Suchergebnisse

American government is an experiment. It is theory in application based on a design principle which specifies the terms and conditions of the experiment's proper extent and structure. Federalism in American government is the original design principle specifying representation, divisions of power, checks and balances, and the capacity for self-government as the terms and conditions of the experiment of the American Republic. Federalism in this sense is the "republican remedy for the "diseases most intrinsic to a republican government." (Publius 1787-1788 [2003], 46) The experiment has continued for over 200 years although the terms and conditions have not always been met. In such instances, the extent and structure of government changes resulting in sub-experiments or operational forms of federalism. Modern government is increasingly characterized by the centralization of authority to the national government, especially to the president. By observing modern presidential administrations it appears that each fits into one of four categories of operational federalism: functional, legislative, managerial or constitutional. These four sub-experiments, and the associated administrations reveal operational realities of federalism that Hamilton and Madison could not have accounted for when they wrote The Federalist Papers in 1787 and 1788. Operational federalism as it relates to the modern presidency and government as a whole seems to present a pessimistic future for the great American experiment. But to dwell on the diseases of republican government is to let them fester. the American experiment is by principle of design equipped with the republican remedies for these governmental ailments. By reflection and choice we must remember the terms and conditions of federalism if we wish to reestablish good government.

AS A BACKGROUND FOR COMPARING VARIOUS VIEWPOINTS ON THE SUBJECT, DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN "TRADITIONAL" & "MODERN" MEANINGS OF FEDERALISM & COMMUNITY ARE DRAWN. REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE HISTORICAL CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM AS BEING A "PARTICULAR PRINCIPLE OF ASSOCIATION CONTAINING BOTH STRUCTURAL & BEHAVIORAL ASPECTS." THROUGH AN "ASSOCIATION BY COVENANT," DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FEDERAL SYSTEMS POINT TO VARIABLES IN THE COMMUNITIES DOING THE FEDERATING, AS WELL AS THEIR REASONS FOR WANTING FEDERALISM. THE NEED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACEFUL RELATIONS BETWEEN HISTORICAL COMMUNITIES (EACH WITH ITS OWN LAW & ITS OWN GOD OR GODS) IS CITED AS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF THE UNIQUELY "TRADITIONAL" LIMITS & POTENTIAL OF FEDERALISM. THE MODERN MEANING OF FEDERALISM IS CONTAINED WITHIN THESE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODERN COMMUNITY: (1) THE "SEPARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FROM THE LAW & THE SHIFT IN EMPHASIS FROM THE LATTER TO THE FORMER," (2) THE BELIEF THAT "THE LAW OF THE LAND CAN BE AMENDED BY HUMAN WILL," & (3) EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE "PROBLEM OF SOVEREIGNTY" BY CONSTITUTIONAL & REPUBLICAN MEANS. J. SHIFFER.

Abstract
Contemporary U.S. federalism particularly since the late1960s has evolved over the course of pluralism alternating exercisable governmental powers between the federal and state governments. The complexity of the power relationship has been observed in a variety of policies during the past quarter-century as has the discussion of whether or not contemporary U.S. federalism has developed in a way that increase effective public policy performance. Focusing mainly on the period of the past 50 years of U.S. federalism history, this article suggests that federalism dynamics have not exercised either constant liberal or conservative influence on public policy performance. Instead, this article suggests that the clear functional responsibility between the federal government and state and local governments have characterized contemporary U.S. federalism-more federal responsibility for redistribution and more state and local responsibility for development, which in turn increased public policy performance. This feature has been quite substantial since 1970s. As a result, this article suggests that despite the increased complexity of the U.S. federal system, it has evolved in such an appropriate way that would increase the efficiency of federal system by dividing a clear intergovernmental responsibility on major policy platforms.

Bibliographical references included in "Notes" (p. 243-260). ; Mode of access: Internet.

"Obres de l'autor": p.[193]-195. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Author's autograph presentation copy to M.S. Handman.

Discusses role of regulation in modern market economies, focusing on reasons for centralizing regulations in a federal system, and reasons for decentralization; based on a case study of wireless communications; policy issues; US.

Notes that federalism has been used to protect religious diversity in a variety of ways. The period since World War II has been marked by the emergence of new forms of federalism, such as the post-modern confederation. In many cases the constituent states of these confederal arrangements have had dominant or even established religions of their own differing from those of their associates co-existing under the religiously neutral framework of the confederation. As the relationship between religion and state continues to undergo reevaluation, federalism adds to the range of possibilities for accommodating religious diversity. (Original abstract - amended)

In the context of what is generally referred to as a globalizing world, we have become accustomed to speak of new forms of multilevel governance. The paradigmatic shift from government to governance signals the presumable end of the modern Westphalian state system in which the governments of territorial nation-states held exclusive or sovereign governing powers (Hueglin 1999). Instead, we now detect that acts of governing are carried out by a plurality of governmental and nongovernmental actors below and above the nation-state. Since these acts, by international organizations as well as regional governments and civic movements, affect citizens directly, a growing democratic deficit of accountability has been recognized. Democratic political theory and practice therefore have begun a search for viable models of global democratic governance. By recognizing territorial group rights alongside with individual rights and freedoms, federalism, or, more precisely, the theory and practice of the modern federal state, provide such a model in principle. This is by no means undisputed. In his search for models of cosmopolitan democracy, David Held, perhaps the most prominent global democracy theorist at the moment, had to admit that he substituted "federal" for "cosmopolitan" because of the controversial meaning of federalism in Europe (1992), and especially so in Britain where federalism, with the American model in mind, was seen as synonymous with federal government and centralization. In newly federalizing polities, however, Spain, Belgium and South Africa among others, federalism is understood as a safeguard of local and regional autonomy, or, more generally, as a means to the organized recognition of territorial group rights and their democratic inclusion into the body politic. In the context of globalization, it would have to mean both, as it of course always does, the establishment of effective and democratic governance on a world scale, and at the same time the retention of significant levels of autonomy and self-government for states, regions, localities and other collective actors. In this presentation I want to address three questions: 1. What exactly is globalization and does it exist? 2. What exactly is federalism and why do we need it? 3. What kind of federal institutions can serve global governance? ; Departamento de Economía

Federalism & consociationalism are useful means of understanding political systems. Both are based on compound majoritarianism rather than simple majoritarianism, & both represent modern attempts to accommodate democratic complexity & pluralism, but the two systems are not quite symmetrical, & territorial organization is not the only characteristic that differentiates them. Federalism relates to the form of a polity, while consociationalism relates to the character of a regime. To the extent that federalism may also function as the character of a regime, federalism & consociationalism may be more symmetrical. One of the ambiguities of federalism is that it is often both form & regime. Consociationalism, however, relates only to regime. 1 Table, 5 Figures. HA