federalism and decentralization gov1109 #5. r ecap : classes s o far … choices & processes of...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
FEDERALISM AND DECENTRALIZATIONGov1109 #5
RECAP: CLASSES SO FAR… Choices & processes of constitution-building
Power-sharing or power-concentrating Elite-led top-down or inclusive bottom-up processes Key building blocks: pros and cons of each…
Electoral systems and processes Majoritarian, mixed, proportional Sub-type variations
Types of executives Presidential, mixed, parliamentary executives Horizontal power-sharing
Types of federalism and decentralization Vertical power-sharing
TODAY’S STRUCTURE
1. Why the growth of multilevel governance?
2. Comparing normative arguments for and against
decentralization
3. Many types of federalism and decentralization
4. The impact of federalism on democracy
5. Case studies – India and Bangladesh, Brazil, Japan, Russia
and Sweden: one size does not fit all?
RESOURCES
Norris Ch 7
Devas and Delay ‘Local democracy…’ Local Government Studies
Andrews and de Vries ‘High expectations…’ IRAS
Forum of Federations www.forumfed.org
1. GROWTH OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE
Civil Society Public sector Private sector
Supra-nationalInternational NGOs and global
networks of activistsMultinational and regional
government
International corporations
National National interest groups, non-governmental organizations,
voluntary societies
Nation-state
Central organs of the national legislature, core executive and
bureaucracy, and national judiciary
Privatization of state sector nationalized assets
Sub-national Regional, local and community interest groups, non-
governmental organizations, voluntary societies
Federal constitutions safeguarding state’s rights and autonomy over some functions
Political, fiscal and administrative decentralization
to regional, local and community elected bodies
Privatization of regional and local sector assets and
contracting out of services
1. GROWTH OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE- WHY?
WHY GROWING DECENTRALIZATION WORLDWIDE? (REF DEVAS AND DELAY)
1. Bottom-up demand; Reaction against perceived failures of the central state eg post-Communist Europe
2. Aspirations of nationalist movements Eg Spain, Belgium, United Kingdom, Canada, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Russia
3. Post-war peace-building process Eg Uganda, South Africa, Cambodia, Iraq
4. Role of international development agencies Part of the neo-liberal ‘Washington consensus’ Eg World Bank
2. NORMATIVE CLAIMS: THE PROS AND CONS OF DECENTRALIZATION
NORMATIVE DEBATE: CLAIMS IN FAVOR Gives citizens multiple points of access, enhancing
opportunities for public participation Increases the accountability and responsiveness of elected
officials to local citizens (voice to the poor) Local accountability lessens corruption eg social audits Flexible policy learning (see what ‘works’) Managerial efficiency; smaller units Closer to customers; service delivery tailored to local needs In divided societies, accommodates cultural autonomy eg
languages and religious schools More stability and less communal conflict (Nancy Bermeo,
Alf Stephan)
NORMATIVE DEBATE: CLAIMS AGAINST Overlapping multilevel roles and responsibilities reduces accountability
and responsibility (‘buck stops…?’) Reinforces geographic inequalities (eg in welfare benefits, natural
resource revenue) Maximizes opportunities for corruption Managerial duplication, redundancies, coordination costs, bureaucratic
inefficiencies (eg electoral management) Multiple veto points; slowness to respond In divided societies, can encourage ethno-nationalist regional parties and
lead to succession and national break-up, whether peaceful (Czechoslovakia 1993) or violent (Pakistan 1971, Yugoslavia)
Violence and continued conflict in the Russian Federation (in Chechnya?), in the Basque region of Spain, in India (in Kashmir), Nigeria, and Sudan (in Darfur).
Effects may depend upon state boundaries and party competition (Brancanti)
DESIGNING DECENTRALIZATION: (DEVAS AND DELAY)1. Size of units and number of levels
Impact on administrative costs and citizen participation
2. Structure for political accountability Single or plural executive, type of electoral system, use of reserved seats
3. Mechanisms for citizen engagement Periodic elections, citizen consultation, local audits, direct citizen decision-
making eg budgets (next class)
4. Financial structure Local taxes: property, income, business, vehicles Weak expenditure management; unequal resources in districts
5. Center-local relations Tensions between local accountability and central grants
6. Impact on service delivery, poverty and corruption Varied impacts; mixed evidence; depends on above factors “What matters is
how that system is designed and implemented.”
3. MANY TYPES OF FEDERALISM AND DECENTRALIZATION
CONCEPTS: DECENTRALIZATION Decentralization: definition
“The transfer of roles and responsibilities from the central government to different sub-national units”
Types Administrative decentralization
Local agents of central government eg education department Bureaucratic decision-making authority and managerial responsibilities for the
delivery and regulation of public services and for raising revenues are transferred from the central government to sub-national tiers.
May reinforce, not reduce, central control Fiscal decentralization
Locally-determined taxes and spending Strengthen accountability by linking expenditure for local services and goods with
source of revenues Use central performance indices
Political decentralization To an elected body with some degree of local autonomy Direct engagement of local citizens in local decisions
FISCAL AND POLITICAL DECENTRALIZATION
1.000.800.600.400.200.00
Low <<Political decentralization>> High
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Lo
w <
<F
isc
al d
ec
en
tra
lizati
on
>>
Hig
h
US Swi
Sp
SAfrRus
MexMalay
India
Ger
Can
Braz
Belg
Aus
Austl
Arg
GB
Por
Neth
Ita
Indonesi
Geo
Fiji
Zim
Tri
Thai
Taj Swe
Slov
Slovk
Sene
Rom
Pol
Phil
Para Pan
Nor
Nic
Mong
Mol
Maur
Lux
LithLat
Kyr
Ken
IsrIre
IceHung
Guat Fr
Fin
Est
Den
Czech
Cro
Chil
Bul
Bots
Bol
Bela
Aze
Alb
Federal
Hybrid unions
Unitary
Type of constitution
Why these contrasts?• Physical size? • Culture and colonial
legacies?• Plural societies?• Levels of democracy
Norris ch 7
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.” (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)
FEDERAL COUNTRIES (24/193 NATIONS) Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Brazil Canada Comoros Ethiopia Germany India Malaysia Mexico
Micronesia Nepal Nigeria Pakistan Russia St. Kitts and Nevis South Africa Spain Switzerland United Arab Emirates United States of America Venezuela
DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES
Type of regime
Federations (25)Decentralized unions (22)Unitary states (141)
MULTIPLE TYPES (LIJPHART 1999)
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
TYPES OF FEDERAL AND DECENTRALIZED REGIMES
Figure 7.2: Matrix of vertical power-sharing arrangementsNote: 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
Type of constitution
De
gre
e o
f a
dm
inis
tra
tiv
e,
fis
ca
l a
nd
p
oli
tic
al d
ece
ntr
aliza
tio
n
Unitary states
(144)
Hybrid Unions
(22)
Federal states
(25)
Ce
ntr
ali
zed Eg
Kenya
Zimbabwe
Eg
Indonesia
Azerbaijan
Eg
Malaysia
Belgium
De
ce
ntr
ali
zed
Eg
Norway
Denmark
Eg
Italy
Eg
Canada
Switzerland
4. THE IMPACT OF FEDERALISM ON DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIZATION
TRENDS IN DEMOCRACY BY TYPE
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
80.0
60.0
40.0
Lo
w <
<M
ea
n F
H L
ibera
l D
em
ocra
cy >
> H
igh
Federal states
Hybrid unions
Unitary states
Type of federalism
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
54
17
44
37
63
28
61
54
70
30
69
58
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FH 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 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).
FEDERALISM STRENGTHENS DEMOCRACYLiberal democracy Constitutional democracy
Freedom House Polity IV
b 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$) 11.46 (.979) *** 7.75 (.737) ***
Ex-British colony (0/1) 9.27 (.627) *** 9.66 (1.14) ***
(0/1) -13.33 (1.88) *** -16.94 (1.53) ***
Regional diffusion of democracy .59 (.052) *** .621 (.039) ***
Ethnic fractionalization (0-100-pt scale) -9.78 (.634) *** -2.40 (1.48) N/s
Population size (thou) -.000 (.001) *** -.001 (.001) N/s
Area size (sq.miles) .001 (.001) *** .001 (.001) ***
Constant -14.76 -7.45N. observations 5125 4221N. of countries 187 156Adjusted R2 .513 .560
5. CASE-STUDIES
CASE STUDIES: INDIA V BANGLADESHSocial and economic indicators India Bangladesh
Area 3,287,590 sq km 144,000 sq km
Pop., 2007 1.13 bn. 150.4m
Pop below poverty line (%) 25% 45%
GDP per capita (PPP US$), 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
INDIAN STATES
INDIAN FEDERALISM & DECENTRALIZATION Federal Republic; 1947 Indian independence; 1950 new Constitution: Mixed Executive: Elected President Pratibha PATIL, Prime Minister
Manmohan SINGH Lok Sabha (545 MPs, first-past-the-post simple plurality) Pop 1.1 bn (country 1/3rd size of US) Religions: Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other
1.8% Languages: Hindi 41%, Bengali 8.1%, Telugu 7.2%, Marathi 7%, Tamil 5.9%,
Urdu 5%, Gujarati 4.5%, Kannada 3.7%, Malayalam 3.2%, Oriya 3.2%, Punjabi 2.8%, Assamese 1.3%, Maithili 1.2%, other 5.9%
Federalism: Divided into 28 states and 7 union territories First-past the post elections for legislative assemblies, states vary in size by pop. Asymetrical federalism: special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir
Decentralization: 1992, the 73rd amendment strengthened rural and village councils (panchayats), new powers and funding, women must hold at least one-third of the seats on these bodies.
BRAZIL, JAPAN, RUSSIA AND SWEDEN
Ref Andrews and de Vries Decentralization is a common policy among
international agencies Decentralization is usually assumed to enhance citizen
empowerment, allocation efficiency and decision-making.
Yet many negative consequences, one size does not fit all, context matters, impact on popular participation varies
‘Most different’ research strategy: Brazil, japan, Sweden and Russia
See Table 1 and Fig 1
CONTEXT MATTERS?
DIVERSE CASES: ANDREWS AND DE VRIES
SURVEY EVIDENCE
EFFECTS
CONCLUSIONS: ANDREWS AND DE VRIES
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1. Diverse types of federations and forms of sub-national decentralization; not equivalent
2. Decentralization growing (political, administrative and fiscal) but federalism is more difficult to change
3. Federalism usually strengthens democracy4. Complex to analyze the other types of effects5. Many conditions probably matter in plural societies,
including the boundaries drawn across or within ethnic communities, and types of parties.
6. Pros and cons?
NEXT CLASSInnovative forms of public participation and transparency