How Exceptional is or was the American Federalism Compared to Canada and Germany federalism - Essay Example

? How Exceptional is or was the American Federalism Compared to Canada and Germany federalism. Federalism has been closely related to all political, economic and social activities in USA. In accordance with the existing literature, the origins of federalism in USA can be traced in the early years of the country’s formulation. Towards this direction, in the study of LaCroix (2010) emphasis is given on ‘the Constitution Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia’ (LaCroix 1), an event through which the political history of USA began. It was in the summer of that year (1787) that the first signs of federalism – as a political and economic concept – were identified in USA. In accordance with LaCroix, federalism has been based on ‘the necessity for the existence of states’ (LaCroix 2) and the theory that a country with extensive territory, such as USA, cannot be easily organized as a republic (LaCroix 2). Moreover, Obinger (2005) noted that the development of a precise definition of federalism would be quite difficult, mostly because the specific term is used in order to describe a series of conditions and events, including a series of ‘institutional and jurisdictional arrangements’ (Obinger 9) for protecting the interests of local populations – referring to the population of the states. Despite its complexity, the federal system of governance is preferred by many states worldwide. About 23 countries in the international community are based on the specific system of governance; their influence on the global political system is quite important taking into consideration the fact that a percentage of 40% of the global population are governed through the particular system of governance (Obinger 9). The characteristics of federalism as developed in USA are critically discussed in this paper; emphasis is given on the advantages of American federalism compared to other forms of federalism worldwide, especially the Canadian and the German forms of federalism. The key characteristics of federalism can be identified in the following definition: ‘the activities of government are divided between regional governments and a central government’ (Riker 1975 in Obinger 9). It is further explained that in the context of federalism both the central government and the regional governments have the power to develop their own decisions on the activities under their control – meaning the political, social and economic activities being under the control of central or the regional governments, as defined in relevant arrangements (as noted in the definition of Obinger above). Federalism, as described above, has certain priorities. These priorities have been described in the Federalist Papers, through which Federalism has been established. The key priorities of federalism, are the following ones a) specific measures need to be developed by the government – referring to either the central government or the regional governments, as noted above, so that the concentration of power (meaning the political power) is avoided; at the same time, political and economic freedom needs to be guaranteed (Obinger 10), b) in the context of federalism emphasis is given on the rights of minorities; in fact, these rights have key importance for federalism, a type of governance which has been developed mostly for covering the needs of areas with high cultural and geographic diversity (Obinger 10). Reference can be made to the case of Canada, a country where federalism has been used for ensuring the protection of rights of citizens who have different cultural background and ethics (Obinger 10). At this point, the following issue should be highlighted: despite the fact that federalism has been introduced in order to respond to specific needs, as described above, it is difficult for the specific system to have a common level or form of development worldwide – reference is made to the countries that their system of governance is based on federalism. An indicative example of this prospect is mentioned in the study of Obinger. In accordance with the above researcher, federalism can take different forms internationally, under the influence of the local political and social conditions: for example, in USA federalism has been used for emphasizing the advantages (political, economic or social) of each state, i.e. for promoting competition (Obinger 10) while in Switzerland federalism serves a different target, the elimination of political and economic conflicts between states with different social and cultural characteristic (Obinger 10). The above differences are important for the following reason: USA and Switzerland are part of two different group of countries which are based on the federalism system of governance and where federalism has followed a different path of development. In this context the characteristics of federalism in USA, Australia and Canada are different compared to those of Switzerland, Austria and Germany; the former group is consisted from countries sharing the same language, while the second is consisted from countries with similar political and social characteristics, being part of the Western Europe (Obinger 10). Under these terms, federalism in USA and Canada is likely to have similar characteristics, compared to the federalism developed in Germany, where federalism has been used for promoting different political, economic and social needs, as explained below. Through the decades, different forms of federalism have been developed, aiming to respond to the different needs of countries worldwide. In this context, in the study of Feeley and Rubin (2008) reference is made to the process federalism, a form of federalism used by countries that have faced significant challenges in order to be established as nations or gain their independency – being former colonies (Feeley and Rubin 70). USA is such case, at the level that the above country adopted federalism during the first years of its independency. In the above case, federalism has developed its form as a ‘federal union’ (Feeley and Rubin 71), a system of governance where emphasis is given on the hierarchy of powers – from the central power to the states, which are not used in order to declare the independency of states, but rather the close relationship between the states and the central government, as in case of a family. Another common form of federalism, opposed to the process federalism, is the structural federalism, which emphasize on the cooperation of states with the central union just like in the human body (Feeley and Rubin 71); i.e. an independency in terms of structure of the governmental bodies may be established, but the integration of the country is not threatened. Other forms of federalism, has been the fiscal federalism, focusing on the freedom of movement of capital among the governmental bodies and the ethnic federalism (former Yugoslavia) where emphasis is given on the nation as the central power for controlling the governance of the country (Rose 261), the socialist federalism, being identical with the state-controlled socialism (Rose 263) and the constitutional federalism, in countries where federalism is based on a Constitution, like in the case of USA (Rose 263). Federalism needs to be distinguished from other forms of government; most commonly, federalism is related to confederation, which has many elements of federalism, being in fact a type of federalism, as explained in the study of Elazar (1995). In accordance with the above researcher, federalism as a system of governance appeared in 1787 in the Constitution of USA. Through the above text, a system of governance was established in USA under the principles of federalism. The above system, known as federation, is based on the principle that the fundamental rule of governance in the country is the Constitution; other rules can be developed for governing the states, however these rules need to be aligned with those of the Constitution. A similar system of governance, also part of the federalism, is the confederation where two or more states, as independent units, form a union, which is characterized by the independency of its members (Elazar 6). In other words, in confederation there is no superior law – Constitution – to which all states need to align their laws. Instead, each state is fully independent, in terms of legislative and political powers (Elazar 6). The relationship between federalism and another form of governance, the direct democracy should be also mentioned; in accordance with Schwarzschild (2011) the use of direct democracy in modern states is not feasible, because of its drawbacks – in the context of the current political, social and economic conditions worldwide. It is noted that federalism is based on democracy, but has many differences from direct democracy – otherwise the promotion of this system in modern states would not be feasible. More specifically, in the context of federalism, ‘no direct democracy exists at federal level; also, no voter initiatives exist in more than half the states’ (Schwarzschild 2011, on press). By alternating the elements of direct democracy, federalism has helped to promote democracy and pluralism, as possible, as a system of governance that can function effectively in modern states. In other countries where federalism has been introduced, the rules of the particular system have helped to avoid major political and economic turbulences; for instance the case of Canada, where federalism prohibits the development of radical changes promoting instead the coordination and the continuation in terms of the priorities set by each government. In this way, political conflicts are eliminated, helping the economy to be stabilized (Monpetit and Foucault 2010). The above advantage of federalism was made clear in the recent crisis; Canada, a country, which has aligned its system of governance with the principles of federalism managed to face the crisis avoiding losses and major economic turbulences. The above fact can be consider as a result of the practice of Canadian governments to avoid changes on their political and financial system – based on federalism. In USA where such changes are extensive, the effects of the crisis were severe, in fact the country was considered as responsible for the crisis. In this way, the following fact is proved: the standardization of the principles of federalism may protect more effectively from political and economic risks (as proved in the case of Canada); on the other hand, in countries where such changes are necessary because of the size of the territory and the high level of multiculturalism – as in USA – the evaluation of federalism would be based on its whole performance, i.e. not just on the economic stability but also on the political, social and legal stability, as reflected in the co-existence of people with different cultural background, as in the case of USA. On the other hand, the development of federalism in Canada has not been similar like in USA; in fact, since the establishment of federalism in the above country in 1867, through the Constitution Act of 1867, the text on which the establishment of Canada as part of the UK was initiated, no major changes have been made on the country’s system of governance. Rather, minor changes have been promoted in federalism regarding ‘cultural and economic issues’ (Alarie and Bird 2010). The federal system of Canada resembles to that of Australia, another country being until recently under the control of UK; the similar economic and political practices of these two countries reveal that the impact of the Western style of governance – as reflected in the British system of governance – on federalism may be positive (Turgeon 2009), when it is kept within specific borders and when radical changes and strong political conflicts are avoided, a problem that has led to the limitation of performance of the American federalism. On the other hand, in cases of emergent events that require significant resources, the superiority of the American federalism has been revealed. In the case of the hurricane Katrina, the structure of the American economic system (opened to risks but less limited in terms of the availability of funds and the time required for covering emergent financial needs) was proved to be more effective compared to the Canadian one (Hildreth and Bartley 2011); USA was proved more appropriately for the above crisis compared to Canada where delays in the process of financial projects and the management of capital market, have revealed the weakness of the country to respond fast in cases of emergent needs for financial support. In Germany, the involvement of federalism in the country’s economic and social growth seems to be different at the end of the 19th century – compared to the period after the Second World War. Indeed, in the former period, emphasis was given on the development of transport and communication (Buettner, Behnisch and Stegarescu 2002); after the War the country’s government has been proved to be less willing to invest on the development of the above sectors; a different economic policy was followed emphasizing on the industrial growth and the development of the country’s capital market. In 2005, the German government introduced a series of changes in the tax system, causing the further development of the German fiscal federalism, which has been mostly promoted in Germany the last decades (Losco 2006). On the other hand, the development of federalism in Germany affects the EU market, in terms that the country’s fiscal policies are used as indicators for the potential strength of the Union’s market – since the fiscal decisions in Germany are highly influenced by the financial conditions in the EU where Germany has a leading role (Borzel 2003). The influence of the Union’s various fiscal policies on the fiscal federalism in Germany is a phenomenon not common in other countries where this system is developed, since in other countries there is no such dependency of the local fiscal decisions on the fiscal trends and decisions of a Union of states. In USA, federalism has been used for emphasizing the independency of the country from Britain; this fact is derived primarily from the time point when federalism was introduced in the country. As noted above, the origins of federalism in USA can be identified in 1787 – simultaneously with the Constitution Convention (La Croix 1), a fact that verifies the value of federalism in USA as a system of governance declaring the differentiation of the country from Britain, where a different style of governance has been used. The above assumption is verified by the view of Ward et al. (2009); the above researchers refer to the use of federalism by politicians who have played a key role in the political and economic framework of USA, i.e. Thomas Jefferson and Lincoln. The former, has noted that the success of republic in a particular state is not depended on the size of the state (Ward et al. 210); he also highlighted the importance of federalism as a unique form of democracy: through this system, still the governance of the country would belong to the citizens, however the citizens would not have the power to intervene directly in the management of critical political and economic issues; such power would be given to the representatives of the citizens who would act in the name of the citizens – or at least such perspective was included in the federalism system of governance, as developed in USA. From a similar point of view, Lilcoln emphasized on another element of federalism; the increase of independency of states at such level that a claim of secession may occur. Indeed, federalism in USA had to face such challenge during the period of conflict between the North and the South parts of the country (Ward et al 263) .The speech of Lilcoln in 4 July 1861 emphasized on the need for continuation of the Union and the nature of secession as an action threatening the country. Lincoln had to protect federalism, in order to ensure the continuation of democracy, and at the same time to prevent the secession, in order to protect the country’s integration (Ward et al. 263). The above targets were achieved; Lincoln managed to persuade the public across USA that the effects of the secession would be so severe that, in the long term, they could threaten the independency of the country. In order to understand the quality of federalism in USA, i.e. the level at which federalism has been developed in its real form across the country it would be necessary to refer to certain structural characteristics of the American system of governance. The examination of this system reveals the level at which the principles of federalism are followed by legislators and politicians in each state. In accordance with Gardner (2004) a system of real federalism requires that states are independent from the central government but at the same time they have to align their rules with the rules of the country’s constitution. It is noted that in USA, federalism meet the above requirement, being quite close with the system of a real federalism, which is not easy to be identified in the international community. USA can be characterized as a country mostly promoted federalism; in fact, the country managed to keep the principles of federalism in regard to most of its political, economic and social relations. At the same time, a series of governance practices have been introduced which transformed the country’s federalism, without violating its rules; it’s the American-style federalism, which is highly reflected in the country’s law system (Redding 2008). The achievement of this target, i.e. transforming federalism without reducing the state sovereignty, can be characterized as an advantage of USA towards the other states that also use federalism. The development of federalism in USA has been often threatened by turbulences in the country’s political, economic or legal framework; for example, the social movement of 1920’s for the promotion of progressive political beliefs, aiming to cause radical changes in the country’s system of governance (Post 2006). The comparison between the American system of federalism and the other systems of federalism worldwide can lead to the following assumption: the most effective system of federalism would have characteristics of both the American and the European systems of federalism. The de-centralization promoted in USA could help the particular system of governance to be flexible, i.e. more effective in periods of crisis. On the other hand, the strong centralization promoted through the European countries that have adopted federalism could help to reduce the chances for failures in terms of political and economic arrangements (Symeonides 2010). The appearance of the financial crisis in USA in 2008 can be considered as the indicator of the weakness of the USA system of governance, which is characterized by high de-centralization. However, the characteristics and the performance of federalism in USA leads to the assumption that in the above country, federalism is most efficient compared to other countries in the international community, especially Canada and German. Indeed, in USA transformations have been made on the rules of federalism aiming to cover the actual social and economic needs; such intervention has not been attempted in Canada and German, a fact that has limited the flexibility of these countries’ economic and political system. Works Cited Alarie, Benjamin and Bird, Richard M., Tax Aspects of Canadian Fiscal Federalism (September 30, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1689311 Borzel, Tanja A., What can Federalism Teach Us about the European Union? The German Experience (May 2003). The Federal Trust Constitutional Online Paper Series No. 17/03. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=519402 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.519402 Bruhl, Martin and Colin Lizieri, (1994) "Centralism vs Federalism: Implications for Regional Diversification", Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, Vol. 12 Iss: 1, pp.59 - 73 Buettner, Thiess, Behnisch, Alexej and Stegarescu, Dan, Public Sector Centralization and Productivity Growth: Reviewing the German Experience (January 15, 2002). ZEW Discussion Paper No. 02-03. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=319324 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.319324 Choudhry, Sujit and Hume, Nathan, Federalism, Secession & Devolution: From Classical to Post-Conflict Federalism (2010). RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Tom Ginsburg, Rosalind Dixon, eds., 2010 . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1623682 Elazar, Daniel. Federalism Theory and Application. Pretoria: HSRC Press, 1995 Gardner, James A., Whose Constitution Is It? Why Federalism and Constitutional Positivism Don't Mix (June 21, 2004). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=559426 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.559426 Hepp, Ralf and Von Hagen, Jurgen, Fiscal Federalism in Germany: Stabilization and Redistribution Before and after Unification (April 2009). CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP7246. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1382742 Hildreth, W. Bartley , Federalism and Capital Markets in Canada and the U.S.: Financing Infrastructure in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=868640 Hildegard Theobald, (2011) "Multi-level governance and universalism: Austria and Germany compared", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 31 Iss: 3/4, pp.209 - 221 Hillgruber, Christian. German Federalism – An Outdated Relict? German Law Journal (2005) Vol 6 No 10, pp.1270-1282. Available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol06No10/PDF_Vol_06_No_10_1269-1282_SI_Articles_Hillgruber.pdf LaSelva, Samuel. The moral foundations of Canadian federalism: paradoxes, achievements, and tragedies of nationhood. New Baskerville: McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1996 Losco, Valeria, Competition and Equalization: Rethinking German Federalism after Recent Legislative Reform (April 13, 2006). Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No.13. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=896738 Montpetit, Eric and Foucault, Martial, Canadian Federalism and Change in Policy Attention: A Comparison with the United Kingdom (2010). APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1644708 Obinger, Herbert. Federalism and the welfare state: new world and European experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005 Redding, Jeff, Slicing the American Pie: Federalism and Personal Law (April 2, 2007). New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (JILP), Vol. 40, No. 4, 2008; Saint Louis U. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-08. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=978024 Rose, Jurgen, Traut, Johannes and Marshall, George. Federalism and decentralization: perspectives for the transformation process in Eastern and Central Europe. Munster: LIT Verlag Munster, 2001 Schuck, Peter H., Citizenship in a Federal System (January 25, 2000). A revised version of this paper, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 48, June 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=191356 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.191356 Schwarzschild, Maimon, Voter Initiatives and American Federalism: Putting Direct Democracy in its Place. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=449040 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.449040 Symeonides, Symeon C., American Federalism and Private International Law (May 21, 2010). Hellenic Journal of International Law, Vol. 62, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1612949 Turgeon, Luc, Varieties of Capitalism/Varieties of Federalism in Australia and Canada (2009). APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1450915 Ward, Ann and Ward, Lee. The Ashgate research companion to federalism. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009 Read More