The Historical Development of Comparative Federal Studies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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