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?