Excerpt from: Endo, K. 1994. The Principle of Subsidiarity: From Johannes Althusius to Jacques Delors. Hokkaido Law Review, Vol. XLIV, No. 6. pp. 2049-50, 2053-54.  http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/15558/1/44(6)_p652-553.pdf

Negative and Positive Subsidiarity

The first and the most important distinction should be drawn between the negative concept of subsidiarity and the positive concept of it.

Basically the negative concept of subsidiarity refers to the limitation of competences of the 'higher' organisation in relation to the 'lower' entity, whilst its positive concept represents the possibility or even the obligation of interventions from the higher organisation. We can clarify this distinction in the following way.

The negative concept means that;

1. the higher organisation cannot intervene if the lower entity can satisfactorily accomplish its aims, or
2. (a more strict version) the higher organisation should not intervene if the lower entity alone can accomplish its aims, or
3. (as a variant) the higher organisation cannot intervene if it is not assigned to do so.

The positive concept can be formulated as follows;

1. the higher organisation can intervene if (or to the extent that) the lower entity cannot satisfactorily accomplish its aims, or
2. (as its stronger expression) the higher organisation should intervene if the lower entity alone cannot accomplish its aims, or
3. (as a variant) the higher organisation can or/and must intervene if assigned to do so.

Criteria

These reasons are the hurdles that the higher organisation has to overcome if it is to take action. Five criteria, as
formulated below, are relevant to disentangle the complexity of current discussion on the principle of subsidiarity, especially to differentiate the similar versions of subsidiarity. Those criteria are:

1. the better attainment criterion
2. the effectiveness criterion
3. the efficiency criterion
4. the cross-boundary dimension or effects criterion
5. the necessity criterion.