Two Views of Federalism
Political scientists have also changed the way they think about federalism. For many years the prevailing theory was known as dual federalism, basically arguing that the relationship between the two levels of government was like a layer cake. That is, the national and state governments were to be understood as two self-contained layers, each essentially separate from the other and carrying out its functions independently. In its own area of power, each level was supreme. Dual federalism reflects the formal distribution of powers in the Constitution, and perhaps it was an accurate portrayal of the judicial interpretation of the federal system for our first hundred years or so.
dual federalism the federal system under which the national and state governments are responsible for separate policy areas
But this theory was criticized for not describing realistically the way the federal relationship was evolving in the twentieth century. It certainly did not take into account the changes brought about by the New Deal. The layer cake image was replaced by a new bakery metaphor. According to the new theory of cooperative federalism, rather than being two distinct layers, the national and state levels were swirled together like the chocolate and vanilla batter in a marble cake.8 National and state powers were interdependent, and each level required the cooperation of the other to get things done. In fact, federalism came to be seen by political scientists as a partnership, but one in which the dominant partner was, more often than not, the national government.
cooperative federalism the federal system under which the national and state governments share responsibilities for most domestic policy areas
Who should have primary responsibility in case of emergencies or natural disasters: the local, state, or national government?
Possible Alternatives to Federalism
The federal system was not the only alternative available to our founders for organizing the relationship between the central government and the states. In fact, as we know, it wasn’t even their first choice as a framework for government. The Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution, handled the relationship quite differently. We can look at federalism as a compromise system that borrows some attributes from a unitary system and some from a confederal system. Had the founders chosen either of these alternatives, American government would look very different today.
Unitary Systems
In unitary systems, the central government ultimately has all the power. Local units (states or counties) may have some power at some time, but basically they are dependent on the central unit, which can alter or even abolish them. Many contemporary countries have unitary systems, among them Britain, France, Japan, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Hungary, and the Philippines.
unitary systems governments in which all power is centralized
Politics in Britain, for example, works very differently from politics in the United States, partly due to the different rules that organize central and local governments. Most important decisions are made in London, from foreign policy to housing policy—even the details of what ought to be included in the school curriculum. Even local taxes are determined centrally. When Margaret Thatcher, then the British prime minister, believed that some municipal units in London were not supportive of her government’s policies, she simply dissolved the administrative units. Similarly, in 1972, when the legislature in Northern Ireland (a part of the United Kingdom) could not resolve its religious conflicts, the central government suspended the local lawmaking body and ruled Northern Ireland from London. These actions are tantamount to a Republican president’s dissolving a Democratic state that disagreed with his policies, or the national government’s deciding during the days of segregation to suspend the state legislature in Alabama and run the state from Washington. Such an arrangement has been impossible in the United States except during the chaotic state of emergency following the Civil War. What is commonplace under a unitary system is unimaginable under our federal rules.
Confederal Systems
Confederal systems provide an equally sharp contrast to federal systems, even though the names sound quite similar. In confederal systems, the local units hold all the power, and the central government is dependent on them for its existence. The local units remain sovereign, and the central government has only as much power as they allow it to have. Examples of confederal systems include America under the Articles of Confederation and associations such as the United Nations and the European Union, twenty-eight European nations that have joined economic and political forces. The European Union has been experiencing problems much like ours after the Revolutionary War, debating whether it ought to move in a more federal direction. Most of the nations involved, jealously guarding their sovereignty, say no.
confederal systems governments in which local units hold all the power
What Difference Does Federalism Make?
That our founders settled on federalism, rather than a unitary or a confederal system, makes a great deal of difference to American politics. Federalism gave the founders a national government that could take effective action, restore economic stability, and regulate disputes among the states, while allowing the states considerable autonomy. Still, federalism forces the states to continually negotiate their relationships not only with the national government but also with each other. Even though they have the ability to act independently in many respects, they have to be able to cooperate effectively and, frequently, to compete with each other. States are always looking to use their resources in creative ways to win scarce federal benefits, to lure business and economic development opportunities, and to encourage people to relocate within their borders.
Federalism gives both the national government and the states a good measure of flexibility when it comes to experimentation with public policy. If all laws and policies need not be uniform across the country, then different states may try different solutions to common problems and share the results of their experiments, making states what a Supreme Court justice once referred to as the “laboratories of democracy.”9 For instance, the popularity and success of the health care policy passed in Massachusetts under Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006 became the model for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act four years later.
In addition, the flexibility that federalism provides can also be helpful when Congress cannot or will not act. As recent polarization in the nation’s capital has essentially paralyzed legislative action for most purposes, it leaves a power vacuum that enterprising states can take advantage of. For example, as Congress has gridlocked over the development of fossil fuel resources, the states have leapt into the breach with their own energy policies, many times reflecting the political proclivities of the dominant party in the states. For example, Republican-controlled Pennsylvania has encouraged fracking (the process of pumping water and chemicals into deposits to free gas and oil bound up in rock formations) while neighboring New York, and to a lesser extent Ohio, which share the giant Marcellus Shale deposit, have taken a much more environmentally cautious approach to the development of shale deposits.10
However, it is not only units of government but also individuals who stand to benefit from power sharing between nation and states. Federalism means there is real power at levels of government that are close to the citizens. Citizens can thus have access to officials and processes of government that they could not have if there were just one distant, effective unit. Federalism allows government to preserve local standards and to respond to local needs—that is, to solve problems at the levels where they occur. Examples include local traffic laws, community school policies, and city and county housing codes.
Federalism