I was at a conference on localism last week. Local decision-making is all very well, one of the participants worried, but what if the locals make the wrong decisions?

There are two ways of answering this. One is to have a long and abstruse debate about what localism should entail. We could consult all the theorists and thinkers, form appropriate structures and create a network of checks and balances that ensure that only decisions of no consequence are actually taken at a local level. The other is to take the risk and experiment at giving people real powers over things that matter.

Governments are bad at localism precisely because they're not local. They consider themselves accountable (to the media, if not to the public) for anything and everything. It takes a brave minister to tell a reporter, 'it's none of my business and I'm not going to sound off about it.'

As we enter an election period where promises will be as common as aphids, politicians will make great play of their localist credentials. So it's important to remember that even for die-hard citizen activists, localism can only deliver so much.

There was an interesting exercise at last week's conference where participants were asked who they thought would be the most likely beneficiaries - the people who currently hold most power, those who are most disempowered, those in the middle, or everybody.

The verdict? Those in the middle. In other words, local decision-making is likely to be good at involving more people in civic action, but it may well be only the people who were looking for an outlet anyway.

That isn't bad in itself - we just need clarity about what we're getting. In Wiltshire, for example, 18 area boards have been set up to give local people across the county a say in issues that affect their town or village. More than 5,600 people have taken part over the last year, and 10,000 have been asked to be kept informed. The boards have their own budgets and the public are involved in the budgeting process.

This is admirable and senior staff at Wiltshire Council have done a lot of work on public involvement, consulting academics, local government experts and policy wonks galore. At the same time we shouldn't forget that the total population served by the council is some 455,000 people. So nearly 98% have no involvement in the new governance structures.

Of course, the 98% may have no desire to be involved in anyone's governance structures. It's certainly hard for a local authority to create a system that has a higher degree of active involvement. That's why we need to think of decision-making at a more familiar and informal scale too.

This can be done in all sorts of ways. David Wilcox and Kevin Harris have both posted thoughts that are well worth reading on the recent visit of Jim Diers, from Seattle, which has a proud record in supporting local self-help.

Another system well worth looking at is the network of 'street stewards' pioneered by Balsall Heath Forum in Birmingham - someone a few doors from you, whose face and name you know, who'll act as a conduit to get your concerns taken up by the appropriate people.

A third approach is involvement by doing - building community by taking action to address people's basic needs. On the Marsh Farm estate in Luton, for example, what people need are jobs. A local organisation, Marsh Farm Outreach, has spent many years trying to run what they call an Organisation Workshop, an intensive learning programme where unemployed people set up and run their own businesses. The local authority has finally agreed to support it - though the Marsh Farmers have had to fight tooth and nail to overcome bureaucratic objections.

Not every approach will involve local government-style decision-making. But each involves people in taking a degree of responsibility and control over their own lives. That, to me, is what localism is about.

In the meantime, as I pointed out last week, we need to be aware of some of the powerful forces that stand in the way - forces that drive wedges between neighbourhoods and suck the time and energy out of active citizens.

Last summer I suggested five principles that might help give talk of localism rather more resonance. Looking back on them, I still think they offer a more meaningful approach than the election candidates are promising.