week 2: federalism Flashcards
Federalism
federalism
systems of government built off of a constitutional division of powers between a central government and lower levels of government
three types of government: federal, confederal, and unitary
neither level of government is subordinate to the other within their defined jurisdictions
in Canada federalism went from centralization to decentralization
alternatives to federalism
Confederal systems: systems of government with multiple levels of government but the central government is dependent on the lower levels for its existence
ex: America under the Articles of Confederation: the EU
Unitary Systems: systems of government where the central government is supreme.
Central governments hold power, lower levels only implement policies from the central government
there may be lower levels of government, but they are dependent on the central government for survival
ex: UK, France, Sweden
federalism today
federal states: USA, India, Switzerland, Russia, Canada, Belgium
unitary states: France, Ireland, UK, Japan, Srilanka, Spain
What isn’t federalism?
Decentralization: the transfer of power to local levels of government
federations can be more or less centralized. Unitary systems of governments can also be more or less decentralized.
The difference between decentralization and federalism is that central authority may withdraw from development powers at will.
criteria for federalism
A federal state has the following three criteria:
- Levels of government whose authority cannot be removed unilaterally by one another (split sovereignty)
- each level of government is selected independently (ex: distinct elections)
- Each level of government has authority over at least one policy area.
is Canada really a federation?
Can the sovereignty of provinces be revoked unilaterally?
- No, although federal controls were used until 1961. The general amendment formula requires seven provinces and 50% of the population
to be levels of government independent.
- Yes, defunded in the constitution: federal institutions, and provincial constitutions.
Does each level have at least one area of authority?
- yes
benefits of federalism
A substantial literature has a developed to test what are seen as normative benefits of federal regimes:
- responsiveness to citizens
- laboratories of democracy
- protections against tyranny
responsiveness to citizens
perhaps the most cited benefit of federalism is that federal regimes will be more responsive to citizens
the more local the government, the more accessible they are to ordinary citizens
policymakers at sub-national levels may have more information about local conditions
laboratories of democracy
federalism also provides advantages through innovation in policy… called “policy learning”
policymakers can observe policy choices made in other jurisdictions learn from successes and avoid failures
ex: health care in Saskatchewan
Protections against tyranny
Federalism diffuses power and in doing so prevents excessive concentration of power among one group
It can give institutional power to minority groups for protection from the majority
subnational jurisdictions may mirror societal cleavages on language, religion, race, ethnicity, etc.
An important limitation is that such cleavages need to be geographic
- groups that are more evenly distributed throughout a country won’t be provided such protections (ex: Indigenous peoples)
- an argument to move beyond geography in conceptualizations of federalism
cost of federalism
Important to acknowledge the costs associated with federal systems:
Race to the bottom:
- Competition between jurisdictions may devolve into a race to lower regulations and tax rates or to give out corporate subsidies
Subnational jurisdiction inequality:
- countries may also have resource endowments that vary considerably
variation in fiscal capacity variation in the quality of public services
equalization in Canada
Authoritarian enclaves:
- federalism may allow the continued presence of authoritarian enclaves
provincial policy can deny citizens civil rights in response to local public opinion
ex: the Jim Crow south
Inefficiency:
- federalism is also a messier, less efficient way of pursuing public policy: a lot of negotiation and a lot of duplication of services
on the other hand, reason to expect a different type of inefficiency with a public monopoly
the cost of federalism is debatable
origins of federalism
common interests: prior association, shared values or culture, ideology, economic benefits, proximity, similar institutions, strategic considerations
external or internal threat: a sense of military, economic, cultural insecurity, and perceived threat to an existing order
pre-existing colonies of Canada, NB, and NS were vulnerable to American expansionism
union seen to bolster the economic and military viability of the Canadian colonies
The American Civil War escalated these concerns
the possible resurgence of Manifest Destiny
Anglophone leaders of Upper Canada wanted a strong unitary state (ex: John Macdonald)
francophone leaders of lower Canada, as well as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, favored the federal model
confederation represented a compromise between these visions
Confederation settlement
(deers fight in cults)
Important components of the settlement:
- divisions of powers and resources
- federal controls
- intra-state federalism
- cultural guarantees
federal controls
Initially, the federal government was dominant in the Canadian Confederation.
taxation power (ex: tariffs and indirect taxation)
disallowance and reservation
important spheres of jurisdiction (ex: military and foreign affairs, trade and commerce)
residual powers
intra-state federalism
Smaller colonies are concerned about representation in national institutions. Known as intra-state federalism
resulted in:
- rep by population in the House of Commons, but regional representation in the senate
- regional representation in the cabinet (informally)
- regional representation in the Supreme Court (eventually)
- state federalism ultimately weak in Canada
Quasi (partly) -federalism (1867-1920)
characterized by federal dominance
robust use of the power of disallowance and reservation
96 bills disallowed between 1876 and 1921
new provinces admitted to union with the federal government taking resource revenue
Classical Federalism (1920-1945)
the judicial committee of the privy council began to enforce dual federalism
federal government and provinces were confined to jurisdictions
dramatic narrowing of the peace, order, and good governance (POGG) clause and trade and commerce clauses
struck down important federal policies, like national employment insurance
exceptions during the world wars- emergency federalism
Cooperative Federalism (1945-1971)
the post-war era saw the massive growth of government responsibility in social policy, but provinces were cash-strapped
rise of federal-led co-operative federalism: The federal government used its spending power to compel provinces to create robust social policy
shared cost programs where the federal government provided matching funds to provincial programs
Competitive federalism (1971-1992)
an era of growing provincial budgets and a cash-strapped federal government
shared cost programs abandoned in avoid of block funding
rise of Quebec nationalism and Western alienation delimited the federal spending power
turn to the constitutional arena
Collaborative Federalism (1992-2006)
a debt crisis in Ottawa led to a federal retreat: transfers to the provinces were slashed
new era of collaborative federalism characterized by provincial leadership and collaboration with other provinces and Ottawa
maintenance of national standards and recognition of the federal spending power
Quebec on the sidelines
Open Federalism (2006-present)
harper’s victory in 2006 marked another period of federal retreat
open federalism began a turn away from federal standards and interference in provincial jurisdictions
little federal-provincial negotiation, more limited federal spending power
Trudeau has embraced a more active federal role. But is still limited in comparison to the past.
Caveats:
there is no clear democratization between the eras of federal-provincial relations
degree and nature of federal involvement varies by policy area
federal provincial relations are under-institutionalized ensuring they evolve depending on the leadership of First Ministers or economic and social conditions.
