FEDERALISM AND

DECENTRALIZATION
Gov1109 #5

RECAP: CLASSES SO FAR

Choices & processes of constitution-building

Power-sharing or power-concentrating
Elite-led top-down or inclusive bottom-up processes
Key building blocks: pros and cons of each

Electoral systems and processes

Majoritarian, mixed, proportional
Sub-type variations

Types of executives
Presidential, mixed, parliamentary executives
Horizontal power-sharing

Types of federalism and decentralization

Vertical power-sharing

TODAYS STRUCTURE
1.

Why the growth of multilevel governance?

2.

Comparing normative arguments for and against

decentralization

3.

Many types of federalism and decentralization

4.

The impact of federalism on democracy

5.

Case studies India and Bangladesh, Brazil, Japan,

Russia and Sweden: one size does not fit all?

RESOURCES

Norris Ch 7

Devas and Delay Local democracy Local

Government Studies

Andrews and de Vries High expectations

IRAS

Forum of Federations www.forumfed.org

1. GROWTH OF MULTILEVEL
GOVERNANCE

1. GROWTH OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCEWHY?

Supra-national

Civil Society

Public sector

Private sector

International NGOs and global

networks of activists

Multinational and regional

government

International corporations

Nation-state
National

Sub-national

National interest groups, nongovernmental organizations,

voluntary societies

Regional, local and community

interest groups, nongovernmental organizations,
voluntary societies

Central organs of the national

legislature, core executive and
bureaucracy, and national
judiciary

Federal constitutions
safeguarding states rights and
autonomy over some functions
Political, fiscal and
administrative decentralization
to regional, local and community
elected bodies

Privatization of state sector

nationalized assets

Privatization of regional and

local sector assets and
contracting out of services

WHY GROWING DECENTRALIZATION

WORLDWIDE?
(REF DEVAS AND DELAY)
1.

Bottom-up demand;
Reaction

against perceived failures of the central

state
eg post-Communist Europe
2.

Aspirations of nationalist movements

Eg

Spain, Belgium, United Kingdom, Canada,

Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia

3.

Post-war peace-building process

Eg

4.

Uganda, South Africa, Cambodia, Iraq

Role of international development

agencies
Part

of the neo-liberal Washington consensus

Eg World Bank

2. NORMATIVE CLAIMS: THE

PROS AND CONS OF
DECENTRALIZATION

NORMATIVE DEBATE: CLAIMS IN

FAVOR
Gives citizens multiple points of access, enhancing
opportunities for public participation
Increases the accountability and responsiveness of
elected officials to local citizens (voice to the poor)
Local accountability lessens corruption eg social
audits
Flexible policy learning (see what works)
Managerial efficiency; smaller units
Closer to customers; service delivery tailored to local
needs
In divided societies, accommodates cultural autonomy
eg languages and religious schools
More stability and less communal conflict (Nancy
Bermeo, Alf Stephan)

NORMATIVE DEBATE: CLAIMS

AGAINST

Overlapping multilevel roles and responsibilities reduces

accountability and responsibility (buck stops?)

Reinforces geographic inequalities (eg in welfare benefits, natural

resource revenue)

Maximizes opportunities for corruption

Managerial duplication, redundancies, coordination costs,

bureaucratic inefficiencies (eg electoral management)

Multiple veto points; slowness to respond

In divided societies, can encourage ethno-nationalist regional

parties and lead to succession and national break-up, whether
peaceful (Czechoslovakia 1993) or violent (Pakistan 1971,
Yugoslavia)

Violence and continued conflict in the Russian Federation (in

Chechnya?), in the Basque region of Spain, in India (in Kashmir),
Nigeria, and Sudan (in Darfur).

Effects may depend upon state boundaries and party competition

(Brancanti)

DESIGNING DECENTRALIZATION:
(DEVAS AND DELAY)
1.

Size of units and number of levels

2.

Structure for political accountability

3.

5.

Periodic elections, citizen consultation, local audits, direct citizen

decision-making eg budgets (next class)

Financial structure

Local taxes: property, income, business, vehicles

Weak expenditure management; unequal resources in districts

Center-local relations

6.

Single or plural executive, type of electoral system, use of

reserved seats

Mechanisms for citizen engagement

4.

Impact on administrative costs and citizen participation

Tensions between local accountability and central grants

Impact on service delivery, poverty and corruption

Varied impacts; mixed evidence; depends on above factors

What matters is how that system is designed and
implemented.

3. MANY TYPES OF
FEDERALISM AND
DECENTRALIZATION

CONCEPTS: DECENTRALIZATION

Decentralization: definition
The

transfer of roles and responsibilities from the central

government to different sub-national units

Types
Administrative

decentralization

Local agents of central government eg education department

Bureaucratic decision-making authority and managerial responsibilities
for the delivery and regulation of public services and for raising revenues
are transferred from the central government to sub-national tiers.
May reinforce, not reduce, central control

Fiscal

decentralization

Locally-determined taxes and spending

Strengthen accountability by linking expenditure for local services and
goods with source of revenues
Use central performance indices

Political

decentralization

To an elected body with some degree of local autonomy

Direct engagement of local citizens in local decisions

Low
<Fiscaldecntralizton>H
igh

T
y
p
e
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
i
u
o
n
.0
1
0
U
n
i
t
a
r
y
H
y
b
d
s
F
e
l
.0
8
.0
6
.0
4
.0
2
.0
.0
.20
.40
.60
.81
.0

FISCAL AND POLITICAL

DECENTRALIZATION

Norris ch 7

Why these
contrasts?
Physical size?
Culture and
colonial
legacies?
Plural
societies?
Levels of
democracy

CONCEPTS AND TYPES OF

FEDERALISM
Federal regimes: definitions
An association of states, which are formed
for certain common purposes, but in which
the member states retain a large portion of
their original independence. (K. Wheare)
The combination of shared-rule for some
purposes and regional self-rule for others
within a single political system so that
neither is subordinate to the other. (Watts)

FEDERAL COUNTRIES (24/193

NATIONS)
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia

and Herzegovina

Brazil
Canada
Comoros
Ethiopia
Germany
India
Malaysia
Mexico
Micronesia
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
Russia
St.

Kitts and Nevis

South Africa
Spain
Switzerland
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Venezuela

DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES

Type of regime
Federations
(25)
Decentralizedunions (22)
Unitary states
(141)

MULTIPLE TYPES (LIJPHART 1999)

Type

E.g.

Federal and decentralized

Australia, Switzerland, Belgium, US

Federal and centralized

Austria, Venezuela, India (?)

Semi-federal

Israel, Spain

Unitary and decentralized

Denmark, Japan, Norway

Unitary and centralized

Costa Rica, Ireland, Jamaica, UK (?),

France

TYPES OF FEDERAL AND DECENTRALIZED

REGIMES

Figure 7.2: Matrix of vertical power-sharing arrangements

Note: See the text for definitions of each type of constitution and the measures of decentralization which are used. The numbers in parenthesis
represent the distribution of each type out of 191 contemporary states worldwide in 2000.
Source: Norris Driving Democracy

4. THE IMPACT OF
FEDERALISM ON
DEMOCRACY AND
DEMOCRATIZATION

Low
<M
eanFH
LiberalD
em
ocray>i

T
y
p
e
fU
o
e
d
r
a
l
i
s
m
8
0
.
iF
te
n
a
y
tla
s
e
H
y
rd
b
u
n
o
s
6
0
.
4
0
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
2
3
4
5
6
8
0
2
3
4
5
6
70
2
3
4
5
6
7
81
3
4

TRENDS IN DEMOCRACY BY TYPE

Note: The standardized 100-point scale of democracy is described in Table 3.1. The scale measures Liberal Democracy (Freedom House
2000). For the classification of types of constitution, see text.

IMPACT ON DEMOCRACY

Note: The type of constitution was classified using the definitions defined in the text according to data derived from Griffiths
(2005), Watts (1999), and Banks (2004). The standardized 100-point scales of democracy are described in Table 3.1. The four
scales measure Liberal Democracy (Freedom House 2000), Constitutional Democracy (Polity IV 2000), Participatory Democracy
(Vanhanen 2000), and Contested Democracy (Cheibub and Gandhi 2000). When tested by ANOVA, the difference between mean
scores are all significant (at the p=.001 level).

FEDERALISM STRENGTHENS
DEMOCRACY
Liberal democracy

Constitutional democracy

Freedom House

Polity IV

pcse

p.

pcse.

INSTITUTIONS
PR Electoral system

4.30 (.949)

***

10.54

(.530) ***

11.68 (.569)

***

18.74

(1.17) ***

.70 (.222)

***

1.60

(.204) ***

Log GDP/Capita (US$)

11.46 (.979)

***

7.75

(.737) ***

Ex-British colony (0/1)

9.27 (.627)

***

9.66

(1.14) ***

-13.33 (1.88)

***

-16.94

(1.53) ***

.59 (.052)

***

.621

(.039) ***

-9.78 (.634)

***

-2.40

(1.48) N/s

Parliamentary monarchy
Federal constitution
CONTROLS

(0/1)
Regional diffusion of democracy
Ethnic fractionalization (0-100-pt scale)

p.

5. CASE-STUDIES

CASE STUDIES: INDIA V BANGLADESH

INDIAN STATES

INDIAN FEDERALISM &

DECENTRALIZATION
Federal Republic; 1947 Indian independence; 1950 new Constitution:
Mixed Executive: Elected President Pratibha PATIL, Prime Minister
Manmohan SINGH
Lok Sabha (545MPs, first-past-the-post simple plurality)
Pop 1.1 bn (country 1/3 rd size of US)
Religions: Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%,
other 1.8%
Languages: Hindi 41%, Bengali 8.1%, Telugu 7.2%, Marathi 7%,
Tamil 5.9%, Urdu 5%, Gujarati 4.5%, Kannada 3.7%, Malayalam 3.2%,
Oriya 3.2%, Punjabi 2.8%, Assamese 1.3%, Maithili 1.2%, other 5.9%
Federalism: Divided into 28 states and 7 union territories

First-past the post elections for legislative assemblies, states vary in size by
pop.
Asymetrical federalism: special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir

Decentralization:1992, the 73rd amendment strengthened rural

and village councils (panchayats), new powers and funding, women
must hold at least one-third of the seats on these bodies.

BRAZIL, JAPAN, RUSSIA AND SWEDEN

Ref Andrews and de Vries
Decentralization is a common policy among
international agencies
Decentralization is usually assumed to
enhance citizen empowerment, allocation
efficiency and decision-making.
Yet many negative consequences, one size
does not fit all, context matters, impact on
popular participation varies
Most different research strategy: Brazil,
japan, Sweden and Russia
See Table 1 and Fig 1

CONTEXT MATTERS?

DIVERSE CASES: ANDREWS AND DE

VRIES

SURVEY EVIDENCE

EFFECTS

CONCLUSIONS: ANDREWS AND DE

VRIES

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

Diverse types of federations and forms of

sub-national decentralization; not
equivalent
Decentralization growing (political,
administrative and fiscal) but federalism is
more difficult to change
Federalism usually strengthens democracy
Complex to analyze the other types of
effects
Many conditions probably matter in plural
societies, including the boundaries drawn
across or within ethnic communities, and
types of parties.

NEXT CLASS
Innovative forms of public participation and
transparency