THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF • in the allocation of taxing powers and COMPARATIVE FEDERAL STUDIES resources; in the character of federal government representative institutions and Professor Ronald L. Watts in the degree of regional input to federal policy-making; in the procedures for INTRODUCTION resolving internal conflicts between Political events in various parts of the world governments; during the past two decades have attracted • in the processes established to facilitate increasing attention to comparative federal collaboration between interdependent studies. But the comparative scholarly literature governments; attempting to assess the nature of federalism and to understand such issues as the theory and • and in the procedures for formal and practice of federalism, the strengths and informal adaptation and change. weaknesses of federal political solutions, the Clearly then, there is no single pure model design and operation of various federal systems of federation that is applicable everywhere. and the processes of political integration and Even where similar institutions are adopted, disintegration has a long history. This paper will different circumstances have often made them trace that history and the development of the operate differently. A classic illustration of this comparative study of federalism, federal is the operation of the similar formal constitution political systems and federations as a amendment procedures in Switzerland and background for the following chapters which Australia requiring ratification by double examine federal theories and the methodologies majorities in a referendum. In a century this that have been employed in these studies. procedure produced over 110 constitutional Much of the scholarly study of federalism amendments in Switzerland and only eight in has taken the form of examining individual Australia (Watts, 1999: 2). federations and from these a wealth of valuable Nevertheless, as long as these limitations are insights has been gained. This paper, however, kept in mind, there is a genuine value in the focuses specifically upon comparative federal undertaking comparative analyses. Many studies. problems are common to virtually all At the outset, it has to be noted that federations. Comparisons, therefore, may help comparisons of different polities require us to understand more clearly the consequences considerable caution. The basic federal notion of particular arrangements. Through identifying of combining ‘shared rule’ for some purposes similarities and differences, comparisons may with regional ‘self-rule’ for others within a draw attention to certain features whose single political system so that both are a genuine significance might otherwise be overlooked or reality has been applied in many different ways underestimated. It should be noted that to fit different circumstances. Federations have comparisons may also suggest both positive and varied and continue to vary in many ways: negative lessons through identifying successes and failures of different arrangements and • in the character and significant features of mechanisms employed to deal with similar their underlying economic, social and problems. cultural diversities; This paper therefore focuses on the • in the number of constituent units and the development of comparative studies relating to degree of symmetry or asymmetry of their ‘federalism’, ‘federal political systems’ and size, resources and constitutional status; ‘federations’. These interrelated terms are based on a three-fold distinction (Watts, 1998: 119-22; • in the scope and form of the allocation of see also Burgess, 2006: 47-8). ‘Federalism’ is legislative, executive and expenditure understood as a normative concept involving the responsibilities; advocacy of federal arrangements combining

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 1 Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies both shared rule and regional self-rule. ‘Federal by different authors writing on individual political systems’ is a generic descriptive term federations but with the editors or specific for the whole range of political systems marked authors drawing general conclusions from all of by the combination of ‘shared rule’ and ‘self- these (e.g. Kincaid and Tarr 2005; Majeed, rule’ including constitutionally decentralized Watts and Brown 2005). A variant of this unions, quasi-federations, federations, approach has been to examine the handling of a confederations, federacies, associated states, specific aspect or of a particular policy area in a condominiums, leagues, joint functional wide range of federations (e.g. Brown, Cazalis authorities and hybrids of these. ‘Federations’ and Jasmin, 1992; Cameron and Valentine, refers to one specific species within the broader 2001; Banting and Corbett, 2002; Noël, 2004). genus of ‘federal political systems’: a compound Not to be overlooked are also those general polity combining constituent units and a general comparative studies of governments and government, each possessing powers delegated political systems which, although not focused to it by the people through a constitution, each explicitly on federal political systems, have in empowered to deal directly with the citizens in their analysis distinguished the operation of the exercise of a significant portion of its federal and non-federal systems (e.g. Lijphart legislative, administrative and taxing powers, 1984, 1999; Loughlin 2001; Gagnon and Tully, and each including institutions directly elected 2001). For the purposes of this chapter, all these by its citizens. different types of comparative studies will be included in terms of the contribution they have Comparative federal studies have related to made to our understanding of federalism, federal all three of these terms. Some have focused political systems and federations. particularly on the development and refinement of normative theories of ‘federalism’ advocating In this paper the development of federal relationships within a society or polity. comparative federal studies will be portrayed in Some have compared empirically how different terms of broad historical periods, but it should forms of ‘federal political systems’ have be noted at the outset that these historical operated in practice, e.g. federal vs. confederal, boundaries are not intended to be precise since or how these have operated by comparison with each period tends to shade into the next. non-federal, i.e. unitary, systems. Others have focused more particularly on how within the specific category of ‘federations’, similarities THE DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL and differences are to be found and the COMPARISONS IN THE EIGHTEENTH significance of these. AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES These studies have encompassed different The Federalist Papers 1787-8 ranges of comparison. Some have focused While the history of federal ideas is rooted solely on one federation, but have applied a in earlier writers such as Althusius, Locke and comparative perspective (e.g. Arora and Verney, Montesquieu, the Federalist Papers provided the 1995; Rao, 1995). Many have to involved first example of explicit comparative federal comparisons of just two political systems references. While the primary purpose of the enabling direct comparisons but resulting in a Federalist Papers was one of the advocacy for limited explanatory range (e.g. Gress 1994; what its authors considered the new innovative Gress and Janes 2001; Hodgins et al., 1989; proposals of the Philadelphia Convention, the Sharman 1994; Watts 1987). Others, however, merits of these proposals were supported by have included a more broadly inclusive range of direct comparisons not only with the preceding federal examples to seek general conclusions Articles of Confederation, but with specific (e.g. Wheare 1963, Watts 1966, Duchacek 1970, historical examples of the ancient Greek Riker 1975, Elazar 1987, Watts, 1999; Hueglin confederacies, and the German and Netherlands and Fenna, 2006; Burgess 2006). Another and confederacies (Federalist 18, 19, 20). Further, increasingly popular approach has been the the “comparative method” was also used to production of edited works containing chapters

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 2

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies expound the character of the proposed British representative parliamentary tradition. presidency by comparison with the British He particularly emphasized the major monarchy (Federalist 69). Indeed, so preconditions of federation and the significance devastating was the critique of earlier of representation in federal systems. confederacies in The Federalist Papers, that for In 1863, E.A. Freeman published the first two centuries the prevailing wisdom concerning and only volume of his projected History of effectiveness and stability regarded confederal Federal Government from the Foundation of the political systems as virtually always inferior to Achaean League to the Disruption of the United federation. It has only been in recent years that States which in fact took the story only to the some credence has been given to the notion that dissolution of the Achaean League. A second in a world marked by deep ethnic diversities edition published in 1893 after his death and confederal solutions might provide more suitable entitled A History of Federal Government in solutions (See Elazar 1995 and Lister 1996). Greece added an additional chapter dealing with defective forms of federalism that had appeared The Nineteenth Century in Italy and a piece on the German confederacy. Following the establishment of the United Much of what Freeman discussed related to States of America, the first modern federation confederal rather than federal government, but it late in the eighteenth century, the next century represented the first attempt at an empirical saw the establishment of a number of federal or comparative approach to the history of federal ostensibly federal regimes, all influenced, political systems. In undertaking this study, although in varying degrees, by the American Freeman saw federal systems as essentially a model. These included Switzerland (1848), compromise reconciling nation-building with Canada (1867), the German Empire (2nd Reich, long-established particularity, and as combining 1871-1918), and at the turn of the century, the advantages of large states and of small states. Australia. Furthermore, in Latin America federal Both Wheare (1963: 247) and Burgess (2006: constitutions were first adopted in Venezuela in 13) have suggested that Freeman’s writing, 1811, Mexico 1824, Argentina 1853, and Brazil being the first major comparative academic 1891. Although the Latin American federations study of federal government, remains a valuable exhibited considerable instability, by the end of reservoir of insights for the modern student of the nineteenth century there now existed some federations. basis for comparison among a considerable Two other authors in the nineteenth century range of federations and between federations and are of particular interest. James Bryce’s two- non-federations. volume The American Commonwealth 1888, Most of the major writers in the nineteenth followed in the footsteps of Tocqueville but with century contributing to the literature on a more empirical approach in identifying the comparative federal studies, took as their strengths and weakness of the United States as a primary focus the analysis of the United States federation in comparative terms. His Studies in as a federal model, using this as a basis for History and Jurisprudence, first published in comparison with British and European non- 1901, drew particular attention to centrifugal and federal political systems. Alexis de Tocqueville, centripetal forces affecting constitutional law. in his Democracy in America first published in The other author of note was A.V. Dicey, 1835, combined the role political scientist, whose Introduction to the Study of the Law of sociologist and political philosopher (Burgess the Constitution first published in 1885, included 2006: 10) to explain the political values, a discussion of federalism. Succeeding editions traditions, social conditions and behaviour that devoted increasing space to the subject. This distinguished that federation from the political influential work, essentially a study of English regimes in Europe. John Stuart Mill in his constitutionalism based upon comparisons with Considerations on Representative Government, constitutionalism in the United States and first published in 1861, included a good chapter France, compared and contrasted parliamentary comparing the American federation to the

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 3

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies sovereignty and federation, and he included A second feature of this period was the short comparative studies of the American, focus of a number of writers in the United States Canadian and Swiss federations. Clearly an upon the redefinition of the essential character of advocate for unitary rather than federal federations in terms of ‘cooperative federalism’ government, he assessed the latter negatively as replacing ‘dual federalism’. These attempts at likely to lead to national disintegration, a view redefinition arose especially from the which to this day continues to have deep roots examination of the administrative and financial within British political thought. rather than the legal aspects of federal systems. These focused on the important role of THE TWENTIETH CENTURY PRIOR TO administrators and also of political parties and 1945 interest groups in the operation of federal This period, marked by two world wars, a systems, leading to an increasing recognition of world-wide depression, and the Wilsonian the extent of the interaction and advocacy of new sovereign nation states, was interdependence, rather than independence, one in which the advocacy of federal political among governments within federations, organization was not a predominant feature. administratively, financially and politically. The Nevertheless, the development of federal result was a new preoccupation with the study of thought was marked by two positive and one intergovernmental relations. Because writers negative features. studying the administrative and financial arrangements within the United States were The first was the development of a number struck by the extent of the administrative of comparative studies, mostly in the 1930s. cooperation between governments that existed in Sobei Mogi’s two-volume The Problem of practice in the 1930s the term ‘cooperative’ Federalism, a study in the history of political federalism’ was coined to describe it. Jane Perry theory (1931) provided an exhaustive survey of Clark’s The Rise of a New Federalism (1938) what American, British and German statesmen and a symposium on cooperative federalism in and theorists had thought about federalism as an the Iowa Law Review (1938) typified this trend. ideal form of government, although it contained This new emphasis was largely limited at least in no empirical study of the institutions or working the 1930s, to studies within and about the of federations. On the other hand, D.G. Karve’s United States rather than to internationally Federations: A Study in Comparative Politics comparative studies, but as will be noted below, (1932) presented a comparative summary of this laid the foundations for extensive post-war constitutional provisions in several federal comparative studies of this aspect of the systems. The problems of federal finance also operation of federations. began to attract particular attention. B.P. Adarkar, The Principles and Problems of At the same time, a feature of this period Federal Finance (1933) was followed by G.F. was the continued negative evaluation of Shirras, Federal Finance in Peace and War federalism and federation in many comparative (1944) which was more detailed. In 1940, studies, illustrating both the difficulties H.R.G. Greave’s Federal Union in Practice, a federations were facing in coping with the short comparative study with an empirical focus world-wide depression and the continued on the USA, Switzerland, Canada, the Union of influence of the sort of views Dicey had South Africa, Australia and Germany, and articulated. Prior to 1945, the general attitude, including a brief sketch of federations in South especially in Europe and Britain, appeared to be America and the Spanish Republic, appeared. A one of benign contempt for the federal form of forerunner of much of the subsequent analytical government. Many viewed federation as an literature relating to the causes and conditions incomplete form of national government, and a leading to federal unions, the onset of World transitional mode of political organization; and War II obscured its impact, however. where adopted, to be an undesirable but necessary concession made in exceptional cases to accommodate political divisiveness. The more

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 4

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies ideologically inclined considered federalism to Australia, coupled with their development into be a product of human prejudices or false modern welfare states. consciousness preventing the realization of unity A second factor stemmed from the through such more compelling ideologies as conditions accompanying the break-up of the radical individualism, classless solidarity or the European colonial empires in Asia, Africa and General Will. the Caribbean. The colonial political boundaries For example, writing in 1939, Harold Laski rarely coincided with the distribution of the (1939: 367) pronounced: “I infer in a word that racial, linguistic, ethnic and religious the epoch of federalism is over.” Federation in communities or with the locus of economic, its traditional form, with its geographic and historic interests. In the resulting compartmentalization of functions, legalism, clashes between the forces for integration and rigidity and conservatism, was, he argued, for disintegration, political leaders of unable to keep pace with the tempo of economic independence movements and colonial and political life that giant capitalism had administers alike saw in federal solutions a evolved. He further suggested that federalism common ground for centralizers and was based on an outmoded economic provincialists. The result was a proliferation of philosophy, and was a severe handicap in an era federal experiments in these colonies or former when positive government action was required. colonies. These included India (1950), Pakistan Decentralized unitary government, he (1956), Malaya (1948) and then Malaysia concluded, was much more appropriate to the (1963), Nigeria (1954), Rhodesia and Nyasaland new conditions of the twentieth century. Even (1953), the West Indies (1958), Indochina Sir Ivor Jennings, a noted British (1945-7), French West Africa and its successor constitutionalist, who was an advisor in the the Mali Federation (1959), and Indonesia establishment of several new federations within (1945-9). In the same period, in South America the Commonwealth during the immediate post- where the federal structure of the United States war period, once wrote that “nobody would have had often been imitated at least in form, new a federal constitution if he could possibly avoid ostensibly federal constitutions were adopted in it” (Jennings 1953: 55). Brazil (1946), Venezuela (1947) and Argentina (1949). THE SURGE IN THE POPULARITY OF A third factor was the revival of interest in FEDERAL SOLUTIONS 1945-1970 federal solutions in post-war Europe. World War Factors contributing to the proliferation of II had shown the devastation that ultra- federal systems nationalism could cause, gaining salience for the While up to 1945 the federal idea appeared federal idea, and progress in that direction began to be on the defensive, the following two with the creation of the European Communities. decades and a half saw a remarkable array of At the same time, in 1945 in Austria the federal governments created or in the process of constitution of 1920 was reinstated making creation that claimed the designation ‘federal’. Austria once more a federation, Yugoslavia Indeed only eight years after 1945, Max Beloff established a federal constitution in 1946, and in (1953: 114) was able to assert that the federal 1949 West Germany adopted a federal idea was enjoying “a popularity such as it had constitution. never known before.” With this occurred a Thus, the two decades and a half after 1945 burgeoning of comparative federal studies. proved to be the heyday of the federal idea. In Three factors contributed to this post-war both developed and developing countries, the surge in the popularity of federal solutions. One “federal solution” came to be regarded as the was the wartime success and post-war prosperity way of reconciling simultaneous desires for of the long-established federations such as the large political units required to build a dynamic United States, Switzerland, Canada and modern state and smaller self-governing political units recognizing distinct identities. Not

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 5

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies surprisingly, these developments produced a Government, there followed a flood of burgeoning of comparative federal studies by comparative studies. B.M. Sharma, Federalism scholars. in Theory and Practice (1951), covered much the same ground including lengthy descriptions Kenneth Wheare’s Contribution of structures and devoted a great deal more During this period the most valuable and space to India. Two major edited works widely used work comparing federations was appeared in 1954 and 1955, R.R. Bowie and C.J. that of Kenneth Wheare, an Australian at Friedrich (eds.), Studies in Federalism and A.W. Oxford. The first edition of Federal Government Macmahon (ed.), Federalism Mature and appeared in 1946, followed by subsequent Emergent. The first contained detailed country editions in 1951, 1953 and 1963. This was a by country surveys of the nature and working of pioneering effort to provide a detailed and specific institutional features and policy issues in comprehensive comparison not only of the the United States, Switzerland, Canada, constitutions but also of the actual working of Australia and Germany. The latter contained a federal governments within the USA, Australia, series of chapters on various aspects of Switzerland and Canada and including in the last federations, some dealing with established edition references also to developments in federations, some with the particular Western Germany, India and other emerging circumstances of developing federations, and examples in the British Commonwealth. focused particularly on the project for a Although following in the earlier British supernational union in Western Europe. The tradition of casting his definition of the federal Sixth World Congress of the International principle in largely legal and institutional terms, Political Science Association held in Geneva Wheare emphasized the distinction between 1964 under the chairmanship of Carl Friedrich federal constitutions and the actual operation of took as its theme ‘Federalism’ and papers federal governments. Consequently, a major part prepared for the conference by C. Aikin, T. of his comparative study was devoted to Cole, R.L. Watts, M. Merle, D. Sidjanski and L. examining in detail how different federations Lipson were published in 1965 (J.D. worked in relation to public finance, control of Montgomery and A. Smithies, 1965). economic affairs, provision of social services, Subsequently, between 1968 and 1970 control of foreign affairs, and exercise of the war several further comparative federal studies power. He examined not only the role of appeared, one edited by V. Earle in 1968, constitutions, the distribution of powers and the emphasizing the infinite variety of federations in courts, but also the impact of political parties. In theory and practice, one written by Carl his chapters on the preconditions for federal Friedrich in 1968 identifying trends in government he went beyond legal requirements federalism and drawing attention to the into such aspects as the interaction of importance, not just of structures, but of communities and the role of political leadership. dynamic processes within federations, one by Writing in a period which followed a major Geoffrey Sawer, an Australian, in 1969 economic depression and a world war, he surveying the wide range of modern federations, identified a general tendency for most federal and one by Ivo Duchacek in 1970, comparing governments to gain power at the expense of the various aspects of federations as a territorial constituent units, but also added that no form of political organization. federation had yet become a unitary one and doubted that federation was simply a stage of Studies of Emergent Federations evolution towards unitary government. This was a period too which saw a number The subsequent flood of comparative federal of comparative studies focusing particularly on studies the many emerging federations in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. A particularly perceptive In the decade and a half after the first article was that by F.G. Carnell (1961) on appearance of K.C. Wheare’s Federal “Political Implications of Federalism in New

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 6

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

States.” W.S. Livingstone (1963) provided a Musgrave’s 1965 classic on the general theory comprehensive survey of works published in of fiscal federalism; Hicks (1961), Robson English which touched on the emergence, (1962), Prest (1962) and Due (1964) dealt with development and operation of federations in issues of federal financial relations within countries of the Commonwealth. In 1966 R.L. emergent federations. To these was added in Watts, a student of K.C. Wheare, published New 1969, R. May’s comprehensive comparative Federations: Experiments in the study of federalism and fiscal adjustment. Commonwealth, a detailed examination of six Livingston (1956) surveyed constitutional major federal experiments in India, Pakistan, change in a range of federations and W.J. Malaya (later Malaysia), Nigeria, Rhodesia and Wagner (1959) reviewed the structure and Nyasaland and the West Indies in the years working of courts in federations together with between 1945 and 1963. This study led him to their role in constitutional interpretation. modify Wheare’s conceptual approach. He Developments within Europe also had a concluded that there were enormous variations significant impact. There was a growing body of including new forms and adaptations in the thought advocating European integration and application of the federal principle and that federalism (outlined in Burgess 2000 and Pinder when we turn from constitutional law to 1998; see also Monnet 1978). These definitions which include political and developments also led to studies of the factors administrative practice and social attitudes the and patterns contributing to integration across problem of classification becomes more national lines (e.g. Deutsch 1953, 1957; Etzioni complex. He emphasized that in most of the 1962 and for a subsequent adaptation of cases examined, federal experiments were the Etzioni’s analysis, see Watts 1981; Jacob and only possible constitutional compromise in the Toscano, 1964). particular circumstances, that in practice ‘dual federalism’ had in these federations given way Two prescient articles which also appeared to ‘interdependent federalism’ in which federal in this period should be noted, although neither and constituent unit governments were mutually drew substantial attention until much later in the interdependent without either being subordinate development of comparative federal studies. One to the other, and that it was in the interaction of was a speculative piece by C.D. Tarlton (1965) federal societies, federal constitutions and on symmetry and asymmetry as elements of federal governments that research on federalism federalism, and the other was an analysis by J.R. should focus (see Burgess 2006: 40). Pennock, 1959, entitled “Federal Government – Disharmony and Reliability” which argued that Among other comparative works relating to multi-level governance by minimizing the emergent federations during this period were frustration of voter preferences enabled the S.A. de Smith (1964) including a chapter on maximizing of democracy. Both themes were to federal developments in Africa, Malaysia and become important issues in the last decade of the the West Indies, D.S. Rothchild (1960) giving a century. well documented but primarily chronological account of attempts at federal unions in East, Methodological debates Central and West Africa, R.C. Pratt (1960) a This was a period too when a number of more interpretive analysis, and Patrick Gordon major methodological issues relating to Walker (1961) who suggested that the adaptation comparative federal studies came to the of British parliamentary system to federation had forefront. A particularly important work in this in the Commonwealth federations produced a respect was A.H. Birch’s Federalism, Finance variant distinct from other federations. and Social Legislation in Canada, Australia and The range of comparative studies the United States. At a time following World War II when federations were wrestling with A number of works during this period their development as welfare states and with the addressed particular aspects of federalism and related problems of federal financial relations, federation comparatively. In addition to he extended the notion of “cooperative

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 7

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies federalism” as it had developed in the 1930s in negotiation and bargaining in the creation and the United States to other federations. He subsequent operation of federations and to the suggested that federalism was not obsolescent as role of political parties in these processes. This Laski had argued, but had developed new thought-provoking approach proved stimulating intergovernmental cooperative arrangements in to many students of federation, although its force responding to the issues facing them. This led was somewhat diminished by a tendency for him to suggest that the ‘dualism’ inherent in the Riker to treat some of the comparative evidence federal principle, as defined by K.C. Wheare, in a simplistic and cavalier way. needed to be redefined to make room for In 1960, A.H. Birch contributed an article to intergovernmental cooperation and financial Political Studies on “Approaches to the Study of transfers as a normal feature. The emphasis upon Federalism.” This article summarized the major interdependence and upon the study of approaches of the period referred to above, intergovernmental relations thus became a major including a critique of each, and as such focus of many subsequent individual and provides a good outline of where the comparative federal studies. Among such methodology for comparative federal studies examples were Corry (1958), Vile (1961), stood at the end of the two decades following Grodzins (1966) and Watts (1966). Wheare’s first publication of his major study. A second methodological development was Before we turn to the next historical stage, it a new emphasis upon the social factors shaping is worth noting that towards the end of this federations. Livingston (1952, 1956) argued that period some developments were occurring to “the essence of federalism lies not in the facilitate the work of scholars interested in constitutional or institutional structure but in the federal studies. In 1965, the first academic society itself. Federal government is a device by centre specializing in federal studies was which the federal qualities of the society are established with the Institute of articulated and protected” (1956: 2). The Intergovernmental Relations at Queen’s constitution and legal institutions were simply University in Canada. Founded by J.A. Corry, its the “instrumentalities” employed to articulate mandate was to promote research and public the diversities and integrating forces within the discussion on the challenges facing the Canadian society (1956: 7-11). Some critics (e.g. Birch federation and federations elsewhere. Soon after, 1966) argued that this definition in effect in 1967, Daniel Elazar founded the Center for classified all societies as federal. Furthermore the Study of Federalism at Temple University, they noted that Livingston’s own comparative Philadelphia in the USA, and such was the study of constitutional change in federations was growth of similar centres in a number of in fact little different from Wheare’s in its federations that by 1977 it was possible for ten constitutional and legal emphasis. Nevertheless, such centres in eight different countries to meet following Livingston comparative federal together to form an international association. studies paid much more attention to the interaction between federal societies and federal A MORE CAUTIOUS ENTHUSIAM FOR political institutions, finding expression for FEDERAL SOLUTIONS, 1970-90 instance in the writing of both Watts (1966) and Stein (1971). Impact of federal difficulties and failures A third methodological shift arose from the From late in the 1960s on, it became general movement within political science, increasingly clear that federal political systems particularly in the United States, to shift the were not the panacea that many had in the early focus of the discipline from legal and political years after 1945 imagined them to be. Most of institutions to the study of political behaviour the post-war federal experiments experienced with an emphasis upon quantitative analyses. difficulties and a number of these were W.H. Riker (1964, 1969 and 1975) exemplified abandoned or temporarily suspended. Examples this trend and made an important contribution by were the continued internal tensions and drawing attention to the importance of frequent resort to emergency rule in India, the

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 8

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan, the In Canada, the Quiet Revolution in Quebec forcing out of Singapore from Malaysia, the during the 1960s, and the ensuing four rounds of Nigerian civil war and the subsequent mega-constitutional politics in 1963-71, 1976- prevalence of military regimes, the dissolutions 82, 1987-90 and 1991-2 had produced three of the federations of the West Indies and of decades of severe internal tension. Aboriginal Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and the collapse of land claims, crises in federal provincial financial most of the French colonial federations. relations and the problems of defining the relative federal and provincial roles under the These experiences indicated that even with free-trade agreements with the United States, the best of motives, there were limits to the and later Mexico, created additional stresses. appropriateness of federal solutions. In addition, the experience in Latin America, where many of In 1975, Australia experienced a the constitutions were federal in form but unitary constitutional crisis that raised questions about in practice, added skepticism about the utility of the fundamental compatibility of federal and of federation as a practical approach in countries parliamentary responsible cabinet institutions. lacking a long tradition of respect for The result was a revival in some quarters in constitutional law. Australia of the debate about the value of federation. In Europe the slow pace of progress towards integration, at least until the mid-1980s, also Through most of this period West Germany seemed to make the idea of a federal Europe remained relatively prosperous. Nevertheless, more remote. increasing attention was being drawn to the problems of revenue sharing and of the “joint Even the classical federations of the United decision trap” entailed by its unique form of States, Switzerland, Canada and Australia were interlocked federalism requiring a high degree of experiencing renewed internal tensions and a co-decision making (Scharpf, 1988). loss of momentum which reduced their Furthermore, the impact of membership in the attractiveness as shining examples for others to European Union upon the relative roles of the follow. In the United States, the centralization Bund and the Länder was also a cause of of power through federal preemption of state and concern. local authority, and the shifting of costs to state and local governments through unfunded or At the end of this period, the disintegration of underfunded mandates had created an apparent the former authoritarian centralized federations trend towards what became widely described as in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and “coercive federalism” (Kincaid 1990, Czechoslovakia exposed the limitations of these Zimmerman 1993). Furthermore the apparent federal façades. abdication in 1985 by the Supreme Court of its role as an umpire within the federal system A new focus on the pathology of federations (Garcia v. San Antonio Metro Transit Auth., 469 In such a context, one strand of comparative US 528 (1985) raised questions, at least for a federal studies focused on the pathology of time, about the judicial protection of federalism federations. As early as 1966, T.M. Franck had within the American system. edited a book entitled Why Federations Fail Switzerland had remained relatively stable, which examined the cases of the West Indies, but the long-drawn crisis over the Jura problem Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Malaysia and East prior to its resolution, the problems of defining Africa. In 1978 Ursula Hicks examined the issue Switzerland’s future relationship with the of success and failure in a wider range of cases, European Community, and the prolonged concluding that neither failure nor success could unresolved debate for three decades over the be attributed to a unique factor but were to be renewal of the Swiss constitution raised explained by a combination of factors. At about concerns within the Swiss federation. the same time the tensions within Canada inspired Watts (1977) to make a comparative study of the variety of factors contributing to the

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 9

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies survival or disintegration of federations The major contribution of Daniel Elazar elsewhere. Federations and unions composed of It was during this period that Daniel J. only two constituent units have tended to suffer Elazar emerged as the major figure in severe political difficulties and these were comparative federal studies both in terms of his examined in a special issue of Publius: The own scholarly work and in terms of his Journal of Federalism edited by Ivo Duchacek encouragement of collaboration among those (1988). Two other general comparative studies engaged with the field. (For a fuller account of of federation which during this period dealt with Elazar’s contributions see Watts, 2000). the subject of secession were Duchacek (1970) and King (1982), the former noting that “the From the foundations of his empirical work temptation to secede and form an independent on federalism in the USA in the 1960s, Elazar territorial unit had assumed epidemic turned his attention in the late 1970s to the proportions” by the time he was writing (1970: consideration of federalism and federations 69). Subsequent discussions of the pathology of elsewhere. His first foray into this field was an federations can be found in later periods in edited book on the subject of federalism and Young (1998: chs. 10 and 11), Watts (1999a: political integration (Elazar, 1984). In the 109-115) and Burgess (2006: 269-282). succeeding year, together with John Kincaid, he introduced the concept of “covenant” as a The continued development of federal studies conceptual foundation of federalism (Kincaid & Elazar 1985), a notion that was to mark all his But during this period not all comparative work in federal theory. Two years later, Elazar federal studies focused on the difficulties and (1987a) edited a book on the philosophical basis problems of federations. Indeed, there was a of federalism reviewing the contributions to substantial flow of books furthering discussions federal thought of a wide range of philosophers introduced earlier in the period 1945-70. These including Althusius, Kant, Rousseau, refined and extended our understanding of Tocqueville, Proudhon, Marc, James, Dewey federations and federalism. Among these were and Buber. In the same year, his major comparisons of factors leading to political contribution to the comparative study of integration and the formation of federations (e.g. federalism, Exploring Federalism (1987b) Watts 1970c; Dikshit 1975; Breton & Scott appeared. In this work he explored the roots of 1978; Watts 1981; Elazar 1984). Many dealt federalism, traced its historical development, with various aspects in the operation of and portrayed how federal systems had been federations (e.g. Vile 1973; Bakvis & Chandler employed to promote a variety of workable 1987; Goldwin et al. 1989; Wood et al. 1989), governmental systems for people with diverse including fiscal federalism (Oates 1972; traditions. Three major themes of this work were McClure 1983; Bird 1986), intergovernmental his emphasis on (1) the covenantal foundations relations (Watts 1970b; Nice 1987; Watts 1989), of federalism, (2) the identification of the variety constitutional change (Banting and Simeon of institutional forms expressing the federal 1986), patterns of centralization and principle, and (3) the drawing of attention to the decentralization (Brown-John, 1988), the role of contemporary resurfacing of federalism through federal second chambers (Watts 1970a), the role this variety of forms in an increasingly complex of courts in preserving federalism (Coper 1989) and interdependent world. and the role and organization of federal capitals (Rowat 1973). Some addressed the issue of the In addition to his writing which presented effectiveness of federations (e.g. Golembiewski fresh conceptual foundations for understanding et al., 1984; Hanf & Tooner, 1985). A federalism internationally, Daniel Elazar considerable number also further developed the devoted much personal effort to encouraging theory of federalism (Landau 1973; Vile 1977, international collaboration among scholars 1986; Davis 1978; King 1982; Forsyth 1981 and engaged in comparative federal studies. During 1989; Kincaid & Elazar 1985; Burgess 1988 and his many international travels from his bases in Elazar 1987a and 1987b). Philadelphia and Jerusalem, he encouraged

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 10

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies groups of scholars to develop their own centres together representatives of the various for federal studies, and in June 1977, largely multidisciplinary centres for research on through his initiative, representatives from ten federalism, the IPSA Research Committee such centres drawn from eight countries met in linked individual political scientists working on Switzerland and established an International federal studies. This body not only organized Association of Centres for Federal Studies panels on comparative federal studies at the (IACFS) in order to further the study of federal triennial IPSA World Congresses, but also held principles, patterns and experience. Daniel on occasion its own conferences and round Elazar became the founding president and tables, including joint conferences from time to provided leadership in that capacity until 1991 time with the IACFS. Among its publications when R.L. Watts succeeded him as president. By during its first decade was a volume edited by that time the membership of the IACFS Lloyd Brown-John (1988) on centralizing and consisted of twelve centres, seven of the original decentralizing trends. For much of its existence founding institutions plus five that had joined up to 2000, Lloyd Brown-John was its chairman, subsequently. The normal pattern of annual but the development of the IPSA Research business meetings combined with conferences Committee owed much to Daniel Elazar’s on various themes relating to federalism, and the personal encouragement and participation in its regular publication of these conference papers activities as a member of its executive had become firmly established by then. IACFS committee. conference topics during this period included: Another way in which Daniel Elazar “Federalism and Regionalism (Aosta, Italy, encouraged federal studies was through his role 1978), Covenant and Federalism (Philadelphia, as founder and editor for some thirty years of USA, 1979), the Politics of Constitution-Making Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Quite early (Kingston, Canada, 1981), Constitutional Design in the journal’s history, John Kincaid became and Power-Sharing (Jerusalem, Israel, 1984), the associate editor (1981) and then co-editor (1985) Role of Constitutions in Federal Systems and the two worked closely together until 2000 (Philadelphia, USA, 1987), the Organization of when, following Elazar’s death, Kincaid became States and Democracy (Bahia, Brazil, 1988), the sole editor until he was succeeded by Carol Autonomy and Federation (Madrid, Spain, Weissert in 2006. During its early years, Publius 1989), Federalism and the European Community was primarily focused on the underlying ideas (Brugge, Belgium, 1989), Federalism in the and operation of American federalism, but Soviet Union (Leicester, UK, 1990), and Higher progressively over the years under the joint Education in Federal Systems (Kingston, editorship of Elazar and Kincaid Publius Canada, 1991). The IACFS also sponsored other included more and more articles about federal publications including a survey of federal systems elsewhere, and it clearly established concepts by William Stewart (1984), and a itself as the leading journal not only on handbook of federal systems of the world edited American federalism, but on federalism and by Daniel Elazar (1991, a revised second edition federations internationally. followed in 1994). Elazar’s initiative in establishing the IACFS and encouraging its RESURGENCE IN ENTHUSIASM FOR development clearly made a major contribution FEDERAL SOLUTIONS SINCE THE 1990s to the expansion of international activity and collaboration in federal studies. Trends since the 1990s Daniel Elazar also played a major role in In the 1990s, there developed a general the establishment in 1984 of another revival in the enthusiasm for federal political international body for collaborative federal solutions. Outside the academic realm, political studies. This was the International Political leaders, leading intellectuals, and even some Science Association (IPSA) Research journalists came increasingly to refer to Committee on Comparative Federalism and federalism as a liberating and positive form of Federation. Wile the IACFS had brought political organization. Indeed by the turn of the

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 11

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies century, it could be said that some 40 percent of displayed a degree of flexibility and adaptability the world’s population lived in some two dozen in responding to changing conditions. Another federations or countries that claimed to be was the collapse of the totalitarian regimes in federal. Belgium, Spain, South Africa and to a Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. lesser degree also Italy were moving towards These developments undermined the appeal of new federal forms. In a number of other transformative ideologies and exposed the countries, such as the United Kingdom, some corruption, poverty and inefficiency consideration was being given to the efficacy of characteristic of systemic and authoritarian incorporating some federal features, although centralization. A third was the progress made not necessarily all the characteristics of a full- during this period in Europe’s apparent federal fledged federation. Furthermore, the conversion evolution with the Single European Act and the of the European Community into the European Maastricht Treaty and the broadening of the Union suggested (at least up until 2005) a European Union to incorporate a much widened regained momentum in the evolution to a wider membership. and federal Europe. In Latin America the restoration of federal regimes in a number of The expansion of comparative federal studies countries after periods of autocratic rule All of these factors contributed to the provided positive indications. In Asia, the renewed general interest in federal methods of economic progress of India showed that organizing political relationships and coalition-based federalism was a workable distributing political powers in a way that would response to the problems of development. enable the common needs of people to be Elsewhere in the Third World and especially achieved while accommodating the diversity of Africa, the failure of “strong leaders” to resolve their circumstance and preferences. This revival persistent social and political problems, and the of interest in federal political systems beginning realization of such international bodies as the in the 1990s has differed, however, from the World Bank that decentralization was the excessively enthusiastic proliferation of preferred strategy for economic development federations that occurred in the early decades contributed to the widespread renewed interest after 1945.Experience since that decade has led in federal or at least devolutionary political to a more cautious sanguine approach (Elazar, solutions. 1993). A number of other factors contributed to this The past decade and a half has seen a vast trend. One was the widespread recognition that production of comparative federal studies an increasingly global economy had unleashed building upon, refining and modifying the earlier centrifugal economic and political forces writing. At the same time there has been a new weakening the traditional nation-state and emphasis upon a number of themes. For strengthening both international and local instance, although Tarlton (1965) had indulged pressures, a combined trend which Tom in some speculations on the impact of Courchene (1995) has called “glocalization”. asymmetry within federations, it was only in the Another was the changes in technology that 1990s that this issue drew substantial attention. were generating new, more federal, models of Given the historical examples of asymmetry in industrial organization with decentralized and Canada, India, Malaysia and the more recent flattened hierarchies involving noncentralized examples in Spain, Belgium, Russia and the interactive networks. These developments have European Union, a joint IACFS-IPSA Research influenced the attitudes of people in favour of Committee Conference held in South Africa in noncentralized political organization. 1993 identified asymmetrical federalism as a Developments in three political areas also major research focus (de Villiers 1994). As a appeared to have an impact. One was the result, in 1999 a volume of collected studies on resurgence of the classical federations which, this subject edited by Robert Agranoff (1999) despite the problems they had experienced in the reviewing the effectiveness and limits of preceding two decades, had nevertheless asymmetry in federations was produced.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 12

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Another topic which has received challenges with which many federations have prominence in this period, particularly as a result attempted to deal. Numerous studies of fiscal of a number of articles written by and special relations within federations have also continued issues of journals edited by Daniel Elazar (1995, as illustrated by Ball and Linn (1994), Rao 1996, 1997), has been the identification of an (1995), Boothe (1996), Watts (1999b), Bird and international paradigm shift from a world of Stauffer (2001), Blindenbacher and Koller states modeled on the seventeenth century idea (2003: 349-516), Jeffery and Heald (2003), of the nation-state to a world of diminished state Boadway and Watts (2004), and Watts (2005). sovereignty involving a great variety of A notable feature of these, especially increasingly constitutionalized interstate Blindenbacher (2003) and Jeffery and Heald linkages of a federal character. Elazar suggested (2003) has been the emphasis upon the political that we were still in the early stages of this shift, and not just the economic consequences of the but that the trend was illustrated by numerous financial relations within federations. Among current developments in international relations studies on other aspects of federations, Bzdera and in domestic government and politics. (1993) reviewed the theory of judicial review in the light of a comparative analysis of the actual Closely related has been the increasing operation of federal high courts. attention given to the effect of the global Intergovernmental relations has continued to be economic relationships which came increasingly the focus of many comparisons, a particularly to the forefront in this period. The result has notable example being that of Agranoff (2004). been a number of comparative studies relating to During this period the Institute of the impact of economic globalization upon Intergovernmental Relations at Queen’s federations including those edited by Knop et al. University in Canada produced a series of (1995), Boeckelman and Kincaid (1996) and comparative studies relating to the handling of Lazar, Telford and Watts (2003). specific policy fields in different federations: The rapid development of the European examples were Cameron and Valentine (2001) Union during this period has also produced a on disability, Banting and Corbett (2002) on number of works on the character of European health policy, and Nöel (2004) on labour market integration as well as studies comparing its policy. Closely related have been a number of hybrid character with those of other federations works revisiting through comparative studies the and confederations. Examples have been general effectiveness of federations in achieving Burgess and Gagnon (1993), Brown-John the objectives of a welfare state: Obinger et al (1995), Leslie (1996), Hesse and Wright (1996), (2005) and Greer (2006). Lister (1996) Pinder (1998), Burgess (2000), There has recently also been a considerable Nikolaidis and Howse (2001), and Burgess body of literature addressing the issue of (2006: 226-247). The failure in 2005 of the representation in federations and the Constitutional Treaty to receive ratification in interrelationship of federalism and democracy. several key member countries appears, however, Olson and Franks (1993) Brzinski et al (1999) since 2005 to have arrested the momentum of Patterson and Mughan (1999) have been the European Union somewhat, and this can be examples. More recently Alfred Stepan (1999, expected to lead to a new set of analyses. 2001, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c) has produced a In addition to these new themes, there has series of studies comparing the different roles of been a flood of comparative studies expanding second chambers and of veto players in different on themes examined in earlier comparative federations and unitary systems in terms of their federal studies. A number, including Kymlicka ‘demos-constraining’ and ‘demos-enhancing’ (1999), G. Smith (1995), Ghai (2000), Maiz effects and hence their character as democracies. (2000), Gagnon and Tully (2001), Simeon and Stepan’s studies have emphasized the great Conway (2001), Requejo (2001, 2004), and variety of these features among federations. Amoretti and Berneo (2004) have focused upon Further contributing to these analyses have been the multiethnic and multinational cleavages and Swenden (2004) and Tsebelis (1995 and 2002).

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 13

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

From a more general point of view a number of assessed the political and economic performance comparative studies of democracies by Arendt of a range of federations, concluding that on Lijphart (1984, 1999) have drawn attention to balance federations have tended to perform patterns of majoritarian and consensus better than non-federal political systems. Current democracy in non-federal and federal countries. empirical research by John Kincaid (publication In terms of the role of political parties in forthcoming) would appear to confirm this federations, Sharman’s (1994) Australian- assessment. Canadian comparisons and the comparative During this period a number of comparative IACFS-IPSA volume edited by Hrbek (2004) are overviews of federations have also appeared. noteworthy. These have included R.L. Watts (2nd edition, This period has seen a number of other 1999, also subsequently published in French, significant new contributions to the comparative Spanish, and with modifications in Ukrainian study of federations. Montero (2001) and and Arabic), J. Smith (2004) and T. Hueglin and Gibson (2004) have filled a void in our A. Fenna (2006). understanding of Latin American federations. Furthermore, the latter volume includes two The broadening infrastructure for comparative articles by Stepan (2004a, 2004b) encompassing federal studies a broader international range of comparisons. The period since 1990 has seen a significant The article by Anckar (2003) on “Lilliput broadening of the infrastructure supporting Federalisms” outlining the particular research and publications in the field of characteristics of relatively tiny mostly island comparative federal studies. Publius: The federations has also helped to fill another gap in Journal of Federalism has continued under the the range of comparative federal studies. joint editorship of Daniel Elazar and John Another new element in comparative federal Kincaid until the former’s death in 1999, then studies in this period has been a focus on public the sole editorship of John Kincaid up to 2005, opinion and attitudes regarding federalism and since then the sole editorship of Carol (Kincaid et al., 2003). Given the many Weissert (after a year of joint editorship). It has devolutionary movements occurring during this produced not only its many articles on US period in Europe, Loughlin’s (2001) broad federalism and its annual ‘State of American comparison of these which encompassed both federalism’ issue, but an increasing number of federal and less than federal examples has articles dealing with federalism elsewhere. In provided an overview, and numerous articles in addition, from time to time special issues have Regional and Federal Studies have added been published on individual cases of federation insights into these cases. Closely related has or devolution elsewhere: Australia (20(4), 1990), been the extensive series of studies produced by Nigeria (21(4), 1991), Europe (26(4), 1996), the UK ESRC Research Programme on Spain (27(4), 1997), India (33(4), 2003) and the Devolution and Constitutional Change under the United Kingdom (36(1), 2006). In addition it leadership of Charlie Jeffery, many of them published a global review of federalism (32(2), involving significant comparisons with other 2002). countries including federations. In this period, Publius was joined by In the realm of federal theory, Orban (1992) several other journals focusing particularly on has examined contrasting interpretations of federalism and federations. In 1991, a new federalism aiming at a supranatural state or an journal, originally entitled Regional Politics and association of sovereign states, a volume edited Policy, was founded under the editorship of John by Burgess and Gagnon (1993) has emphasized Loughlin. But within a few years it had changed the distinction between the Anglo-American and its title to Regional and Federal Studies focusing European traditions of federalism, and Burgess particularly, but by no means exclusively, on (2006) has provided a masterful comprehensive European experience. At various times John review of federal theory and practice. A work Loughlin, Paul Hainsworth, Michael Keating edited by U. Wachendorfer-Schmidt (2000)

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 14

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies and Charlie Jefferey have served as editors and Dictionaire international du fédéralisme Charlie Jefferey now occupies the post of (originally under the direction of Denis de managing editor. It too has from time to time Rougemont, but edited by François Saint-Ouen). devoted a whole issue to some general topic as The IACFS also undertook a number of joint for example: volume 6(2) 1996 on “the Regional projects including an online international Dimension of the European Union,” volume bibliography on federalism. In the period from 10(2) 2000 on “Europe and the Regions”, 1991 to 2005 the IACFS expanded from an volume 11(3) 2001 on “Ethnicity and Territory association of ten member centres to one of 23 in the Former Soviet Union”, volume 12(2) 2001 centres located in 15 different countries in six on “Region, State and Identity in Central and different continents. Eastern Europe”, volume 12(4) 2002 “New The International Political Science Borders for a Changing Europe”, volume 13(4) Association Research Committee on Federalism 2003 edited by Jefferey and Heald on territorial and Federation also continued under the finance in decentralized states, volume 15(2) chairmanship of Lloyd Brown-John until 2000 2005 on “Europe’s Constitutional Future: when Robert Agranoff succeeded to the chair. Federal Lessons for the European Union,” and During this period it continued to mount several volume 15(4) 2005 on “Devolution and Public panels at each IPSA Congress (every three Policy: A Comparative Perspective”. In addition years) as well as organizing meetings between a number of regional journals have also entered these events, on occasion jointly with the the field: The African Journal of Federal Studies IACFS. The IPSA Research Committee has edited by Isawa Elaigwu and The Indian Journal provided a particularly useful vehicle for those of Federal Studies edited by Akhtar Mahjeed. individual political scientists not attached to a Articles on issues relating to federations have specialized centre or institute to meet regularly also frequently been published in the more in pursuing their interest in comparative federal general journals on political science, economics studies. Two particularly noteworth publications and constitutional law in individual federations. arising from the Research Committee were de Thus, it can be said that federal studies are now Villiers, ed. (1994) on assessing the then state of well supported by a range of journals. the discipline, and Agranoff, ed. (1999) on During the past decade and a half, the two asymmetry in federal systems. A third project is organizations established to foster academic a volume (forthcoming), edited by Robert cooperation in federal studies have continued to Agranoff, to assess the state of the discipline at operate. The International Association of the beginning of the twenty-first century. Centres of Federal Studies, under the presidency A new development at the turn of the of Ronald Watts (1991-1998), John Kincaid century was the establishment on the initiative of (1998-2004), and Cheryl Saunders (2004- ) has the Canadian federal government of the Forum continued to hold annual conferences and as a of Federations. The Canadian government, result has published a number of books: on convinced that there would be real value in economic union in federal systems (Mullins and organizing an opportunity not just for scholars Saunders, eds., 1994), evaluating federal but particularly for practitioners (statesmen, systems (jointly with the IPSA Research politicians and public servants) in federations to Committee, de Villiers, ed., 1994), issues exchange information and learn from the relating to a proposed European constitution experience of each other, arranged a major (Fleiner and Schmitt, eds., 1996), federalism and international conference on federalism at Mont civil societies (Kramer and Schneider, eds., Tremblant in the autumn of 1999. Over 500 1999), political parties and federalism (Hrbek, representatives from twenty-five countries, ed., 2004), and the place and role of local including the Presidents of the United States and government in federal systems (Steytler, ed., Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada, 2005). In addition, in 1994 it published a participated. Major presentations and papers of substantially revised second edition of Federal the conference were subsequently published in Systems of the World edited by D.J. Elazar and a the International Social Science Journal ,

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 15

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies special issue 167, 2001. Among the themes upon distribution of responsibilities, federalist which the conference focused were social techniques and functioning methods, and diversity and federation, economic and fiscal federalism in international relations. The fourth federalism, intergovernmental relations, and international conference is scheduled for Delhi federalism and the welfare state. Such was the in November 2007. success of this conference, that it was decided to In addition to these major international put the Forum of Federations on a permanent conferences, a particular activity of the Forum basis with its own international board chaired by has been its Global Dialogue on Federalism Bob Rae, a former premier of Ontario. Initially program which it has conducted in association the funding for the Forum came totally from the with the IACFS. This has involved the Canadian federal government, and although it consideration of particular themes relating to still contributes the largest share, the Forum has federalism. In all it is planned to address a dozen now evolved to the point where governments in or so themes, but the first seven focus on (1) the seven federations (Australia, Austria, Canada, role of constitutions in federations, (2) the India, Nigeria, Mexico and Switzerland) are distribution of powers and responsibilities in contributing members. A number of others are federations, (3) legislative, executive and contemplating membership, and the current judicial institutions in federations, (4) financial chairman of the board is a former President of arrangements in federations, (5) the handling of Switzerland. foreign relations and policy in federations, (6) The Forum is particularly concerned with the place and role of local governments in the contribution that federal arrangements make federations and (7) diversity within federal and can make to the maintenance and systems. For each theme a dozen or so construction of democratic societies and federations, always including a basic six (United governments. It has been pursuing this goal by States, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Germany building international networks fostering the and India) plus a varied selection of others is exchange of experience on federal governance, examined. For each theme a country round table enhancing mutual learning and understanding of practitioners and academics is held in each among practitioners in federations, and country, followed by an international round table disseminating knowledge and technical advice drawn from the country round tables. These of interest to practitioners in existing federations dialogues have then provided the basis for a and of benefit to countries seeking to introduce comprehensive book on each theme federal elements into their governance supplemented by a brief booklet for those structures. wishing an overview. The Senior Editor of the series is John Kincaid. To date publications have Among the major activities of the Forum has already resulted from the first three themes, been the sponsorship at three yearly intervals of Kincaid and Tarr (2005), Majeed, Watts and major international conferences of practitioners Brown (2005) and LeRoy and Saunders (2006). and academics on federalism. The second was The fourth (Shah) on fiscal relations is expected held at St. Gallen, Switzerland in 2002 with over to appear during 2007, with the fifth 600 participants from more than 60 countries. (Michelman) on foreign relations and sixth The conference papers and proceedings (Steytler) on local government themes due to (Blindenbacher and Koller, 2003) contain a follow soon after. These are producing wealth of material on the three major themes of substantial increases in the resources available in that conference: federalism and foreign relations comparative federal studies. (51-193), federalism, decentralization and conflict management in multicultural societies In addition to these two major activities the (195-347), and fiscal federalism (349-516). The Forum also conducts a governance program to third international conference was held in make available expertise to a wide range of Brussels in 2005 with over 1000 participants newer or potential federations. This has included from some 80 countries, considering the themes: programs in Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and India the foundations of federalism, federalism and the and also in Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Iraq and

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 16

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Sudan. For this work it has developed formal Federal Theory liaison arrangements with a variety of One major area has been the development of organizations in individual federations and more federal theory and its relationship to practice, a recently with the IPSA Research Committee on subject which is dealt with more fully in the Comparative Federalism and Federation. following chapter by Michael Burgess and Franz As part of its effort to further the Gress. Federal theory has evolved from that in international exchange of information among the Federalist Papers through Wheare (1945), federations, the Forum also produces several Birch (1955), King (1982) and Elazar (1987, times a year a magazine Federations, which 1995, 1996). This evolution is comprehensively contains brief articles, mainly directed at covered by Burgess (2006). The result is a practitioners, on recent developments in movement from a largely exclusive and federations around the world. It also publishes a legalistic and institutional focus on federations separate newsletter on its own activities. At to a broader focus upon complex social and regular intervals a Handbook of Federal political relationships and their interaction. Countries (2002, 2005) carries on the role previously filled by Elazar (1991b and 1994a). The Impact of Federal Societies During its brief history the Forum has also In the realm of descriptive comparative developed a website making available a vast analysis of federal political systems and of array of articles on various aspects relating to the federations one may identify a number of areas operation of federations. in which there is now a substantial body of Although the primary thrust of the Forum is scholarly literature examining the interaction to serve practitioners within federations or pre- between ‘federal societies’ and their political federations rather than to be an association of institutions. Among studies emphasizing this scholars, the Forum, by gathering information aspect have been Livingston (1952), Watts and providing opportunities for the exchange of (1966), Stein (1971) and Blindebacher and experience in different federations, has Watts (2003: 12-16). An important aspect of contributed enormously to broadening the base this has been the comparative study of the for comparative federal studies. factors and processes affecting the formation and evolution of federal systems. This has been THE CUMULATIVE STATE OF considered by Friedrich (1968), Riker (1975), COMPARATIVE FEDERAL STUDIES Dikshit (1975), Watts (1981), Elazar (1987, 1994b), Hesse and Wright (1996) and Kramer The cumulative scope of comparative federal and Schneider (1999). These have examined the studies interaction among geographical, historical, From the preceding historical survey it is economic, ideological, security, intellectual, clear that the cumulative result has been a cultural, demographic and international factors substantial body of comparative studies relating inducing simultaneous pressures for both unity to federalism as a concept, to the analysis of the and regional diversity, and the significance of formation and operation of federal political these factors in leading to the consideration of systems generally and more specifically to unitary, federal and confederal alternatives and federations. In different historical periods the influencing their subsequent operation. Also focus on particular issues has varied, but the significant, Friedrich (1968) and Watts (1999: cumulative effect has been to establish a broad 36) have noted, is whether the process of base on which future research and literature can establishment has involved aggregation, continue to be built. devolution, or a mixture of both. Pinder (in At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Burgess and Gagnon, 1993) has also pointed out we may identify a broad range of sub-fields in the significance of whether the creation of the each of which a substantial body of comparative federal system was achieved all at once or by federal studies has been built up (Watts 1998). stages. Another important aspect of the establishment of federal systems is the degree of

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 17

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies elite accommodation, negotiation among is that there is an enormous variation in both the political parties and public involvement in the form and scope of the distribution of process of creation (Riker 1975; Watts 1981). constitutional powers in different federations, and no single quantifiable index can portray the Once established, federal systems are not extent of both autonomous decision-making and static structures, but dynamic evolving entities. co-decision making within federations. Historical accounts of individual federations make this clear hence the importance of a Although federations have often been number of recent comparative general studies of characterized as decentralized political systems, patterns in the evolution of federal systems such a number of studies have emphasized the as those by Duchacek (1970, 1987), Elazar distinction between decentralization and (1987, 1994b), Orban (1992) and Watts (1999). noncentralization. Elazar (1987) was one who These various analyses have contributed to our stressed this distinction, noting that what understanding of how the interactions of social, distinguishes federations from decentralized political, economic and ethnic factors have unitary systems is not the scope of decentralized shaped institutional structures and political responsibilities, but the constitutional guarantee processes, producing trends toward of autonomy for the constituent governments in centralization in some federations and the responsibilities they perform. Where decentralization in others. ‘decentralization’ implies a hierarchy of power flowing from the top or centre, The Role of Constitutions in Federations ‘noncentralization’ suggests a constitutionally While the comparative study of federal structured dispersion of power, better systems and federations is no longer confined to representing the essential character of a legalistic and institutional focus, nevertheless, federations. federations are a form of constitutional political A related concept that has recently received system, and therefore, an analysis of the role that considerable attention, especially in Europe, is constitutions play in their establishment and the principle of ‘subsidiarity’, the notion that operation is one particularly important aspect. responsibilities should be assigned to the lowest Here Elazar’s focus on the covenantal character level of government that can adequately perform of federations (Kincaid and Elazar, 1985) has them (Burgess, 2006: 147-7). Although had an important influence. More recently the philosophically appealing, this principle has in first volume of the Forum of Federations/IACFS practice proved difficult to operationalize legally Global Dialogue series (Kincaid and Tarr 2005), because of the critical question of who is devoted to an in-depth analysis of the ultimately determines the application of the constitutional origins, structure and change in a principle. range of federations, and provides an up-to-date overview of the importance and role of Institutional Patterns: The Character of the constitutions in federations. Institutions of Shared Rule A crucial variable affecting the operation Institutional Patterns: Centralization, and internal political dynamics of federations Decentralization and Noncentralization has been the executive-legislative relationship Historically, the distribution of legislative within the shared institutions. The different and executive powers and the impact of this forms of this relationship are exemplified by the upon policy-making within federations has been separation of powers in the presidential a major area of comparative studies in a tradition congressional structures of the United States and that goes back to Wheare (1945) and comes the Latin American federations, the fixed-term down to the present with the publication in 2005 collegial executive in Switzerland, and the of the second volume in the Global Dialogue executive-legislative fusion with responsible series of the Forum of Federations/IACFS parliamentary cabinets in Canada, Australia, (Majeed, Watts and Brown, 2005). What is clear Germany (with some modifications), Belgium,

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 18

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

India and Malaysia. These and their electoral The Distribution of Financial Resources systems have shaped not only the character of The allocation of financial resources to each politics and administration within the shared order of government within a federation is representative executive and legislative important for two reasons. First, financial institutions, but also the nature of resources enable or constrain governments in the intergovernmental relations and the generation exercise of their constitutionally assigned of cohesion or conflict within federations. legislative and executive responsibilities. Among studies that have examined the Second, taxing powers and expenditures are significance of these institutional patterns have themselves important instruments for affecting been Olson and Franks (1993), Saunders (1995), and regulating the economy. In practice it has Verney (1995), Watts (1999: 83-97) and Hueglin proved impossible to design a federal and Fenna (2006: 179-214). The third volume of constitution so that the allocation of autonomous the Forum of Federations/IACFS Global revenue sources to each government will match Dialogue series edited by Katy Leroy and Cheryl precisely its expenditure responsibilities. Even if Saunders and deals in depth with the legislative, such a match can be roughly achieved initially executive and judicial institutions within the relative value of different taxes and the costs different federations. of fields of expenditure inevitably shift over One feature of most federations has been the time, creating imbalances. This has meant that clash between pressures for regional equality federations have had to resort to a variety of and for citizen equality in the arrangements for financial transfers to correct both vertical fiscal representation in the shared institutions. As King imbalances between orders of government and (1993) has noted, most federations have sought horizontal financial imbalances arising from to balance these two types of equality in differences in the revenue capacities and representation through a bicameral federal expenditure needs of different constituent units. legislature. In the works noted above in this Consequently, there has developed a vast section a number of scholars have focused specialized comparative literature on the specifically on the variety of these bicameral experience of different federations with revenue arrangements in different federations: Duchacek sharing, conditional and unconditional grants, (1970, 1987), Watts (1970a), Tsebelis (1995, equalization arrangements, and the 2002), Brzinski et al. (1999), Lijphart (1999), intergovernmental institutions and processes for Patterson and Mughan (1999), Stepan (1999, adjusting fiscal arrangements. More recent 2004abc) and Swenden (2004). comparative studies contributing to an understanding of these issues have included Bird The Importance of Economic Factors (1986), Bell and Linn (1994), Rao (1995), The benefits of economic union have been a Boothe (1996), Watts (1999b), Bird and Stauffer traditional motive for the establishment of a (2001), Blindenbacher and Koller (2003: 349- federal political system and among the 516), Jeffery and Heald (2003), Boadway and particularly relevant studies have been Robinson Watts (2004) and Watts (2005). It should be (1960) and Saunders and Mullin (1994). More noted also that the forthcoming fourth volume in recently the emergence of a global economy has the Forum of Federations/IACFS Global had a major impact on the relative roles and Dialogue series, edited by Anwar Shah and due activities of federal and constituent unit in 2007 will focus upon a comparative review of governments. This has led to a consideration of fiscal federalism. this impact upon the character of federal systems in such works as Knop et al. (1995), Intergovernmental Relations Boeckelman and Kincaid (1996), Lazar, Telford Beginning with the work of Jane Perry Clark and Watts (2003) and Burgess (2006: 251-268). (1938) in the United States and Birch’s (1995) post-war extension of cooperative federalism to comparative studies, it has become generally

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 19

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies recognized that the inevitability of overlap and the operation of federations is more complex interdependence in the exercise by governments than Riker had originally suggested and that of their constitutional powers has generally political parties have reinforced both required extensive intergovernmental intergovernmental cooperation and competition. consultation, cooperation and coordination. This has led to a recognition of the importance of The Role of the Courts studying intergovernmental relations as a key Most federations, along with the European element in the operation of federal systems and Union, have relied on the courts to play the federations. Indeed, virtually every issue of primary adjudicating role in interpreting Publius: The Journal of Federalism has constitutional law and adapting it to changing contained articles focusing on some particular circumstances. The exception has been aspect of intergovernmental relations and its Switzerland, where the legislative referendum impact on policy outcomes. In the United States, has played the major adjudicating role in Deil Wright (1982) produced the classic work on defining the limits of federal jurisdiction. this subject, but there have been a number of Elsewhere, most analyses of the operation of comparative studies in this field also. Scharpf’s individual federations have included extensive (1988) analysis of co-decision making in examination both by the constitutional lawyers Germany has attracted widespread attention by and political scientists of the role and impact of identifying “the joint-decision trap” reducing the courts. Comparative studies of this aspect are opportunities for flexibility and initiative. limited in number, however, although note Among other comparative analyses are Warhurst should be taken of Wagner (1959), Coper (1989) (1987), Watts (1989), Cameron and Simeon and Bzdera (1993). The latter attempted to (2000), and Trench (2006). Particularly prolific document the tendency of federal courts of in the area of intergovernmental relations has appeal appointed by federal governments to been R. Agranoff (1996, 2000, 2004, 2007). It augment through judicial review the powers, should be noted that although many earlier values and institutions of the federal government studies of intergovernmental relations within at the expense of the constitutional units. From federations concentrated upon “cooperative Wheare (1945) on, general comparative studies federalism” some more recent ones such as of federations have normally included Cameron and Simeon (2000) and Trench (2006) comparative sections on the impact of judicial have emphasized the importance of “competitive review, recent examples being Watts (1999: federalism” within federations and the degree to 100-108), Hueglin and Fenna (2006: 275-314) which intergovernmental “collusion” may and Burgess (2006: 156-160). undercut democratic accountability. Closely related to the study of Federations and the Welfare State intergovernmental relations have been a number Beginning with Birch’s (1955) study of of studies analyzing the role and impact of federalism, finance and social legislation, there political parties, including their number, their has been continued discussion of the extent to character and the relations among federal, state which federal institutions facilitate or hinder the and local branches, as important elements in objectives of a welfare state. The issue has understanding the political dynamics within remained current to the present day and Obinger, federations. Riker (1967, 1975) was a pioneer in Liebfried and Castles (2005) and Greer (2006) this area. More recent studies examining the each contain collections of chapters examining impact of political parties on the operation of this issue. What emerges from these studies is federations have been Gunlicks (1989), that a decentralized polity does not necessarily comparing parties in Germany, Switzerland and imply a weaker welfare state, and that Austria, Sharman (1994), comparing Australian federations have in practice proved remarkably and Canadian parties, and Hrbek (2004), an flexible structures of governance in achieving international comparison. These studies have welfare policies. tended to indicate that the impact of parties on

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 20

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Federations, Liberties, Rights and the Symmetry and Asymmetry with Federal Political Consolidation of Democracy Systems A traditional argument in support of federal As previously noted, the issue of asymmetry political systems is that the constitutional among the constituent units within a federal dispersion of powers inherent in this form of system has attracted considerable attention from political organization protects and enhances the scholars in recent years. Fuelling this interest has liberties and rights of its citizens and particularly been the debate within the European Union its minorities (see Agranoff, Draft Introduction about the concepts of “variable geometry” to this volume: 18-20; Elazar 1987: 91; King, proceeding at “varying speeds,” the debate in 1982: 58-9). In comparative terms, it is notable Canada about Quebec as a “distinct society” that most federations have included in their differing from other provinces, and the constitutions a set of constitutional fundamental asymmetrical constitutional arrangements or rights and some have incorporated additional practices within the Spanish, Belgian, Indian, provisions particularly to safeguard minorities Malaysian and Russian federations. In the within minorities (Watts, 1999: 104-7). analysis of asymmetry within federal political systems, two types of constitutional asymmetry A closely related issue is that of the degree need to be distinguished. One is asymmetry to which federal political systems enhance or among the full-fledged constituent units within a curtail democracy. The checks upon the powers federation. The cases cited above all provide of the federal government which have been examples and among the analyses of these are inherent in most federations and particularly the Milne (1993 in Burgess and Gagnon), Maclay usual existence of a bicameral federal legislature (1992), de Villiers (1994), Watts (1999: 63-68), have often been interpreted as constraints upon Agranoff (1999) and Burgess (2006: 209-225). the demos conceived as the simple majority of These studies suggest that asymmetry among the federation’s total citizenry. Indeed, Stepan constituent units within a federal system does (2004 a, b, c) has applied the concepts of introduce complexity and often severe problems, “demos-constraining” and “demos-enhancing” but that for some federations it has proved to an analysis of the variety of representative necessary in order to accommodate severely institutions in a range of unitary and federal varied regional pressures for autonomy. systems. What emerges from such studies is that the issue of the relation between federalism and A second form of constitutional asymmetry democracy is much more complex than would is the relationship between a small or peripheral appear to be the case at first sight. Indeed, as state (often an island or group of islands) and a Agranoff notes in his introduction to this volume larger state (often a former colonial power), in (p. 24), (1) federal political systems entail a which the smaller unit shares in the benefits of democratic basis since the notion of self-rule is association with the larger polity but retains incompatible with authoritarian government, (2) complete internal autonomy and self- federal systems enhance democracy by government. Elazar (1987) identified a variety of extending self-rule to multiple levels of such forms of asymmetry which he labelled government (see also Pennock, 1959), and (3) ‘associate states’, ‘federacies’ and federal systems through institutions for shared ‘condominiums’, all as distinct types within the rule facilitate the bringing together of disparate broad genus of federal political systems. To social, economic, ethnic and religious interests. date, no in-depth comparative analysis of this These issues are very much a focus of type of asymmetry has yet been undertaken, contemporary discussion as illustrated for however. instance by Ghai (2000), Gagnon and Tully (2001), Gibson (2004) and a conference held at The Pathology of Federal Systems Kent University Britain in 2006 on the subject of Early comparative studies of federal political “Federalism and Democracy”. systems tended to concentrate upon their establishment and operation, but there is now a

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 21

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies considerable body of scholarly literature and compromise. Third, within the broad examining cases of internal stress and the spectrum of federal political systems and even conditions and processes leading to breakdowns. within the narrower category of federations, Among these analyses have been Franck (1966), there has been an enormous variety in the Watts (1977), Hicks (1978), Dorff (1994), Cox application of the federal idea. Indeed, it would and Franklund (1995), Young (1995), Dion appear that the extent to which a given federal (1995), Watts (1999: 109-115) and Burgess system can accommodate political realities (2006: 269-282). All of these studies point to the depends not merely on the adoption of a federal danger of a cumulative reinforcement of political structure, but on whether the particular variant of cleavages resulting in the development of federal system or federation that is adopted or increasingly polarizing processes that undermine evolved, and the processes it incorporates, give support for tolerance and compromise. adequate expression to the circumstances and Furthermore, the particular difficulties of needs of that particular society. As Elazar (1993) bicommunal societies and polities have proved has noted, the application of federalism involves noteworthy (Duchacek, 1988). a pragmatic prudential approach, and its applicability in different and changing The Comparison of Federal and Non-federal circumstance may well depend on further Political Systems innovations in the institutional features adopted. The tradition of contrasting federal and non- The challenge for scholars is to contribute federal political systems has a long tradition through further critical, objective and going back to the nineteenth century. Among comparative analyses to a better understanding noteworthy theoretical arguments emphasizing of what is required in the establishment of new the inherently beneficial features of federal federations or in making existing ones more political systems have been those of Pennock effective. (1959) and Landau (1973). More recently, there have been a number of studies attempting to show on the basis of comparative empirical analyses that federal systems on balance facilitate political integration, democratic development and economic effectiveness better than non-federal systems. Here the work of Lijphart (1984, 1999), the edited volume by Wachendorfer-Schmidt (2000) and the current research of Kincaid are noteworthy in this respect.

Conclusion The extensive literature that has been built up over time through comparative federal studies points to three broad conclusions. First, federal political systems combining shared rule and regional self-rule do appear to provide a practical way of combining the benefits of unity and diversity through representative institutions, but they are not a panacea for humanity’s political ills. Second, the effectiveness of a federal political system depends in large measure on the degree of public acceptance of the need to respect constitutional norms and structures, and on a prevailing spirit of tolerance

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 22

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

REFERENCES Bakvis, H. and W.M. Chandler, ed., 1987. Federalism and the Role of the State. Adarkar, B.P, 1933. The Principles and Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Problems of Federal Finance. London: King & Son. Ball, R. and J. Linn, 1994. “Fiscal Decentralization and Intergovernmental Agranoff, R. 1996. “Managing Transfers in Less Developed Countries.” Intergovernmental Processes.” In J.L. Perry, Publius: The Journal of Federalism 24(1): ed., Handbook of Public Administration, 2nd 1-19. ed. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass. Banting, K. and R. Simeon, eds., 1986. The Agranoff, R., ed., 1999. Accommodating Politics of Constitutional Change in Diversity: Asymmetry in Federal States. Industrial Nations: Redesigning the State. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Agranoff, R., J.Sindane, and I. Liebenberg., Banting, K. and S. Corbett, eds., 2002. Health 2000. “Sharing Power: Intergovernmental Policy and Federalism: A Comparative Relations in Democratic Transitions.” In H. Perspective on Multi-Level Governances. Solomon and I. Liebenberg, eds., Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Consolidation of Democracy in Africa. University Press. Aldershot: Ashgate. Basta Fleiner, L., H. Bhattacharyya, T. Fleiner Agranoff, R., 2004. “Autonomy, Devolution and and S.K. Mitra, eds., 2000. Rule of Law and Intergovernmental Relations. Regional and Organization of the State in Asia. Bâle: Federal Studies 14(1): 26-65. Helbing & Lichtenholm. Agranoff, R., 2007. “Intergovernmental Policy Beloff, Max, 1953. “The ‘Federal Solution’ in Management: Cooperative Practices in Its Application to Europe, Asia and Africa,” Federal Systems,” in M.A. Pagano and R. Political Studies, 1(2); reprinted in Leonardi; The Dynamics of National M.Beloff, 1959. The Great Powers London: Supranational Political Systems. Palgrave George Allen & Unwin Ltd.: 81-102. MacMillan. Benz, A. and G. Lembruch, eds., 2001. Amoretti, U.M. and N. Berneo, eds., 2004. “Federalismus: Analysen in Federalism and Territorial Cleavages. intwicklungsgeschtlichen und Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. vergleichender Perspektive.” Politische Anckar, D., 2003. “Lilliput Federalisms.” Vierteljahresschrift 32/2001. Regional and Federal Studies 13(3): 107-24. Birch, A.H., 1955. Federalism, Finance and Anderson, L.M., 2004. “Exploring the Paradox Social Legislation in Canada, Australia and of Autonomy: Federalism and Secession in the United States. Oxford: Clarendon Press. North America.” Regional and Federal Birch, A.H., 1966. “Approaches to the Study of Studies 14(1): 89-112. Federalism,” Political Studies XIV(1): 15- Argullol, Mugadas, Enric, dir. 2004. 33. Federalisma y autonomia. Barcelona: Bird, R. and T. Stauffer, eds., 2001. Editorial Ariel. Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Arora, B. and D.V. Verney, eds., 1995. Multiple Fragmented Societies. Bâle: Helbing and Identities in a Single State: Indian Liechtenholm. Federalism in Comparative Perspective. Bird, R., 1986. Federal Finance in Comparative New Delhi: Konark Publishers. Perspective. Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 23

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Blindenbacher, R. and A. Koller, eds., 2003. Bryce, J., 1901. Studies in History and Federalism in a Changing World: Learning Jurisprudence. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon from Each Other. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press. University Press. Bryce, J., 1929. Modern Democracies. 2 vols. Blindenbacher, R. and R.L. Watts, 2003. New York: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. “Federalism in a Changing World – A Brzinski, J.B., T.D. Lancaster, and C. Tuschhoff, Conceptual Framework for the Conference.” eds., 1999. “Federalism and Compounded In Blindenbacher and Koller (above): 7-25. Representation in Western Europe.” Boadway, R. and R.L. Watts, 2004. Fiscal Publius: The Journal of Federalism 29(1) Federalism in Canada, the USA and (Winter). Germany Working Paper 2004(6). Kingston: Buchanan, A., 1991. Secession: The Morality of Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Queen’s University. Lithuania and Quebec. Oxford: Westview Boeckelman, K.A. and J. Kincaid, eds., 1996. Press. Federal Systems in the Global Economy. Buchanan, J.M., 1950. “Federalism and Fiscal Publius: The Journal of Federalism Special Equity.” American Economic Review 40(4): issue 26(1). 421-32. Boothe, P., ed., 1996. Reforming Fiscal Burgess, M., 1988. “Can Comparative Federalism for Global Competition: A Federalism Really Be Comparative?” In C. Canada-Australia Comparison. Edmonton: Lloyd Brown-John, ed., Centralizing and University of Alberta Press. Decentralizing Trends in Federal States. Boothe, P., ed., 2003. Fiscal Relations in Lanham, MD: University of America Press. Federal Countries: Four Essays. Ottawa: Burgess, M., 2000. Federalism and European Forum of Federations. Union: The Building of Europe 1950-2000. Bowie, R.R. and C.J. Friedrich, 1954. Studies in London: Routledge. Federalism. Boston: Little, Brown. Burgess, M., 2006. Comparative Federalism in Breton, A. and A. Scott, 1978. The Economic Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Constitution of Federal States. Toronto: Burgess, Michael and A.-G. Gagnon, eds., University of Toronto Press. 1993.Comparative Federalism and Brown, D., P. Cazalis, and G. Jasmin, eds., Federation: Competing Traditions and 1992. Higher Education in Federal Systems. Future Directions. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Harvester Wheatsheaf. Relations, Queen’s University. Bzdera, A., 1993. “Comparative Analysis of Brown-John, C.L., ed., 1988. Centralizing and Federal High Courts: A Political Theory of Decentralizing Trends in Federal States. Judicial Review.” Canadian Journal of Lanham: University Press of America. Political Science 26(1): 3-29. Brown-John, C. Lloyd, ed., 1995. Federal-Type Cameron, David R. and R. Simeon, 2000. Solutions and European Integration. “Intergovernmental Relations and Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Democratic Citizenship.” in B.G. Peters and D.J. Savoie, eds. Governance in the Twenty- Bryce, J., 1888 .The American Commonwealth, first Century: Revitalizing the Pubic Service. 2 vols. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s (repr. New York: The Macmillan Company, University Press: 58-118. 1928).

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 24

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Cameron, David R. and F. Valentine, eds., 2001. Deutsch, K.W. et al., 1957. Political Community Disability and Federalism: Comparing and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton, NJ: Different Approaches to Full Participation. Princeton University Press. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Dicey, A.V., 1885, 1st ed., (1950, 10th ed.). University Press. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Carnell, F.G., 1961. “Political Implications of Constitution. London: Macmillan. Federalism in New States.” In U.K. Hicks et. Dikshit, R.D., 1975. The Political Geography of al., Federalism and Economic Growth in Federalism: An Inquiry into Origins and Underdeveloped Countries. London: George Stability. New Delhi: The Macmillan Allen and Unwin. Company of India. Clark, Jane Perry, 1938. The Rise of a New Dion, S., 1995. “The dynamic of secessions: Federalism. New York: Columbia scenarios after a pro-separatist vote in a University Press. Quebec referendum.” Canadian Journal of Cole, R.L., J. Kincaid, and A. Parkin, 2002. Political Science. 28(3): 533-551. “Public Opinion on Federalism in the United Dorff, R.H., 1994. “Federalism in Eastern States and Canada in 2002: The Aftermath Europe: Part of the Solution or Part of the of Terrorism.” Publius: The Journal of Problem?” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 30(1-2): 189-201. Federalism 24(2): 99-114. Coper, M., 1989. “The Role of the Courts in the Duchacek, I., 1970, rev. 1987. Comparative Preservation of Federalism.” Australian Law Federalism: The Territorial Dimensions of Journal 63(7): 463-73. Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Corry, J.A., 1958. “Constitutional Trends and Winston (1970); Lanham, MD: University Federalism” in A.R.M. Lower et al., Press America. Rev. ed (1987). Evolving Canadian Federalism. Durham, Duchacek, I., ed., 1988. “Bicommunical N.C.: Duke University Press: 92-125. Societies and Polities.” Publius: The Journal Courchene, T.J., 1995. “Glocalization: The of Federalism Special Issue 18(2). Regional/International Interface,” Canadian Due, J.F., 1964. “Tropical African Contributions Journal of Regional Science, 18(1): 1-20. to Federal Finance.” Canadian Journal of Cox, R.H., and E.G. Franklund, 1995. “The Economics and Political Science. xxx: 49. federal state and the breakup of Earle, V., ed., 1968. Federalism: Infinite Variety Czechoslovakia: an institutional analysis,” in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: F.E. Peacock Publius: The Journal of Federalism 25(1): Publications. 71-88. Elazar, D.J., 1984. Federalism and Political Davis, Rufus, 1978. The Federal Principle: A Integration. Lanham, M.D.: University Press Journey Through Time in Quest of Meaning. of America and Jerusalem Institute of Berkeley: University of California Press. Federal Studies. de Villiers, B., ed., 1994. Evaluating Federal Elazar, D.J., ed., 1987a. Federalism as Grand Systems. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta and Design: Political Philosophies and the Co.; Dordrecht, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff. Federal Principle. Lanham, M.D.: Deutsch, K.W. and W.J. Foltz, eds., 1966. University Press of America and the Centre Nation-Building. New York: Atheiton Press. for the Study of Federalism. Deutsch, K.W., 1953, 1966. Nationalism and Elazar, D.J., ed., 1987b. Exploring Federalism. Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Foundations of Nationality. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 25

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Elazar, D.J., ed., 1991a. Constitutional Design Forsyth, M., 1981. Unions of States: The Theory and Power-Sharing. Lanham: University and Practice of Confederation. Leicester: Press of America. Leicester University Press. Elazar, D.J., 1991b (1st ed.). Federal Systems of Forsyth, M., ed., 1989. Federalism and the World. Harlow, UK: Longman Group. Nationalism. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Elazar, D.J., 1993. “International and Forum of Federations, 2001. Intergovernmental Comparative Federalism.” PS: Political Relations in Federal Countries. Ottawa: Science and Politics 26(2). Forum of Federations. Elazar, D.J., 1994a. Federal Systems of the Forum of Federations, 2002. Handbook of World, 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: Longman Federal Countries 2002 (ed. A.L. Griffiths). Group. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Elazar, D.J., 1994b. Federalism and the Way to Peace. Kingston, ON: Institute of Forum of Federations, 2005. Handbook of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s Federal Countries 2005 (ed. A.L. Griffiths). University. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Elazar, D.J., 1995. “From Statism to Federalism: A Paradigm Shift.” Publius: The Journal of Franck, T., 1966. Why Federations Fail: An Federalism 25(2): 5-18. Inquiry into the Requisites for a Successful Federation. New York: New York Elazar, D.J., ed., 1996. “New Trends in University Press. Federalism.” International Political Science Review Special issue 17(4). Freeman, E.A., 1863 (1st ed.), 1893 (2nd ed.). A History of Federal Government in Greece Elazar, D.J., 1997. “Contrasting Unitary and and Italy. London and New York: Federal Systems.” International Political Macmillan. Science Review 18(3): 237-52. Frenkel, Max, ed., 1977. Federalism and Erk, C. and A.-G. Gagnon, 2000. “Constitutional Partnership. Berne: Peter Lange. Ambiguity and Federal Trust: Codification of Federalism in Canada, Spain and Frenkel, Max, 1986. Federal Theory. Canberra: Belgium.” Regional and Federal Studies Centre for Research on Federal Financial 10(1): 92-111. Relations, The Australian National University. Escobar-Lemmon, Maria, 2001. “Fiscal Decentralization and Federalism in Latin Friedrich, C.J., 1968. Trends of Federalism in America. Publius: The Journal of Theory and Practice. New York: Praeger. Federalism 31(4): 23-41. Gagnon, A.-G. and J. Tully, eds., 2001. Etzioni, A., 1962. “A Paradigm for the Study of Multinational Democracies. Cambridge: Political Unification,” World Politics XV(1): Cambridge University Press. 44-74. Ghai, Yash, ed., 2000. Autonomy and Ethnicity: Fabrini, S. and D. Securelli, 2004. “The Negotiating Competing Claims in Multi- Federalization of the EU, the US and ethnic States. Cambridge: Cambridge ‘Compound Republic Theory’: The University Press. Convention’s Debate.” Regional and Gibson, E.L., ed., 2004. Federalism and Federal Studies 14(2): 232-254. Democracy in Latin America. Baltimore: Fleiner, T. and N. Schmitt, eds., 1996. Towards Johns Hopkins University Press. a European Constitution: Europe and

Federal Experiences. Fribourg: Institut du Fédéralisme.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 26

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Goldwin, R.A., A. Kaufmann, and W.A. Hicks, U.K. et. al., 1961. Federalism and Schambra, eds., 1989. Forging Unity out of Economic Growth in Underdeveloped Diversity: The Approaches of Eight Nations. Countries: London: George Allen and Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Unwin. Institute for Public Policy Research Hicks, U.K., 1978. Federalism: Failure and Golembiewski, R.T. and A. Wildavsky, eds., Success: A Comparative Study. London: 1984. The Costs of Federalism. New Macmillan. Brunswick (USA): Transaction Books. Hodgins, B.W., J.J. Eddy, S.D. Grant, and J. Gordon Walker, Patrick, 1961. “Federalism in Struthers, eds., 1989. Federalism in Canada the Commonwealth.” Journal of the and Australia: Historical Perspectives 1920- Parliaments of the Commonwealth. 19088. Peterborough, ON: Frost Centre for xliii:351. Canadian Heritage Development Studies, Trent University. Gray, G., 1991. Federalism and Health Policy: The Development of Health Policy in Hrbek, R., ed., 2004. Political Parties and Canada and Australia. Toronto: University Federalism: An International Comparison. of Toronto Press. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Greaves, H.R.G., 1940. Federal Union in Hueglin, T.O., 1999. Early Modern Concepts for Practice. London: George Allen & Unwin. a Late Modern World: Althusuis on Community and Federalism. Waterloo, ON: Greer, S., ed., 2006. Territory, Democracy and Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Justice: Regionalism and Federalism in Western Democracies. Basingstoke, Hueglin, T.O., 2000. “From Constitutional to Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Treaty Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 30:137-53. Gress, F., et. al., 1994. The American Federal System: Federal Balance in Comparative Hueglin, T.O., and A. Fenna, 2006. Comparative Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press. Gress, F. and J. Janes, 2001. Reforming Governance: Lessons from the United States International Social Science Bulletin, 1952. of America and the Federal Republic of Special issue: Federalism :Problems and Germany. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Methods, iv(1). Grodzins, M., 1966. The American System: A International Social Science Journal, 2001. New View of Government in the United Special issue: Federalism, No. 167. States, ed. D.J. Elazar, Chicago: Rand Iowa Law Review, 1938, xxiii: Symposium on McNally. Co-operative Federalism, 455-616. Gunlicks, A.B., ed., 1989. Federalism and Jacob, P.E. and J.V. Toscano, eds., 1964. The Intergovernmental Relations in West Integration of Political Communities. Germany. Publius: The Journal of Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company. Federalism. Special issue 19(4). Jeffrey, C. and D. Heald, 2003. Money Matters: Hanf, K. and T.A.J. Toonen, eds., 1985. Policy Territorial Finance in Decentralized States. Implementation in Federal and Unitary Special issue: Regional and Federal Studies Spheres. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. 13(4). Hesse, J.J. and V. Wright, eds., 1996. Jennings, Ivor, 1953. Some Characteristics of Federalizing Europe? The Cost, Benefits the Indian Constitution. Madras: Oxford and Preconditions of Federal Political University Press. Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 27

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Karve, D., 1932. Federations: A Study in Lazar, H., H. Telford, and R.L. Watts, eds., Comparative Politics. London: Oxford 2003. The Impact of Global and Regional University Press. Integration on Federal Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Montreal and Keating, M., 1999. “Asymmetrical Government: Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Multinational States in an Integrating Europe.” Publius: The Journal of LeRoy, Katy and Cheryl Saunders, eds., 2006. A Federalism 29(1): 71-86. Global Dialogue on Federalism Volume 3: Legislative, Executive and Judicial Kincaid, J. and D.J. Elazar, eds., 1985. The Governance in Federal Countries. Montreal Covenant Connection: Federal Theology and Kingston: McGill-Queens Press and the Origins of Modern Politics. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. Leslie, P.M., 1996. The Maastricht Model: A Canadian Perspective on the European Kincaid, J., 1990. “From Cooperative to Union. Kingston, ON: Institute of Coercive Federalism,” Annals of the Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s American Academy of Politics, 509: 139- University. 152. Lijphart, A., 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Kincaid, J., A. Parkin, R.L. Cole, and Alejandro Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Rodriguez, 2003. “Public Opinion on Twenty-One Countries. New Haven: Yale Federalism in Canada, Mexico, and the University Press. United States.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 33(3): 145-62. Lijphart, A., 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Kincaid, J. and G.A. Tarr, 2005. A Global Thirty-Six Countries New Haven: Yale Dialogue on Federalism, Volume 1: Univeresity Press. Constitutional Origins, Structure, and Change in Federal Countries. Montreal and Lister, F.K., 1996. The European Union, the Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. United Nations and the Revival of Confederal Governance. Westport, Conn.: King, P., 1982. Federalism and Federation. Greenwod Press. London: Croom Helm. Livingston, W.S., 1952. “ A Note on the Nature King, P., 1993. “Federation and Representation.” of Federalism,” Political Science Quarterly See Burgess and Gagnon, 1993. 67: 81-95. Knop, K., S. Ostry, R. Simeon, and K. Swinton, Livingston, W.S., 1956. Federalism and eds., 1995. Rethinking Federalism: Citizens, Constitutional Change. Oxford: Clarendon Markets and Governments in a Changing Press. World. Vancouver: UBC Press. Livingston, W.S., 1963. Federalism in the Kramer, J. and H.P. Schneider, eds., 1999. Commonwealth. London: Cassell for the Federalism and Civil Societies. Baden- Hansard Society. Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Loughlin, J., 2001. Subnational Democracy in Kymlicka, W., 1995. Multicultural Citizenship, the European Union: Challenges and Oxford: Clarendon Press. Opportunities. Oxford: Oxford University Landau, M., 1973. “Federalism, Redundancy Press. and System Reliability.” Publius: The Macmahon, A.W., ed., 1955. Federalism, Journal of Federalism 3(2): 173-95. Mature and Emergent. New York: Laski, H.J., 1939. “The Obsolescence of Doubleday. Federalism.” The New Republic, xviii: 367-

9.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 28

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Madison, J., A. Hamilton, and J. Jay, 1788 Mullins, A. and C. Saunders, eds., 1994. (1987). The Federalist. New York: Penguin Economic Union in Federal Systems. Books. Sydney: The Federation Press. Maiz, R., 2000. “Democracy, Federalism and Musgrave, R., 1965. Essays in Fiscal Nationalism in Multinational States” in W. Federalism. Washington, D.C.: The Sefran and R. Maiz, eds., Identity and Brookings Institute. Territorial Autonomy in Plural Societies, Nathan, R.P., 1992. “Defining Modern London: Frank Cass: 35-60. Federalism.” In North American and Majeed, A., R.L. Watts, and D.M. Brown, eds., Comparative Federalism: Essays for the 2005. A Global Dialogue on Federalism, 1990s, ed. H.N. Scheiber, pp. 89-99. Volume 2: Distribution of Powers and Berkeley: University of California Press. Responsibilities in Federal Countries. Nice, David C., 1987. Federalism: The Politics Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s of Intergovernmental Relations. New York: University Press. St. Martin’s Press. Marc, Alexandre and R. Aron, 1948. Principles Nikolaidis, K. and R. Howse, eds., 2001. The of Federalism. Paris: Le Portulan. Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of May, R.J., 1969. Federalism and Fiscal Governance in the United States and the Adjustment. Oxford: Clarendon Press. European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McClure, C.E., January 1983. Tax Assignment in Federal Countries. Canberra: Centre for Noël, A., ed., 2004. Federalism and Labour Research in Federal Financial Relations, The Market Policy: Comparing Different Australian National University. Governance and Employment Strategies. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s McWhinney, E., 1962. Comparative University Press. Federalism: States Rights and National Power. Toronto: University of Toronto Oates, W.E., 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New Press. York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Mill, J.S., 1861. Considerations on Obinger, H., S. Liebfried and F.G. Castles, 2005. Representative Government. repr.1972, Federalism and the Welfare State. London: J.M. Dent & Sons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mogi, Sobei, 1931. The Problem of Federalism: Olson, D.M. and C.E.S. Franks, eds., 1993. A Study in the History of Political Theory. 2 Representation and Policy Formation in vols. London: Allen and Unwin. Federal Systems. Berkeley: Institute of Government Studies, University of Monnet, J., 1978. Memoirs. New York: California Berkeley. Doubleday. Orban, E., 1992. Le Fédéralisme: Super État Montero, A.P., 2001. “After Decentralization: federal? Association d’États Souverains? Patterns of Intergovernmental Conflict in Québec, Canada : Ed. Hurtubise HMH Ltée. Argentina, Brazil, Spain, and Mexico.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31(4): Pagano, M.A., 2002. The Global Review of 43-64. Federalism, Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Special issue 32(2). Montgomery, J.D. and A. Smithies, eds., 1965. Public Policy. Vol. xiv. Cambridge, Mass: Patterson, S. and A. Mughan, eds., 1999. Harvard University Press. Senates: Bicameralism in the Contemporary World. Columbus: Ohio State University

Press.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 29

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Pennock, J.R., 1959. “Federal and Unitary Robinson, Austin, ed., 1960. Economic Government – Disharmony and Reliability.” Consequences of the Size of Nations. Behavioural Science 4(2): 147-157. London: Macmillan. Peterson, P.E., 1995. The Price of Federalism. Robson, Peter, 1962. “Patterns of Federal Washington, D.C.: Brookings. Finance in the Newer Federations.” Friangarchin xxi: 415. Pratt, R.C., 1960. “The Future of Federalism in British Africa.” Queens’ Quarterly. lxvii: Rothchild, D.S., 1960. Toward Unity in Africa. 188. Washington: Public Affairs Press. Prest, A.R., 1962. Public Finance in Rowat, D.C., ed., 1973. The Government of Underdeveloped Countries. London: Federal Capitals. Toronto: University of Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Toronto Press. Pinder, J., 1998. The Biulding of the European Saunders, C. and A. Mullins, eds., 1994. Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Economic Union in Federal Systems. Sydney: The Federalist Press. Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 1999. Special issue on Compounded Saunders, C., 1995. “Constitutional Representation in Western Europe. 29(1). Arrangements in Federal Systems.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 25(2): 61-79. Rao, M.G., 1995. “Indian Fiscal Federalism from a Comparative Perspective” in B. Sawer, Geoffrey, 1969. Modern Federalism. Arora and D. Verney, eds., Multiple London: C.A. Watts. Identities in a Single State: Indian Scharpf, F., 1988. “The Joint Decision-Trap: Federalism in Comparative Perspective. Lessons from German Federalism and New Delhi: Konark Publishers PVT European Integration.” Public Limited: 272-316. Administration 66:238-78. Requejo, F., ed., 2001. Democracy and National Sharma, B.M., 1951 and 1953 (2 vols.). Pluralism. London: Routledge. Federalism in Theory and Practice. Requejo, F., 2004. “Federalism and the Quality Chandouse: G.R. Bhargava and Sons. of Democracy in Multinational Contexts: Sharman, C., ed., 1994. Parties and Federalism Present Shortcomings and Possible in Canada and Australia. Canberra: Improvements,” in U.M. Amoretti and N. Federalism Research Centre, Australian Berneo, eds., Federalism and Territorial National University. Cleavages, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 259-278. Shirras, G.F., 1944. Federal Finance in Peace and War. London: Macmillan. Riker, W.H., 1964. Federalism : Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Simeon, R., 1998. “Considerations on the Brown. Design of Federations: The South African Constitution in Comparative Perspective.” Riker, W.H., 1969. “Six Books in Search of a SA Public Law 13:42-71. Subject or Does Federalism Really Exist and Does it Matter?” Comparative Politics 2(1): Simeon, R. and D.-P. Conway, 2001. 135-146. “Federalism and the Management of Conflict in Multinational Societies” in A.-G. Riker, W.H., 1975. “Federalism.” in F.I. Gagnon and J. Tully, eds., Multinational Greenstein and N.W. Polsby, eds., Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge Handbook of Political Science: University Press: 338-365. Governmental Institutions and Processes, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley 5:93-172.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 30

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Simeon, R., 2002. Political Science and Stewart, W.H., 1984. Concepts of Federalism. Federalism: Seven Decades of Scholarly New York: University Press America, Engagement. Kingston: Institute of Centre for the Study of Federalism. Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s Steytler, N., ed., 2005. The Place and Role of University. Local Government in Federal Systems. Simeon, R., 2006. “Federalism and Social Johannesburg: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. Justice; Thinking Through the Tangle” in S. Swenden, W., 2004. Federalism and Second Greer, ed., Territory, Democracy and Chambers. Regional Representation in Justice: Regionalism and Federalism in Parliamentary Federations: The Australian Western Democracies. Basingstoke: Senate and the German Bundesrat Palgrave Macmillan: 18-45. Compared. Oxford: Peter Lang. Smith, G., ed., 1995. Federalism: The Tarlton, C.D., 1965. “Symmetry and Asymmetry Multiethnic Challenge. London: Longman. as Elements of Federalism: A Theoretical Smith, J., 1988. “Canadian Confederation and Speculation.” Journal of Politics 27(4): 861- the Influence of American Federalism.” 74. Canadian Journal of Political Science 21(3): Thorlakson, L., 2003. “Comparing Federal 443-63. Institutions: Power and Representation in Smith, J., 2004. Federalism. Vancouver, BC: Six Federations,” West European Politics University of British Columbia Press. 26(2): 1-22. Smith, S.A., 1964. The New Commonwealth and Trench, A., 2006. “Intergovernmental Relations Its Constitutions. London: Stevens. in Search of a Theory” in S. Greer, ed., Territory, Democracy and Justice: Stein, M., 1971. “Federal Political Systems and Regionalism and Federalism within Western Federal Societies.” In P. Meekison, ed., Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Canadian Federalism Myth or Reality?, pp. Macmillan: 229-256. 30-42. Tsebelis, G., 1995. “Decision Making in Stepan, A., 1999. “Federalism and Democracy: Political Systems: Veto Players in Beyond the US Model.” Journal of Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Democracy 10(4): 19-34. Multicameralism and Multipartyism,” Stepan, A., 2001. Arguing Comparative Politics. British Journal of Political Science 25: 289- Oxford: Oxford University Press. 325. Stepan, A., 2004a. “Toward a New Comparative Tsebelis, G., 2002. Veto Players: How Political Politics of Federalism, Multinationalism and Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton Democracy” in E.L. Gibson, ed., Federalism University Press. and Democracy in Latin America. Verney, D.V., 1995. “Federalism, Federative Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: Systems, and Federations: The United 29-84. States, Canada and India.” Publius: The Stepan, A., 2004b. “Electorally Generated Veto Journal of Federalism 25(2): 81-97. Players in Unitary and Federal Systems.” in Vile, M.J.C., 1961. The Structure of American E.L. Gibson, ed., Federalism and Federalism. Oxford: Oxford University Democracy in Latin America. Baltimore: Press. Johns Hopkins University Press: 323-361. Vile, M.J.C., 1973. “Federalism in the United Stepan, A., 2004c. “Federalism and Democracy” States, Canada and Australia.” Research in U.M. Amoretti and N. Berneo, eds., Paper 2, Commission on the Constitution. Federalism and Territorial Cleavages. London: HMSD. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 441-455.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 31

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Vile, M.J.C., 1977. “Federal Theory and the Watts, R.L., 1989. Executive Federalism: A ‘New Federalism’” in D. Jaensch, The Comparative Analysis. Kingston: Institute of Politics of New Federalism. Adelaide: Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s Australian Political Studies Association. University. Wachendorfer-Schmidt, U., ed., 2000. Watts, R.L., 1994. “Contemporary Views on Federalism and Political Performance. Federalism.” See de Villiers 1994, pp.1-29. London and New York: Routledge. Watts, R.L., 1996 (1st ed.), 1999a (2nd ed.). Wagner, W.J., 1959. The Federal States and Comparing Federal Systems. Kingston: their Judiciary. The Hague: Mouton. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, McGill-Queen’s University Press. Warhurst, J., 1987. “Managing intergovernmental relations,” in H. Bakvis Watts, R.L., 1998. “Federalism, Federal Political and W.M. Chandler, Federalism and the Systems and Federations.” Annual Review of Role of the State. Toronto: University of Political Science 1:117-37. Toronto Press: 259-276. Watts, R.L., 1999a. Comparing Federal Watts, R.L., 1966, rev. 1968. New Federations: Systems. 2nd ed. Montreal & Kingston: Experiments in the Commonwealth. Oxford: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Clarendon Press. Watts, R.L., 1999b. The Spending Power in Watts, R.L., 1970a. “Second Chambers in Federal Systems: A Comparative Study. Federal Political Systems.” In The Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Confederation Challenge, ed. Ontario Relations, Queen’s University. Advisory Committee on Confederation. Watts, R.L., 2000. “Daniel J. Elazar: Toronto: Queen’s Printer of Ontario: 315- Comparative Federalism and Post-Statism.” 355. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 30(4): Watts, R.L., 1970b. Administration in Federal 155-168. Systems. London: Hutchinson Educational. Watts, R.L., 2005. Autonomy and Dependence: Watts, R.L., 1970c. Multicultural Societies and Intergovernmental Financial Relations in Federalism (Study No. 8 of the Royal Eleven Countries. Working Paper 2005 (5). Commission on Bilingualism and Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Biculturalism). Ottawa: Information Canada. Relations, Queen’s University. Watts, R.L., 1977. “The Survival and Wheare, K.C., 1946 (1st ed.), 1951 (2nd ed.), Disintegration of Federations.” In Must 1953 (3rd ed.), 1963 (4th ed.). Federal Canada Fail?, ed. R. Simeon, pp. 42-62. Government. London: Oxford University Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Press. Watts, R.L., 1981. “Federalism, Regionalism, Williams, C.H., ed., 1982. National Separatism. and Political Integration.” In Regionalism Vancouver: University of British Columbia and Supranationalism, ed. D. Cameron, pp. Press. 3-19. Montreal: Institute for Research on Wood, M.,C. Williams, and C. Sharman, eds., Public Policy. 1989. Governing Federations: Constitution, Watts, R.L., 1987. “Divergence and Politics, Resources. Sydney: Hale and Convergence: Canadian and US Iremonger. Federalism.” In Perspectives on Federalism: Wright, D., 1982. Understanding Papers from the First Berkeley Seminar on Intergovernmental Relations. Monterey, CA: Federalism, ed. H.N. Schreiber, pp. 179- Brooks/Cole. 213. Berkeley: Institute of Government Studies, University of California Berkeley.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 32

Ronald L. Watts, Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies

Young, R.A., 1995. The Secession of Quebec and the Future of Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Zariski, R. and M.O. Rousseau, eds., 1987. Regionalism and Regional Devolution in Comparative Perspective. New York: Praeger. Zimmerman, J.F., 1993. “Pre-emption in the U.S. Federal System.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 23: 1-13.

Working Paper 2007(1) © IIGR, Queen’s University, Kingston 33