Unitary Government

4 Key excerpts on "Unitary Government"

• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  State and Local Politics

  Institutions and Reform

  • Todd Donovan, Daniel Smith, Tracy Osborn, Christopher Mooney(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Chapter 2 42 shows, a unitary system has a strong central govern-ment that controls virtually all aspects of its consti-tutive subnational governments (be they regional, territorial, state, or local units). Unitary systems, such as those in France, Israel, Sweden, China, and Kenya, consolidate most constitutional authority in the national government. In a sense, subnational divisions of the country are mere administrative appendages of the national government; that is, pol-icy is made at the national level, and the subnational units simply carry out that policy. Confederal Systems: Decentralized Power In terms of a spectrum of the balance of power between national and subnational levels of gov-ernment, a confederacy is located at the opposite pole from a unitary system. A confederal system , as Figure 2.2 shows, is an institutional structure whereby the national government is subject to the control of subnational, autonomous governments. In a confederacy, the constituent subnational gov-ernments enter into a covenant with one another and derive the bulk of their sovereign powers not from the central government, but from their own constitutions. 8 As we discuss later, in the history of the United States, there have been two confedera-cies: the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789) and the Civil War–era Confederate States of America (1861–1865). Defenders of confederal systems of shared gover-nance argue that there are several advantages when governmental powers are devolved to subnational units.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Foundations of Comparative Politics

  • Kenneth Newton, Jan W. van Deth(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  The growth of federal funding and regulation has often created a tan- gled mass of complicated inter-governmental relations. Unitary and federal systems in practice We have drawn a clear distinction between unitary and federal systems so far, but in practice there is less difference between them. Quasi-federal features In the first place, some unitary states have quasi-federal features such as a degree of ‘home rule’ for special areas. These include the island of Åland (Finland), Corsica (France), the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (the UK), and the Faroe Islands and Greenland (Denmark). Special status is not reserved only for islands. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have long had their own standing within the UK, as do the regions of Alto Adige and Val d’Aosta (as well as the island of Sicily) in Italy. Spain is a unitary state but it gives some regions (notably Catalonia and the Basque Country) so much autonomy that it might be called a semi-federal or regional sys- tem. In other words, unitary states can be rather variable and flexible, and not as highly centralised as they first seem (see fact file 6.3). In a word, they also devolve power to lower levels of government. Second, central and local government depend upon each other, even in the most centralised of states, such as the UK and France. Just as central government in Devolution Devolution occurs where higher levels of government grant decision-making powers to lower levels while maintaining their constitutionally subordinate status. Multi-level government: international, national and sub-national 115 Paris relies upon the cooperation of local officials in the communes and départe- ments, so local officials depend upon Paris for resources and support. Each has to negotiate and cooperate with the other to some extent, as in federal systems. Third, federal systems are tending towards greater centralisation.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Involvement of State Governments in US Foreign Relations

  • S. McMillan(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  Federalism, Intergovernmental Relations, and Constituent Diplomacy Scholars realize that the concepts of federalism and intergovernmental relations are confusing because of their similar meanings. Federalism International Relations & US Politics ● 17 is predominantly about the division of power between two levels of government— a national government and one or more subnational governments. Walker (1995) says that federalism is the “constitutional principle involving a distinctive territorial division of powers, usually a special approach to representation within the national government, and mechanisms— both legal and political— to settle interlevel disputes” (20). With political authority divided into jurisdictions, a federal system represents “an unfinished nation,” such that two territorial communi- ties are refusing to merge and abandon their sovereignty. In Duchacek’s (1970) words, this is “a conflict combined with a keen awareness of mutual dependence” (192). Thus, a federal system of government such as in the United States, encourages policy innovations since US state and local governments are laboratories of democracy that may attempt different ways to best rep- resent their citizens’ interests and to solve problems. Other chief advan- tages are its ability to promote political participation and to protect individual freedoms. However, federal systems are perhaps more eas- ily split apart, such as with the former Yugoslavia. Subnational level innovations may lead to greater redundancy and confusion and may hinder efficiency, such that different areas may have various regula- tions. Federal systems may also weaken national unity or hurt national interests (Bowman and Kearney 2005).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Comparing Asian Politics

  India, China, and Japan

  • Sue Ellen M. Charlton(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  In theory, the distinction between federal and unitary systems is clear. In practice, the distinction is often murky, even messy. Constitutions typically list powers belonging to the central government and regional governments and may also enumerate shared jurisdictions. But dynamic socioeconomic conditions, along with shifting political values and judicial interpretations, influence the evolution of these jurisdictions in ways unforeseen by the drafters of the constitutions. This has happened in Canada and the United States as well as in India.

  Evolution in federal systems has been matched by changes in unitary systems, where contemporary history provides examples of national governments attempting to centralize control over their country during some periods but decentralizing at others, or they may centralize in some spheres of activity (such as economic policy) but decentralize in others (social policy). Political and economic conditions often breed as many stresses in unitary systems as they do in federal systems. Such stresses are evident in China, for example, where economic reform policies have included substantial decentralization of policy-making and the introduction by the 1990s of what some scholars have called “market-preserving federalism” or “de facto federalism.”2

  Level-of-government relationships in India are especially complex. The national government, also known as the Centre or Union, has constitutional powers superior to those of the regional units, called states. The emergency powers and President’s Rule examined in Chapter 9 are examples of the ultimate authority of the Union government. But states have become more important for a variety of reasons, creating tensions between the levels of government. It is to these dynamics that we turn next.

  (Dis)unity in the Indian Federation

  To better understand the countervailing tendencies in Indian federalism, we need to review how India’s Constitution designates the division of powers between the central government and the states. As explained in Chapter 8

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book