FEDERALISM ANDDECENTRALIZATION
STRUCTURE
1. The growth of multilevel governance
2 Comparing patterns of decentralization and 2. Comparing patterns of decentralization and
sub-national governance
3. The impact on democracy
4. Case studies – India and Bangladesh
5. Pros and cons of decentralization
RESOURCES
Caramani Ch 11
Norris Ch 7
Forum of Federations www.forumfed.org
1. GROWTH OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE- WHY?Civil Society Public sector Private sector
1. GROWTH OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE WHY?
Supra-nationalInternational NGOs and global Multinational and regional
International corporationsInternational NGOs and global
networks of activistsMultinational and regional
government
Nation-state
National National interest groups, non-governmental organizations,
voluntary societies
Nation state
Central organs of the national legislature, core executive and
bureaucracy, and national Privatization of state sector
nationalized assetsyjudiciary
Federal constitutions safeguarding state’s rights and autonomy over some functions
Privatization of regional andSub-national Regional, local and community
interest groups, non-governmental organizations,
voluntary societies
Political, fiscal and administrative decentralization
to regional, local and community elected bodies
Privatization of regional and local sector assets and
contracting out of services
2. CONCEPTS AND TYPES OF FEDERALISM
Federal regimes: definitionsg “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)“Th bi ti f h d l f “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)
MULTIPLE TYPES TABLE 11.3 (LIJPHART)Type E.g.yp g
Federal and decentralized Australia, Switzerland, Belgium, US
Federal and centralized Austria, Venezuela, India
S i f d l I l S iSemi-federal Israel, Spain
Unitary and decentralized Denmark, Japan, Norway
Unitary and centralized Costa Rica, Ireland, Jamaica, UK (?),
France
TYPES OF FEDERAL AND DECENTRALIZEDREGIMES
Type of constitution
scal
and
on
Unitary states
(144)
Hybrid Unions
(22)
Federal states
(25)
d E E E
nist
rativ
e, fi
sec
entr
aliz
atio
Cen
tral
ized Eg
Kenya
Zimbabwe
Eg
Indonesia
Azerbaijan
Eg
Malaysia
Belgium
ree
of a
dmin
polit
ical
de j g
tral
ized
Eg
NorwayEg
Eg
Canada
Figure 7.2: Matrix of vertical power-sharing arrangements
Deg
r
Dec
ent Norway
Denmark Italy
Canada
Switzerland
g p g gNote: 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
FEDERALISM AND DECENTRALIZATION
1 00 CanType of constitution
1.00
0.80
> Hig
h US SwiIndia
Can
AustlDen
Federal Hybrid unionsUnitary
0.60
cent
raliz
ation
>
SpSAfr
Rus
Malay
Ger
BrazAusArg
Geo
Taj SweNor
Mong
Mol
LithLat
Kyr
Fin
Bol
Bela
Aze
0.40
0.20ow <<
Fisca
l de Mex
Malay
Belg
GB
Por
Neth
Ita
Indonesi
Zim
TriSlov
Sene
Rom
Pol
Phil
Lux
Ken
IsrIre
IceHung
Guat FrEst
Czech
Cro BulAlb
0.00
Lo Por
FijiThai
S o
Slovk
Phil
Para Pan
NicMaur
Ken
ChilBots
1.000.800.600.400.200.00
Low <<Political decentralization>> High
DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES
Type of regime
Federations (25)Decentralized unions (22)Unitary states (141)
TRENDS IN DEMOCRACY BY TYPE80.0
Unitary statesType of federalism
ocra
cy >
> H
igh
Federal statesHybrid unions
60.0
FH L
iber
al D
emo
Low
<<M
ean
F
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
Year
40.0
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 DEMOCRACY80
54
63 61
54
70 69
58
50
60
70
44
37
2830
30
40
50
17
0
10
20
0FH Vanhanen Polity Cheibub
Unitary states Hybrid unions Federal states
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 fourscales 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 meanscores are all significant (at the p=.001 level).
FEDERALISM STRENGTHENS DEMOCRACYLiberal democracy Constitutional democracy
Freedom House Polity IV
b pcse p b pcse pb pcse p. b pcse. p.
INSTITUTIONSPR Electoral system 4.30 (.949) *** 10.54 (.530) ***
Parliamentary monarchy 11.68 (.569) *** 18.74 (1.17) ***
Federal constitution .70 (.222) *** 1.60 (.204) ***
CONTROLSLog GDP/Capita (US$) 11.46 (.979) *** 7.75 (.737) ***
Ex-British colony (0/1) 9.27 (.627) *** 9.66 (1.14) ***
(0/1) -13.33 (1.88) *** -16.94 (1.53) ***
Regional diffusion of democracy .59 (.052) *** .621 (.039) ***
Ethnic fractionalization (0-100-pt scale) -9.78 (.634) *** -2.40 (1.48) N/s
Population size (thou) -.000 (.001) *** -.001 (.001) N/s
Area size (sq miles) 001 ( 001) *** 001 ( 001) ***Area size (sq.miles) .001 (.001) .001 (.001)
Constant -14.76 -7.45N. observations 5125 4221N. of countries 187 156Adjusted R2 .513 .560
CASE STUDIES: INDIA V BANGLADESHSocial and economic indicators India Bangladesh
Area 3,287,590 sq km 144,000 sq km
Pop., 2007 1.13 bn. 150.4m
Pop below poverty line (%) 25% 45%
GDP per capita (PPP US$), 2006 $3,700 $2,200
Life expectancy at birth, 2003 68 years 63 years
Human Development Index, 2003 .501 .600
Adult literacy (% of pop. 15+), 2003 59% 43%
Ethnic fractionalization, 2002 (Alesina) .418 .045
Political indicators
Year of independence (from) 1947 (Britain) 1971 (W. Pakistan)
Liberal Democracy (Freedom House) Index, 1973
Freedom House classification 1973
2.5
Free
3
Partly free
Liberal Democracy (Freedom House) Index, 2007 2.5 4
Freedom House classification 2007 Free Partly free
Control of Corruption (Kaufmann) 2005 47 8
Government effectiveness (Kaufmann) 2005 52 21
Political stability (Kaufmann) 2005 22 7
Rule of Law (Kaufmann) 2005 56 20
Voice and accountability (Kaufmann) 2005 56 31
Regulatory quality (Kaufmann) 2005 41 15
CONCLUSIONS
1. Diverse types of federations and forms of sub-ypnational governance; not equivalent
2. Complex area to analyze the effects3. Federalism usually strengthens democracy4. Nevertheless many conditions matter in plural
societies including the boundaries drawn across societies, including the boundaries drawn across or within ethnic communities.
5. Decentralization growing (political, administrative and fiscal) but federalism is more difficult to change
6 Pros and cons?6. Pros and cons?