Federal and unitary systems of government have many similar qualities therefore it becomes difficult
to decipher between the two. In order to illustrate the difficulty in trying to distinguish between
the two, I will first define what each system of government involves and then attempt to compare an
d contrast.
Federalism is the creation of two layers of government, the federal government and the
constituent states, which equally share the legal sovereignty of a country. Each tier of government
has its own specific functions. The central government is allocated with the external political issu
es i.e. Foreign affairs and national defence. The constituent states' main concern is with legislati
on and education although the intricacies of each depend on which state you are examining.
Unitary
governments when a country's sovereignty lies solely with a central tier of government. Subnational
authorities do exist alongside the centre and they may make their own individual policies, however t
his is only permissible if first approved by the central government. The authority of the country li
es absolutely within the central government and the lower levels could be abolished if the centre so
wished.
Although they appear very similar in operation federal and unitary systems of government i
mmediately individualise themselves from one another in their definitions. Within federalism the con
stituent states have a shared responsibility with the central government and their existence is prot
ected. The only way they could be removed or modified would be by amending the constitution. The low
er levels of the unitary system, however, only exist because they permitted to. The subnational auth
orities could be abolished almost immediately if the national government so demanded. Federal and un
itary systems of government are classed as the two main solutions to the "territorial organisation o
f power1," Federalism, with some 22 federations in existence today, is becoming increasingly more po
pular with larger countries seeking to unite a multiethnic and multinational population. Australia,
Canada and the United States of America, four of the world's largest countries, are federal. "Federa
lism seems to promise the military and economic advantages of size while maintaining, even encouragi
ng, more local identities. Federalism, permits diversity within unity and is thus an important model
for a world of strong national and ethnic identities.2," (Hague, Harrop and Breslin)
Unitary syste
ms, however are usually found in smaller countries, such as Britain and Japan who do not have as muc
h ethnic diversity. Nearly all countries in Latin America are made up of unitary systems of governme
nt as they strive towards a centralised presidential government.
Unitary government however is not
completely centralised in its approach. Like federalism, unitary systems often look to the lower lev
els of government for assistance and to take on more responsibility. Although unitary government is,
in definition, hierachal, there are often times when the two levels of government meet to bargain w
ith political responsibility.
In the 1970s democratic Spain demonstrated to the world how federalis
m and unitary government could be united without disruption. After General Franco's death in 1975 th
e country sought to marry a "centralised tradition with strong regional identities" associated with
federalism. In order to create such an ideal, Spain's constitution-makers introduced a system whereb
y each region could comprise their own policies, in order to decide their own levels of autonomy. Ha
gue, Harrop and Breslin describe this as system of "quasi-federalism within a frame of a unitary sta
te3,"
In order to analyse the differences and similarities between federal and unitary systems of g
overnment we must look at the relationships that take place between central and state governments. W
ithin federalism there are two crucial points that explain the dependence and interdependence that e
xists between central and state government. Dual federalism, no longer existing today, was a favouri
te with the Founding Fathers of the United States, whereby the central and the state government rema
in separate bodies. This system however, has long since been replaced in favour of "intergovernment
al relations" where flexibility allows the federal and state government to interact freely in areas
such as education, the environment and transport, although intergovernmental relations is most often
found within federalism, it is also found in unitary states.
Unitary government, as mentioned abov
e, often exhibits qualities of federalism when the central government shares some of its responsibil
ities with the state. There are three methods unitary states use in order to direct some of the auth
ority away from the centre. The first is deconcentration, whereby employees execute government funct
ions away from the capital. Deconcentration allows the work to be spread out and allows central poli
ticians to acquire more local knowledge. Deconcentration also helps the central departments to conce
ntrate on policy-making. Decentralisation is the second method of dispersing central power. This is
when state or subnational authorities execute government functions. One example of this is in Scandi
navia where local authorities are dealing with welfare issues introduced by central government. Fina
lly, devolution is where the national government allows some decision-making autonomy to be passed o
n to the lower levels.
4,MethodDefinitionIllustration
DeconcentrationCentral government functions
are executed by staff "in the field"Almost 90% of US federal civilian employees work away from Wash
ington, D.C. DecentralisationCentral government functions are executed by subnational authoritiesLoc
al governments administer national welfare programmes in Scandinavia DevolutionCentral government gr
ants some decision-making autonomy to new lower levelsRegional governments in France, Italy and Spai
n
Hague, Harrop and Breslin describe the relationship between central and subnational authorities i
n unitary states as "of interdependence rather than dominance5," This can again be confusing when tr
ying to distinguish between federal and unitary states, as a dominant central government was what in
itially separated unitary from federal systems. Therefore we must learn that in order to discover th
e balance of power between levels of government we can't simply assume the result from the type of s
ystem; federal or unitary.
Within a unitary state there are two types of relationship between centr
al and local government. The first is a dual system where the central government remains formally se
parated from the local government. The local government remains an internal organisation. Secondly,
a fused system is where a prefect, acting as a central tier, oversees matters of the local governmen
t and reports back to the central. This system still implies unitary central dominance, in that the
prefect is carrying out orders running from national government. Nowadays most of the existing unita
ry states have developed a central tier between national and local government. Three examples of thi
s are France, Italy and Spain. Thus the unitary system becomes a multi-tier government, again reduci
ng the contrast between federal and unitary government.
Although they have many differing qualities
the line between federal and unitary systems of government is often blurred by their many similar f
unctions and operations. Federalism overlaps with unitary states in the two-tier government system,
in their national - local relations and in the constant bargaining that goes on between levels of go
vernment. Both systems are considered to be the solution to territorial organisation and have even j
oined forces to create an effective and efficient, original form of government in Spain in 1975. It
is only the fixed, protected position the state government holds within a federation that clearly di
stinguishes federalism from unitary government.
federal unitary systems government have many simil
ar qualities therefore becomes difficult decipher between order illustrate difficulty trying disting
uish between will first define what each system government involves then attempt compare contrast fe
deralism creation layers government federal constituent states which equally share legal sovereignty
country each tier specific functions central allocated with external political issues foreign affai
rs national defence constituent states main concern with legislation education although intricacies
each depend which state examining unitary governments when country sovereignty lies solely with cent
ral tier subnational authorities exist alongside centre they make their individual policies however
this only permissible first approved central authority country lies absolutely within lower levels c
ould abolished centre wished although they appear very similar operation federal unitary systems imm
ediately individualise themselves from another their definitions within federalism constituent state
s have shared responsibility their existence protected only they could removed modified would amendi
ng constitution lower levels system however only exist because permitted subnational authorities cou
ld abolished almost immediately national demanded systems classed main solutions territorial organis
ation power federalism some federations existence today becoming increasingly more popular larger co
untries seeking unite multiethnic multinational population australia canada united america four worl
d largest countries seems promise military economic advantages size while maintaining even encouragi
ng more local identities permits diversity within unity thus important model world strong national e
thnic identities hague harrop breslin however usually found smaller countries such britain japan hav
e much ethnic diversity nearly latin america made strive towards centralised presidential completely
centralised approach like often look lower levels assistance take more responsibility although defi
nition hierachal there often times when meet bargain political responsibility democratic spain demon
strated world united without disruption after general franco death sought marry centralised traditio
n strong regional identities associated order create such ideal spain constitution makers introduced
system whereby region comprise policies order decide autonomy hague harrop breslin describe this qu
asi frame state analyse differences similarities between must look relationships that take place sta
te governments there crucial points that explain dependence interdependence that exists dual longer
existing today favourite founding fathers united whereby remain separate bodies this long since been
replaced favour intergovernmental relations where flexibility allows interact freely areas such edu
cation environment transport intergovernmental relations most often found also found mentioned above
exhibits qualities when shares some responsibilities there three methods direct some authority away
from centre first deconcentration whereby employees execute functions away from capital deconcentra
tion allows work spread allows politicians acquire local knowledge deconcentration also helps depart
ments concentrate policy making decentralisation second method dispersing power subnational authorit
ies execute functions example scandinavia where local dealing welfare issues introduced finally devo
lution where decision making autonomy passed methoddefinitionillustration deconcentrationcentral exe
cuted staff field almost civilian employees work away washington decentralisationcentral executed au
thoritieslocal governments administer welfare programmes scandinavia devolutioncentral grants decisi
on making autonomy levelsregional france italy spain hague harrop breslin describe relationship inte
rdependence rather than dominance again confusing trying distinguish dominant what initially separat
ed therefore must learn discover balance power simply assume result type types relationship dual rem
ains formally separated remains internal organisation secondly fused prefect acting tier oversees ma
tters reports back still implies dominance prefect carrying orders running nowadays most existing de
veloped three examples france italy thus becomes multi again reducing contrast many differing qualit
ies line blurred many similar operations overlaps relations constant bargaining goes both considered
solution territorial organisation even joined forces create effective efficient original form fixed
protected position holds federation clearly distinguishesEssay, essays, termpaper, term paper, term
papers, term papers, book reports, study, college, thesis, dessertation, test answers, free research
, book research, study help, download essay, download term papers