"Globalisation" has always been characterized by a distinctive, simultaneous process of centralisation as well as decentralisation. Today, those developments have led to strong ties between interacting systems on a global scale.Considering the potential negative consequences of those structures, there has to be a critical reflection as well. Especially if those centralized systems are a crucial part of satisfying essential needs of modern, "western" societies. Scientific studies provide a variety of explanations about what can trigger a system collapse and which contributing factors could come into effect. The degree of vulnerability and resilience that a certain system holds and that determines how it may react to the influence of disturbances is essential in any case. Therefore, to avoid collapse and the inevitable dependencies that come with centralisation, the fortification of decentralised structures appears to be wise. It turns out "real" decentralisation requires certain circumstances in order to work as an alternative and sometimes just shifts the actual problem. Given that there are plenty of possible developments becoming apparent, a usable outcome implies a strict limitation of the number of subjects within the paper. The analysis of two well-chosen examples provided results that question the vague concept of decentralisation and explore decisive factors of system stability. To prevent a potential fatal collapse of vital supply structures, alternatives which lack the weakness of established systems are to be found. Yet, only a few of the approaches manage to do so.So, the results altogether question the superiority of decentralised approaches (given that they can even be defined as such) to established, centralised structures.