Federalism Flashcards
What is federalism?
Cf. Elazar 1997; Bednar 2009
1) The country is divided into regional govs that are constitutionally recognised & cannot be unilaterally abolished by the central gov
2) Regional & central govs have independent bases of authority, e.g. separate elections, courts, laws etc.
3) Policy-making is divided between the regional & central govs, so that each has some ‘exclusive competences’ over their citizens
4) Regional sub-units are represented in the upper chamber of the central legislature, and so have power over central gov policy
A country where sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels.
What is the difference bewteen aysmetric and symetirc federalism?
Symmetric federalism is if every level has the same amount of power
Asymmetric federalism- if one has more power than the other
What is a unitary state?
- geopolitical divisions decided by central government
- may have independent elections, but not separate courts or laws
- no direct governance, i.e. no ‘exclusive competences’ of sub-units
- no territorial representation in central legislature
What is Devolution / Decentralisation (within a unitary state)
- existence and powers of geopolitical divisions decided by the central government
- (some) sub-units have independent courts and legal traditions
- (some) sub-units have direct governance, i.e. exclusive power over some policies
- over-representation of (some) territorial sub-units in upper house
Not constitutional so can be withdrawn
Two dimesonsions of federalism
- Institutional/constitutional
authority. Unitary or federal state.
Constitutional question - How much control is delegated
to subnational units. Question on
devolution of power/revenue
Examples- China, Finland, India are unitary
and decentralised. Belgium, South Africa are very centralised in a revenue sense but
federal constitutionally
Why do governments decentralize?
Supply-side explanations
- Functional advanatges- Local govs can be better at mapping preferences to policies (Fiscal Federalism). But this comes at the cost of central government priorities- Know their communities better, easier for voters to communicate with local vs national gov,
better translation of prefereneces of policies but not good reason for a
politician as you lose power - Institutionalized patronage and co-optation:
Can provide resources & power to politically important interests. (Give recongised power- co-opt elites/ ethnic groups)
Recentralization can sanction opposing interests. (Good tool for authoritarian- Putin clawing back control from powerful mayors/provinces . Sanction those against United Russia) - Bargaining power
Political fragmentation can make collective action by regional or ethnic interests
more or less difficult- Want a democracy that forms bargains. If we want a consociational democracy we want federalism/decentralisation as it
foces competing interests in society to compromise over policy in a way that is potentially better for consociational norm of
democracy and maybe better for very conflictual socities
Why do governments decentralize?
Demand-side explanations
- Political marginalization: Marginalized regional or ethnic groups may seek decentralization for greater
influence. Common especially in the face of secessionist threats- case study ethiopia - Electoral manipulation: Politicians may create new political boundaries to make elections safer for local candidates (e.g., gerrymandering)- Incentive to redraw to cement political control. Big part of the adminsitrative boundaries in the US where state parties have had a lot of power in drawing them e.g. cement control over
slavery 18/19 th century in the US - Accountability: Voters may believe that decentralization makes it easier to hold local officials accountable- Only vote 4 years for central gov, not know whose responsible, vote on local issues so greater ability to sanction politicians. Have more information
Case study- Why did Uganda decentralise
Demand side
Took the history of Uganda as to
which ones split into new districts
and those that didn’t. Part of the sotry was Voters in particular regions that are left out
are demanding additional power.
See here is the probability that the
gov will agree to a district being
split based on their model. It’s these places that are very underrepresented within the existing gov and are very unequal on the
poorer side relative to other areas that tend to be split off.
Case study- Why did Uganda decentralise
Supply side
Museveni one of the most
successful autocrats. In power
since the 80s, centralised power,
no risk- why do it
Do it to help the marginalised communitites but also find those that support the NRM and are marginalised- those are the indivduals he will reward with decentralisation
See that twice the vote margin not vote for Museveni in those districts that are split off. Using decentrlaisation to reward those individuals that remain within the NRM and punish those which vote for oppoisiton candidates. Part of his strategy to ensure he remains in power
MP Atube states he is divding tribes or separating out the tribes from those who support him to those that don’t in order to reward elites communities that support him
Effects of decentrsliation- checks and balances
Vertical ‘Checks and Balances’ (e.g. Lijphart 1999; Tsebelis 2002) Dividing powers between the centre and sub-states is analytically the same as dividing powers between the executive & the legislature (presidentialiam), or between two legislative chambers (bicameralism).
Federalism therefore increases policy stability and dialogue, but at the cost of
gridlock.
(more veto players, forces compromise, ineffective legilsalation- time consuming)
Effects of decentrsliation- improves political accountability
Casey 2015/Weingast 1995
- Voters may be better informed about local contexts. Politicians may likewise be more
informed about the needs of voters. - Voters can therefore better monitor the performance of local than national politicians.
- “Yardstick competition” can also provide information about local government
performance - Better information leads to less corruption, identity voting and clientelism.
Effects of decentrsliation- hinders political accountability
Bardhan 2002/Treisman 2009)
(Less horizontal accountability, more vertical accountability)
- Local authorities often have fewer checks on their power and are subject to less media oversight
- Denser political networks may make clientelistic strategies easier to implement
- Electoral competition is often weak in local contexts, and voting is often conditioned on
personal connections - More levels of government may mean more opportunities for corruption- More layers of administrative authority makes it easier to hide things- blame other people if money is missing (bureaucracy/other assembly members/parliament). Lots of budgets/contractors/layers of authority hard to work out how much you were supposed to get
Case study- decentralisation on corruption
Fan et al. 2009
Very debated topic- can say that it appears to increase the numbers of bribes- consitent with the logic of personal relationships and hiding evidence.
Survey of corruption- see the effect of a standard deviation increase. See that an increase in decentralisation about 5% fewer say they never pay bribes, 1.5 and 2.5% say they’re sometimes frequently or most likley to pay bribes- significant increase in bribe payment. We are creating problems
with accountability not just solving
Case study- Decentralization and Health Outcomes
Grossman et al. 2017
Flip-side- the role of public services. Easier to request improvements at a local level
than a national representative. Evidence is consistent with this
Paper- takes the main decentralised countries in Africa and looks at adminsitraitve units that have split in comparison to those haven’t. Will compare
public policy outcomes (are the ones split off better than their neighbours that aren’t)
Measuring public health service-
water/service within communities. General reduction across sub-sahraran africa.
Malawi we don’t see this- failed
decnetralisation event
Effects of decentrsliation- preventing ethnic conflict
In divdied societies we often see decentralisation or federal states as its a way to try to hold a fractious country together & appeals to voters with diverse interests
Ethnic cleavages
If ethno-linguistic groups in a society are geographically concentrated, then decentralisation of power can give these groups autonomy over the issues they care about (e.g. education, media, language etc.)
Example: Canada, Belgium, UK, Spain, Nigeria
Decentralization can also reduce the political salience of ethnic divisions by forcing politicians to compete along non-ethnic lines. This may be advantageous in ethnically contentious societies.
Example: Sierra Leone, Kenya, Bosnia
Divergent policy preferences
More generally, some geographically concentrated social groups might have significantly divergent policy preferences from the national majority, and so prefer decentralised powers on these issues
e.g. median Scottish voter is to the left of the median UK voter, median Catalan voter is to the right of the median Spanish voter
