Polycentric governance structures are often touted as part of the solution to overuse and degradation of natural resources. In theory, when multiple, overlapping decision centers work independently and in coordination, they contribute more than either monocentric or atomized governance arrangements to ensuring robust, adaptive social‐ecological systems (SESs). However, the degraded state of many municipal drinking water systems demonstrate Vincent Ostrom's observation that multilevel governance structure alone does not guarantee increased functionality. Two U.S. case studies drawn from opposite ends of the SES performance continuum provide insights into the differences between structural and functional features of polycentricity and the cross‐cutting conditions under which these features lead to adaptation or maladaptation. New York City's water system has served as an international model of sustainable, collaborative governance for several decades, whereas Flint, Michigan's water system achieved notoriety for a tragic string of errors and a pattern of neglectful governance in the mid‐2010s. Through process tracing, this article analyzes the pathways that began from a shared governance structure of polycentric federalism to starkly different decisions and outcomes in the two cities. The results highlight the dynamic and interactive nature of polycentricity, including how it can be functionally disabled when key factors converge across levels and scales: these include norms of quiescent rule enforcement, incentives that favor blame avoidance over problem solving, persistent power imbalances, large wealth inequalities, and deficits of social capital and leadership.

中文翻译：

---

破烂：多中心性何时会导致适应不良而不是适应？

多中心治理结构经常被吹捧为自然资源过度使用和退化解决方案的一部分。从理论上讲，当多个重叠的决策中心独立且协调地工作时，它们对确保健全，自适应的社会生态系统（SES）的贡献超过单中心或原子化的治理安排。但是，许多市政饮用水系统的退化状态证明了文森特·奥斯特罗姆（Vincent Ostrom）的观点，即仅多层治理结构并不能保证功能的增强。从SES表现连续体的相反两端得出的两个美国案例研究提供了对多中心性的结构和功能特征与这些特征导致适应或适应不良的横切条件之间差异的见解。纽约市 几十年来，水系统一直是可持续合作治理的国际模式，而密歇根州的弗林特（Flint）的水系统在2010年代中期因一连串的悲剧性错误和疏忽治理模式而声名狼藉。通过过程跟踪，本文分析了从多中心联邦制的共享治理结构到两个城市截然不同的决策和结果的途径。结果凸显了多中心性的动态和互动性质，包括当关键因素跨层次和规模融合时如何禁用功能：这些包括静态规则执行规范，鼓励在解决问题时避免责怪的激励措施，持续的权力失衡，大量财富不平等，以及社会资本和领导能力的不足。