The Economist once had a very arresting article about the merits of centralizing, decentralizing, and then centralizing again, when it comes to goverence in government or corporations. The change one way, and then the other, were as salubrious as breathing in and out. Stasis can be a near death experience.
And there you have it.
I don't know if there is any merit in it. But it certainly happens. Generally because neither arrangement is ideal. So you set up one way, and after a while you are used to it and see all it's flaws. Someone notes that the flaws can be fixed by setting up the "other" way, so you switch things around.
After a few years you realise there are flaws, and someone notes that you can fix those flaws by switching back.
I used the terms "one way" and "back" because this is generally applicable to any organization, and not tied to "centralized" vs "decentralized".
For example, a lot of large development organizations go back and forth between "functional" and "programatic" organization.
And whoever recommends the change each time gets a bonus.
In this particular instance, I always think it's a good sign when a person gets into politics, and then has the sense to quit even though they know they would win re-election.
Coburn did it as a house member, and unfortunately will likely do it as Senator, hopefully not until his second term at least.
I think America would be better off if every person elected to office had first had to have a real job, and if they knew they would have to go back and LIVE in whatever mess they had made during their time in office.