance to reimagine governance and collaboration. This divide is not simply political; it reflects a deeper philosophical tension about how society should be organised in an increasingly complex world.

The Irony of Libertarianism and Authoritarianism

Amid this divide lies a striking irony. Historically, libertarianism and the political right have championed the rights of the individual and the rejection of collective authority. Yet in this moment, many of these movements are reliant on authoritarian structures to uphold those individual rights—structures that concentrate power in the hands of a few at the expense of the many.

In contrast, decentralised models of governance offer a different vision of individuality. Rather than relying on top-down authority, these systems enable people to organise themselves in ways that reflect their unique identities and values. This decentralisation, while less predictable, has greater potential to foster equity, inclusion, and innovation by redistributing power and allowing diverse voices to shape outcomes.

Decentralisation in Action: Opportunities and Risks

Decentralisation is already reshaping key aspects of society:

Technology and AI: Tools like blockchain and AI decentralise power by enabling individuals to access systems and knowledge once controlled by institutions. For example, decentralised finance (DeFi) allows users to bypass traditional banks, while AI tools are empowering professionals in fields like healthcare to work more efficiently.
Healthcare Communities of Practice: During the COVID-19 pandemic, grassroots networks of healthcare professionals emerged to share resources, knowledge, and strategies. These decentralised communities often acted faster and more effectively than institutional responses, demonstrating the power of collective intelligence such as the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes.
Open-Source Movements: Platforms like GitHub and Wikipedia have shown how decentralised networks can create global repositories of knowledge and innovation. These systems thrive on collaboration and self-governance, challenging traditional hierarchies of expertise.

Yet decentralisation is not without its challenges. In a world without clear lines of authority, how do we ensure accountability, equity, and quality? Consider the global response to pandemics: while decentralised communities can innovate, centralised institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) remain critical for coordinating efforts at scale. The retreat of countries like the United States from these institutions weakens global responses, leaving us vulnerable to crises that require collective action. Similarly, new technologies also pose risks, including inequity, ethical concerns, and the concentration of technological control in the hands of a few major corporations.

A New Model for Authority

The transition to decentralised systems invites us to rethink the concept of authority itself. Traditionally, authority has been tied to external mandates—whether from governments, professions, or institutions. In a decentralised world, authority is earned through action, collaboration, and the ability to build trust.

These systems demonstrate that authority need not be imposed—it can emerge organically when people unite around common goals. For example, the open-source software movement thrives without centralised control, relying on the collective contributions of its community to drive innovation. Similarly, professional communities of practice, such as those emerging in allied health and nursing, generate their own mandates by addressing shared challenges and developing solutions from within their networks. These decentralised systems are nimble, adaptive, and inherently democratic, showcasing the potential of collective intelligence to reshape traditional power dynamics.

Conversely, decentralised systems can be suppressed through authority. Traditional hierarchies and centralised powers often view decentralisation as a threat to their control. This suppression can take many forms:

Regulation and Bureaucracy: Decentralised initiatives can be stifled by overly rigid regulations or excessive red tape. For example, grassroots healthcare innovations may face barriers from licensing bodies, professional associations, or government policies, which, whether or not they were designed to, protect existing hierarchies rather than encourage innovation.
Censorship and Control: In authoritarian regimes or restrictive environments, decentralised networks—such as activist groups or online communities—can be censored, surveilled, or dismantled to prevent them from gaining traction or challenging authority. Even ostensibly neutral platforms can suppress decentralised efforts, as seen when algorithms prioritise corporate or state-approved content over grassroots contributions.
Monopolisation of Resources: Decentralised systems often rely on access to shared resources—whether that’s data, funding, or infrastructure. Centralised authorities can restrict or monopolise these resources, making it difficult for decentralised systems to thrive. For instance, open-source software projects can struggle to compete when large corporations acquire and monetise key elements of the ecosystem.
Undermining Legitimacy: Decentralised movements are frequently dismissed as disorganised, unreliable, or lacking in legitimacy. This narrative can be used by traditional authorities to maintain their dominance and discredit alternative models of governance or innovation.

These tensions highlight the fragile nature of decentralised systems in a world where centralised powers still dominate. While decentralisation offers immense potential for creativity, equity, and adaptability, its success often depends on its ability to navigate and withstand pressures from entrenched systems of authority.

Tradition and Innovation: Striking a Balance

While decentralisation opens new possibilities, it does not mean abandoning structure entirely. Instead, we must strike a balance between stability and flexibility:

Hybrid Governance Models: Combining centralised systems for accountability with decentralised networks for innovation offers the best of both worlds. For instance, centralised institutions can set ethical standards for AI, while decentralised communities drive its application and evolution.
Redefining Professional Roles: In healthcare, decentralisation challenges traditional hierarchies, enabling advanced practice roles and interdisciplinary collaboration. These innovations require updated frameworks to ensure equity and quality.
Fostering Collective Intelligence: The strength of decentralisation lies in its ability to harness diverse perspectives. By prioritising collaboration over competition, decentralised systems can achieve outcomes that are both inclusive and effective.

Conclusion: Decentralisation, Professions, and the Future of Workforce Organisation

These tensions between decentralisation and authority are not abstract—they play out in the daily realities of our professions and workforce. As a sociologist of the professions, I’ve spent my career examining how authority is constructed, maintained, and challenged within professional systems. The paradox of decentralisation lies in its dual potential: it can dismantle rigid hierarchies, giving individuals and communities the flexibility to innovate and adapt, but it can also leave professions fragmented and vulnerable to external suppression or exploitation.

This is particularly relevant to the work we are doing with the health workforce. For unregulated professions—those without formalised structures, protections, or professional authority—decentralisation often exacerbates their marginalisation. Without regulation, these professions remain disorganised, underrepresented, and unable to fully contribute to meeting significant population health needs in a changing world. Through initiatives like supporting regulation for the unregulated workforce, we aim to create frameworks that give these professions structure, authority, and career pathways—allowing them to flourish in a way that balances flexibility with accountability.

At the same time, decentralised models like the global communities of practice we are fostering through The Allied Health Academy (TAHA) illustrate a complementary approach. Many allied health professions, despite their immense contributions to health systems, lack the collective power, authority, and voice of their more organised counterparts. They exist on the periphery of healthcare systems, often siloed and under-recognised. By creating spaces for these professions to connect, collaborate, and organise themselves, we are helping them to take ownership of their collective potential. These communities of practice offer not just a voice but a mechanism to drive innovation, share solutions, and advocate for change on their own terms.

In this sense, the workforce work we are doing embodies the very themes explored in this article: balancing the strengths of decentralisation with the structure and authority needed to support equity, sustainability, and adaptability. We are demonstrating that authority doesn’t have to come from the top down—it can emerge organically when people unite around common goals. And in professions that have traditionally lacked formal power, this approach is essential not only for their survival but for their ability to meet the growing and changing health needs of the population.

As we navigate the complexities of 2025 and beyond, these efforts matter more than ever. The future of our professions—and the populations they serve—depends on our ability to reimagine authority, build collective power, and create systems that are both adaptive and equitable. Whether through regulated structures or decentralised networks, our goal is the same: to give the workforce the tools it needs to organise itself, rise to its potential, and help shape the health systems of tomorrow.

Join our Future Health Workforce discussions through The Allied Health Academy communities of practice.

See our other slightly provocative articles on the Future Health Workforce: