By Ethan Hollander, Wabash College
Thinking about federalism as a compromise between central and local control makes it clear that federalism is not an either-or thing. Instead, it exists on a continuum, with very centralized, unitary governments on one end, and looser political associations—what we might call confederations—on the other.
American Federalism
With the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, the US moved from a very loose confederation of independent states to a true federation—something that was much more centralized than it had been, but that nevertheless still left a lot up to the individual states.
The ensuing centuries saw the United States become progressively more centralized, especially after the Civil War, and with the New Deal (which was Franklin Roosevelt’s effort to combat the Great Depression). That trend continued in the 1950s and ’60s, as the federal government took a more active role, establishing racial justice and fighting poverty.
These were all times when the federal government forced states to abide by federal mandates, even as state officials resisted, claiming that the federal government had no such authority.
And whether we like it or hate it, American federalism clearly has centralized over the course of the last 200 years.
This article comes directly from content in the video series Democracy and Its Alternatives. Watch it now, on Wondrium.
Direction of Centralization
But most of the world’s countries go a lot further than the US in the direction of centralization. France has a quintessential unitary government, with most decision-making authority held by the national government in Paris.
There are obviously administrative offices all over the country, but the traffic laws, along with business regulations, taxes, school systems, and even the national police force, are all quite centralized and uniform nationwide.
On the other end of the spectrum, some federations are looser than the United States.
At the very loosest end of the federalism continuum, we have associations like the European Union—something that most people wouldn’t consider to be a country in the first place.
Power of Federal Government
Federalism is also the kind of thing where it’s important to pay attention to differences between how things are supposed to work—in theory—and how they actually work in practice. Oftentimes, the law (or even the constitution) spells out certain rights that the federated units have. But no matter how explicit those are, the federal government is usually stronger, and thus usually has the ability to make sure that its laws are the ones that prevail.
We saw a really clear example of this with the drinking age in the United States. At one time, each US state got to determine its own drinking age. And even as late as the 1980s, most states had legal drinking ages that were less than 21.
But in 1984, in an effort to combat drunk driving, Congress and President Ronald Reagan tried to pressure states into raising their drinking ages to 21. They did this by giving the states an offer they couldn’t refuse: Either states raise their legal drinking age to 21, or risk losing a portion of their federal highway funding.
That’s how the federal government ‘persuaded’ every state in the Union to raise its drinking age. Technically speaking, it was voluntary; states could, if they wanted, keep their drinking age at 18 or whatever. But money talks, and on this issue, the federal government was clearly ready to enforce its will.
Preserving Autonomy
Given the potential for federal governments to encroach on the jurisdiction of state and local authorities, it’s worth asking how it is that states and provinces preserve their autonomy.
Well, for starters, it’s usually written into a country’s constitution. The US has the Tenth Amendment, which says quite clearly that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.
But just because something’s written into a constitution doesn’t mean that it’ll be exercised in practice. Like any laws, even a constitution is subject to workarounds and creative interpretation.
That’s why federations will often have a second legislative body—something like the US Senate or the German Bundesrat—something that represents individual states as states.
Bicameralism
Bicameralism—which is what we call it when there are two separate legislative houses rather than just one—is very common in federations, especially where one of the houses is set up in such a way that it overrepresents small states. And it’s often combined with a whole array of institutions that amplify the voice of states, like the US electoral college.
Institutions like this essentially force the federal government to pay attention to the interests of small states. This does hinder the efficiency of government as it makes it harder to pass new laws. However, it is quite a boon for minority representation, especially if those minority interests are concentrated in a number of individual states.
Common Questions about Centralization of American Federalism
In federalism, the law (or even the constitution) spells out certain rights that the federated units have. But no matter how explicit those are, the federal government is usually stronger, and thus usually has the ability to make sure that its laws are the ones that prevail.
In 1984, in an effort to combat drunk driving, Congress and President Ronald Reagan tried to pressure states into raising their drinking ages to 21. They did this by giving the states an offer they couldn’t refuse: Either states raise their legal drinking age to 21, or risk losing a portion of their federal highway funding. That’s how the federal government ‘persuaded’ every state in the Union to raise its drinking age.
Bicameralism is when there are two separate legislative houses rather than just one. It is very common in federations, especially where one of the houses is set up in such a way that it overrepresents small states. It’s often combined with a whole array of institutions that amplify the voice of states, like the US electoral college.
