Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The differences between devolution in the UK and federalism in the USA are greater in theory than they are in practice. Discuss
Key Ideas
The relationship between national and regional government in the UK and USA is much more complex than the theories suggest, and it has always been so. The UK has usually been called a unitary state, yet it has always been a union state, with substantial regional differences. Since 1997, the UK has become a devolved state, but lopsidedly so. The degree of power which has been devolved is limited in nature, especially in Wales and there is no devolution for English regions yet. While Labour are in favour of English devolution, regional autonomy is likely to be slim. The USA is a federal state, but the constitutional provisions are vague and contradictory. In the twentieth century, economic and social change has transformed federalism, greatly strengthening the Federal government. While the last twenty years has witnessed a revival of the states, the classic definition of federalism as a division between two layers of government is long since dead. Although the UK has become more decentralised and the US more centralised, the degree of decentralisation in the USA remains much greater than in the UK
Study Guide
Definitions Devolution in the UK since 1997 Devolution and federalism in the UK Why Devolution? Federalism in the USA Arguments for Centralism and Decentralism
Definitions
A. A unitary state/a union state A unitary state, is one where there is one central law-making body, and one executive or
government. The implication is that all parts of the state have the same laws, which are administered and implemented by the same institutions. Citizens throughout the state are subject to the same laws. Britain has usually been seen as a unitary state because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, i.e. the location of supreme legal power in the UK is the Westminster parliament.
2 The UK has always been best described as a union state, where different regions are
often treated differently and where some degree of regional self-government remains.
B. A federal state
Legal and constitutional power in a federal state, like the USA and Germany, is divided between a national government and various regional governments.
Each level of government has policy areas in which it is autonomous and each level
has its own elected assembly (or assemblies) and government. Each of the 50 American states, for example, has its own constitution, its own Governor and, among other things, the states control education policy. codified constitution and protected by that constitution.
The crucial feature of a federal state is that the division of power is defined in a
units, these powers being exercised with some degree of autonomy though with ultimate power remaining with central government. Vernon Bogdanor In theory, the key difference between federalism and devolution is that in a federal system the division of power between the central government and the regional governments is defined and protected by a codified constitution whereas devolution is more flexible with the division depending on the central governments discretion. For example, Northern Irelands virtual autonomy within the UK was ended when the British government restored direct rule in 1972, abolishing the Northern Ireland parliament (Stormont).
Legislative devolution is when an elected assembly has the power to make laws for its region, and to raise some of its own tax revenue. This is what the Labour government has given Scotland. Executive devolution is a much weaker form of devolution. The power to make laws remains with the Westminster parliament but specific powers may be delegated to the elected assemblies in Wales and England to decide on details of the law.
3 These broad facts need to be substantiated by some evidence given below in the rest of section 2 A. Scotland : The Labour Governments Devolution Policy
In the referendum held in Scotland on September 11th 1997, over 74 per cent of those voting supported the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, over 63 per cent opted for the Parliament to have tax-varying powers. Elections for the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) are held every four years. Electors cast two votes: one for a constituency member and one for a party list. There is one MSP elected on a 'first-past-the-post' basis for each of the 73 parliamentary constituencies; and 56 MSPs (seven for each of the current eight European Parliament constituencies) are returned by means of a corrective system of AMS proportional representation.
The Westminster parliament retains power in certain reserved matters. These are : the constitution of the United Kingdom; foreign policy, including relations with the EU; defence and national security; stability of the fiscal, economic and monetary system; common markets for British goods and services; employment law and social security.
The Scottish Parliament can legislate on the following subjects in Scotland: health; education; training; local government; transport (excluding most aspects of safety and regulation) ; social work; housing; economic development; the law and home affairs; the environment; agriculture, fisheries and forestry; sport; the arts, and all subjects not defined as reserved matters for the United Kingdom parliament.
Government in Scotland is undertaken by the Scottish Executive, headed by the First Minister. The Executive is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. Scotland continues to elect MPs to the Westminster parliament but the number (at present 73) of Scottish MPs will be reviewed by a Parliamentary Boundary Commission. Under existing arrangements, the United Kingdom Parliament allocates an annual budget (currently some 14,000 million ) to the Scottish Office. In addition, the Parliament can increase or decrease by up to three per cent (450 million - indexlinked) the basic rate of income tax set by the Westminster Parliament.
4
revolved around the extent to which the Assembly can shape primary legislation at Westminster.
C. Northern Ireland
Shortly after the May 1997 election talks involving the British and Irish governments and the Northern Irish parties chaired by former US Senator George Mitchell got under way. These talks produced an agreement in April 1998 that is now referred to as the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement. This agreement called for the creation of an Assembly in Northern Ireland with a power sharing Executive drawn from the major parties within the Assembly pledged to work the Agreement and use exclusively peaceful means. The agreement was put to referendum in both Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland on 22 May 1998. In the Irish Republic, on a 58% turnout, 94% of those voting approved the agreement and supported removing articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution which claimed Irish sovereignty over Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, on an 81% turnout, 71% of those voting approved the agreement though opinion surveys suggest that Protestants were much less supportive of the agreement than Catholics in Northern Ireland. Elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly took place on 25 June 1998. Enough pro-agreement Unionists were elected to make the Assembly work and David Trimble of the Ulster Unionist party and Seamus Mallon of the nationalist SDLP were elected First Minister and Deputy First Minister respectively. The period since has seen tortuous even farcical progress but the general peace has held.
5
West Midlands, Yorkshire & Humberside, and the South-West all possess Constitutional Conventions to argue and develop the case for devolved regional assemblies. In 1999 the Campaign for the English Regions formed as an umbrella group to campaign at national and parliamentary level for a programme of devolution to the English Regions.
Much speculation surrounds the introduction of elected mayors under the Local Government Act 2000. Under this Act, local authorities are obliged to develop proposals to bring in one of three options of new executive arrangements: a directly elected mayor, a cabinet and leader, or a directly elected mayor with a council manager. A consultation paper was published setting out the Government's ideas for a new Greater London Authority and elected mayor; the referendum held on 7 May 1998 endorsed the governments plans - 72% voted in favour of the new Authority, but on a turnout of only 34%. The Mayor is elected by the Supplementary Vote and the Assembly has 25 members elected by the Additional Member System.
6
The nature of Scottish devolution is not dissimilar to US federalism in its degree of autonomy Examples of Scotland and the UK diverging include student grants and hunting with dogs. There is no doubt that the UK has moved away from its former unitary or union constitution.
Despite these decentralising factors (and the centralising trend in the USA), British
devolution cannot seriously be compared to American federalism in the extent of decentralisation involved in the political system. The Supreme Court has recently returned to a strong defence of the tenth amendment protecting states rights; the states raise and spend around 80% of their own revenue; they exercise legislative supremacy in many areas including areas like capital punishment; each state has the same degree of autonomy whereas the UK has lopsided devolution; the degree to which the states have a cultural distinctiveness is much greater than the regions, especially the English regions which are artificial creations the impact of regional government on the national government in the USA through the Senate and Electoral College is much greater than in the UK.
4. Why Devolution?
A. The Maintenance of the Union (and New Labour self-interest) o The single most important practical political reason why devolution has been
introduced is that the popular demand in Scotland for an elected Scottish Assembly with significant powers became overwhelming. Without devolution Scotland might have been pushed toward demanding independence. o The logic of this argument can be summarised: there are nationalist sentiments in Scotland, which provide important sources of cultural identity. If this was not recognised by opportunities for increased self-government, pressure for independence would continue to grow. The United Kingdom can only be preserved by a meaningful devolution of power to Scotland. o The Labour Party had good political reasons for introducing increased devolution. It dominates representation at Westminster for both Scotland and Wales. Labour does not want to be electorally outflanked by the SNP and does not want to see the break-up of the UK because without its Welsh and Scottish MPs it will be extremely difficult to win a parliamentary majority in the UK parliament.
B. Britains membership of the European Union o The EU has provided an important incentive to develop a layer of elected
regional government. The Maastricht Treaty created the Committee of the Regions and requires requests for many sources of funds from the EU budget to be developed at regional level.
Marquand suggests that over-centralization has 'weakened our democracy, creating a sense of powerlessness among ordinary citizens.
8
Review Questions Explain the arguments that devolution has produced both more democratic and more efficient government.
The division of power between the national (Federal) government and the states has steadily been eroded in the direction of Federal power There has been a revival in state power since 1980, but Federal power has encroached upon the power of the states to such an extent that the concept of federalism in the classic sense of a neat division of powers is irrelevant The term inter-governmental relations is used to indicate that the relations between two levels of government are now typified by co-operation and interaction; few policy areas are totally the preserve of one level or the other.
Since the late 1980s, there been an attempt to devolve power by Congress and the Supreme Court has made serious attempts to revive federalism by strengthening the Tenth Amendment and by reinterpreting the Commerce Clause. The states remain very important administrative and political units and the states preserve variety - each continues to have its own separate legal and political system, and travelling from state to state the observer is aware of distinctive political cultures. The states preserve a degree of local or regional political autonomy that is quite unfamiliar in more centralized political systems. State law remains pre-eminent in many areas of economic and social life, The role of the states has increased, as federal governments have required them to participate in the implementation of federally funded programmes. The states are at the very heart of some of most important issues in American politics, for example, abortion.
Constitutional provisions in America are complex, vague and contradictory. For example, the 'necessary and proper' clause conflicts with the Tenth Amendment The Supreme Court has therefore been of crucial significance in the development of federalism
9
'Federalism is not a fixed, well defined legalistic principle; it is an evolving concept Federalism is what political leaders, especially Supreme Court justices, say it is.' (Weissberg)
Federalism was part of the system of checks and balances Key factor that has changed relationship states/Federal government has been economic and social transformation. Tasks of government have grown and only the national government can tackle many problems. Until the early 1930s it is possible to describe national-State relations as Dual Federalism - powers were divided between the Federal and state governments in a relatively neat way with the States having substantial areas of autonomy. Between 1933 and 1980 the dominant trend was of increasing Federal power - first through co-operative federalism (1933- 1963) then through Centralising federalism (1964-1980). Cause the nationalization of economic and social life. Both the national government and the States came to exercise joint responsibility for welfare, health, highways, education, and criminal justice. An important change also occurred in the legal status of the states in this period. The Bill of Rights was 'nationalised', setting in motion a new role for the Federal government - the protection of individual liberties against state violations. The relationship between the Federal government and the States underwent further significant changes from the mid-1960s. Virtually all problems confronting American society - from solid waste disposal and water and air pollution, to consumer safety, home insulation, noise abatement, and even metric conversion - were declared to be national problems. The 'reserved' powers of the States embodied in the Tenth Amendment lost most of their meaning and decisions of the Supreme Court played a major role in extending Federal power over the States. The states' role became one of carrying out Federal mandates The major means of central control was the grant-in-aid system. Federal financial aid was at the centre of the growth of national government power. Apart from the sense of political crisis at the root of the nationalisation of policy, there were several reasons for the growth in Federal power: national finances were strong but many of the states were virtually bankrupt; the increase in pressure group activity also contributed to the growth in Federal aid and regulation eg groups were working for improvements in environmental and consumer protection; the states actually lobbied for Federal action.
10 E. Revitalisation
From the late 1960s onwards, the right was committed to reversing what they saw as the usurpation of state powers by the federal government. Since 1980, the trend towards centralisation has been halted and to some degree reversed. President Reagan talked in terms of New Federalism Following their 1994 election victories, the Republican majority in Congress developed policies that gave the states further decision-making powers. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act represented a particularly important decentralising shift. Congress also passed the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The states also responded to the changing political environment and to specific problems they faced, by becoming more assertive, imaginative and innovative. After 50 years of interpreting the constitution in a way that favoured an extension of Federal authority, the Supreme Court reflecting its 7-2 republican majority began to support the states. It was the landmark New York v. United States decision in 1992, which restored substance to the Tenth Amendment. In 1995, in United States v. Lopez the Court restrained Congress from relying upon its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to ban the simple possession of a gun in a school zone. The 1996-in Printz v. United States, the Court invalidated the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers.
The legal power of the Federal government has grown and is likely to continue to grow because the social, economic, political, geographical and technical realities of modern life require national action. There have been over 250 Congressional laws in the last 30 years, which have transferred powers to the centre. The phrase commonly used to describe this process is pre-emption. Federal pre-emption is one result of the supremacy clause. Because of problems that cross state boundaries, there are very often compelling reasons to make national policy supreme. For example water pollution that kills fish often crosses state boundaries, making it difficult for anyone state to deal with the problem. In 1965, Congress passed the Water Quality Act, which allowed the national government to assume responsibility for water-pollution abatement if the states failed to maintain adequate water-quality standards.
Revenue Powers
States administer federal schemes and rely heavily on federal funds in policy areas, like welfare, which were once exclusively state responsibilities. Much state spending is mandated or compelled by the Federal government the vast majority of Federal funds given to the states are categorical grants i.e. they have tight strings attached and the states have little discretion. the Federal government will continue to hold the purse strings and states needing Federal cash will inevitably submit to Federal restrictions and conditions
Policy The states preserve a degree of local or regional political autonomy, which is quite unfamiliar in unitary systems. The powers allocated to the states include powers over civil and a good deal of criminal law (including the issue of capital punishment); school education and higher education; health, sanitation, housing and public highways. The states have also been 'laboratories', undertaking experiments in policy-making in areas like 'workfare', education, health care and consumer protection.
12
In addition states plan, supervise, partially fund and sometimes directly execute large, costly, and socially significant intergovernmental programmes like Food Stamps. The powers of central government continue to encroach on the states. One of the most disturbing aspects of this is that the Federal government continues to impose new duties (or mandates) on the states without giving much thought on how the states are to pay for new services
In both the UK and USA the same arguments are used. Those who favour decentralisation put forward a number of claims. o Democracy near the people - different regions have their own political and cultural traditions. Only a federal system offers the space that will allow these to flourish. Decentralised systems of government offer opportunities for policy experimentation and innovation Regional governments can balance out the actions of the national government. They can prevent the legislators and bureaucrats in the centre from becoming excessively powerful. Conflict management allowing policy diversity also means that a uniform policy is not imposed on hostile citizens.
o o
These arguments both have validity and in the modern UK and USA some political decisions are taken at national level and some at regional level. The structure of decision-making is in flux and in both countries the balance between national and regional government is itself a controversial political issue. In Britain this is complicated by a European dimension. In the USA, the Supreme Court is mounting a vigorous defence of the federal principle together with a new breed of state Governors.