3/23/2010
STRUCTURE
1.
The growth of multilevel governance
2.
Comparing patterns of decentralization and
sub-national governance
FEDERALISM AND
DECENTRALIZATION
RESOURCES

Caramani Ch 11

Norris Ch 7

Forum of Federations www.forumfed.org
3.
The impact on democracy
4.
Case studies – India and Bangladesh
5.
Pros and cons of decentralization
1. GROWTH OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE- WHY?
Civil Society
Public sector
International NGOs and global
networks of activists
Multinational and regional
government
National interest groups, nongovernmental organizations,
voluntary societies
Central organs of the national
legislature, core executive and
bureaucracy, and national
judiciary
Private sector
Supra-national
International corporations
Nation-state
National
Privatization of state sector
nationalized assets
Federal constitutions
safeguarding state’s rights and
autonomy over some functions
Sub-national
2. 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.
independence ” (K.
(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)
Regional, local and community
interest groups, nongovernmental 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
MULTIPLE TYPES TABLE 11.3 (LIJPHART)
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
1
3/23/2010
TYPES OF FEDERAL AND DECENTRALIZED
FEDERALISM AND DECENTRALIZATION
REGIMES
Type of constitution
Hybrid Unions
Federal states
(144)
(22)
(25)
Eg
Eg
Eg
Kenya
Indonesia
Malaysia
Decentralized
Zimbabwe
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Eg
Eg
Eg
Canada
Norway
Low <<Fiscal decentralization>> High
Centrralized
Degree of administratiive, fiscal and
political decentra
alization
1.00
Unitary states
US
India
0.80
Swi
Austl
Den
Ger
Fin
Aze
Geo
Swe
Neth
Guat
Sene
Zim
Pol
Est
Cro
Lux
Bol
Ice
Czech
Hung
Belg
Isr
Ken
Chil
Switzerland
Ita
Bul
Tri Rom
Por Slov
Fiji
Mex
GB
Ire
Fr
Alb
Indonesi
0.20
Sp
Nor
Lith
Lat
Malay
0.40
Rus
SAfr
Mol Taj
Kyr
Arg
Braz
Aus
Mong
Bela
0.60
Italy
Denmark
Type of constitution
Unitary
Hybrid unions
Federal
Can
Bots Thai
Phil
Slovk
Nic
Maur
Pan
Para
0.00
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
DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Low <<Political decentralization>> High
TRENDS IN DEMOCRACY BY TYPE
Type of federalism
Unitary states
Hybrid unions
Federal states
Low <<Mean FH Libera
al Democracy >> High
80.0
60 0
60.0
40.0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
Type of regime
Year
Federations
(25)
Decentralized unions (22)
Unitary states
(141)
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
FEDERALISM STRENGTHENS
Liberal democracy
Freedom House
DEMOCRACY
Constitutional democracy
Polity IV
80
70
b
69
70
63
60
61
58
54
54
50
44
INSTITUTIONS
PR Electoral system
Parliamentary monarchy
Federal constitution
pcse
p.
b
pcse.
4.30 (.949)
***
10.54
(.530) ***
11.68 (.569)
***
18.74
(1.17) ***
.70 (.222)
***
1.60
(.204) ***
11.46 (.979)
***
7.75
(.737) ***
(1.14) ***
p.
37
40
28
30
CONTROLS
Log GDP/Capita (US$)
30
Ex-British colony (0/1)
17
20
9.27 (.627)
***
9.66
-13.33 (1.88)
***
-16.94
(1.53) ***
.59 (.052)
***
.621
(.039) ***
Ethnic fractionalization (0-100-pt scale)
-9.78 (.634)
***
-2.40
(1.48) N/s
Population size (thou)
-.000 (.001)
***
-.001
(.001) N/s
.001 (.001)
***
.001
(.001) ***
(0/1)
10
Regional diffusion of democracy
0
FH
Vanhanen
Unitary states
Polity
Hybrid unions
Cheibub
Federal states
Note: The type of constitution was classified using the definitions defined in the text according to data derived from Griffiths
(2005), Watts (1999), and Banks (2004). The standardized 100-point scales of democracy are described in Table 3.1. The four
scales measure Liberal Democracy (Freedom House 2000), Constitutional Democracy (Polity IV 2000), Participatory Democracy
(Vanhanen 2000), and Contested Democracy (Cheibub and Gandhi 2000). When tested by ANOVA, the difference between mean
scores are all significant (at the p=.001 level).
Area size (sq.miles)
Constant
N. observations
N. of countries
Adjusted R2
-14.76
5125
187
.513
-7.45
4221
156
.560
2
3/23/2010
CASE STUDIES: INDIA V BANGLADESH
Social and economic indicators
Area
Pop., 2007
Pop below poverty line (%)
GDP per capita (PPP US$),
2006
Life expectancy at birth, 2003
CONCLUSIONS
India
Bangladesh
3,287,590 sq km
144,000 sq km
1.13 bn.
150.4m
25%
45%
$3,700
$2,200
68 years
63 years
Human Development Index, 2003
.501
.600
Adult literacy (% of pop. 15+), 2003
59%
43%
Ethnic fractionalization, 2002 (Alesina)
.418
.045
1947 (Britain)
1971 (W. Pakistan)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Political indicators
Year of independence (from)
Liberal Democracy (Freedom House) Index, 1973
Freedom House classification 1973
Liberal Democracy (Freedom House) Index, 2007
Freedom House classification 2007
2.5
3
Free
Partly free
2.5
4
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)
41
15
2005
5.
6.
Diverse types of federations and forms of subnational governance; not equivalent
Complex area to analyze the effects
Federalism usually strengthens democracy
N
Nevertheless
h l
many conditions
di i
matter in
i plural
l
l
societies, including the boundaries drawn across
or within ethnic communities.
Decentralization growing (political,
administrative and fiscal) but federalism is
more difficult to change
Pros and cons?
3