Suchergebnisse

Under the pressure of globalization we appear to be in the midst of a paradigm shift from a world of nation‐states to one in which federalism provides the closest political approximation to the complex diversity of the contemporaryworld. In this context the Forum of Federations, as its first major activity, held an international conference at Mont Tremblant, Quebec, 5‐8 October 1999, on 'Federalism in an Era of Globalization'. The articles in this issue of the International Social Science Journal are drawn from among the many presentations and back‐ground papers at that conference, and provide an insight into a range of salient issues within contemporary federations.

Concurrent contemporary pressures for both larger and smaller political units have contributed to the appeal of federal political systems as a way of reconciling both these pressures and of accommodating social diversity within a polity. Among the major federal institutional models that have resulted have been unions, constitutionally decentralised unions, federations, confederations, federacies, associated states, condominiums, leagues, joint functional authorities, and hybrids. Furthermore, within each of these forms there has been considerable variation. Among federations, the issues in their design that have affected their operation have been: the number and character of the constituent units, the distribution of legislative and executive authority and financial resources, the degree of symmetry or asymmetry in the powers allocated to constituent units, the form and structure of the common federative institutions, the role of courts as adjudicative bodies, the constitutional recognition of individual and collective minority rights, and the processes for intergovernmental consultation, cooperation, and coordination. The successes and failures of federations during the past half‐century point to four major lessons, which have a bearing on the ability of federations and more broadly federal systems to reconcile and manage social diversity.

Under the pressure of globalization, we appear to be in the midst of a paradigm shift from a world of nation-states to one in which federalism provides the closest political approximation to the complex diversity of the contemporary world. In this context, the Forum of Federations, as its first major activity, held an international conference at Mont Tremblant, Quebec, 5-8 Oct 1999, on "Federalism in an Era of Globalization." The articles in this issue of the International Social Science Journal are drawn from among the many presentations & background papers at that conference, & provide an insight into a range of salient issues within contemporary federations. 2 References. Adapted from the source document.

Concurrent contemporary pressures for both larger & smaller political units have contributed to the appeal of federal political systems as a way of reconciling both these pressures & of accommodating social diversity within a polity. Among the major federal institutional models that have resulted have been unions, constitutionally decentralized unions, federations, confederations, federacies, associated states, condominiums, leagues, joint functional authorities, & hybrids. Further, within each of these forms there has been considerable variation. Among federations, the issues in their design that have affected their operation have been the number & character of the constituent units, distribution of legislative & executive authority & financial resources, degree of symmetry or asymmetry in the powers allocated to constituent units, form & structure of the common federative institutions, role of courts as adjudicative bodies, constitutional recognition of individual & collective minority rights, & the processes for intergovernmental consultation, cooperation, & coordination. The successes & failures of federations during the past half-century point to four major lessons, which have a bearing on the ability of federations & more broadly federal systems to reconcile & manage social diversity. 1 Table, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

This was the second in a series of three conferences on public policy, organised by the University of East Africa and financed by the Ford Foundation, whose aim is to bring together policy-makers and academics for discussions on major public issues.In attendance were delegations, of at least a dozen each, from Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika, consisting mainly of Cabinet Ministers, parliamentary secretaries, other M.P.s, and civil servants, as well as representatives of public corporations, political parties, and trade unions. Small delegations from Ethiopia, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Southern Rhodesia, and Zanzibar were also invited. A group of 10 'visiting specialists' from overseas with experience of federal systems and problems elsewhere were invited to take part. Among these were six economists: Ursula Hicks and Arthur Hazlewood from Oxford, Pitamber Pant of the Indian Planning Commission, Vladimir Kollontai from Moscow, Jan Auerhan from Prague, and Benton Massell (who was unable to attend but contributed a paper) from the United States. The others were a lawyer, S. A. de Smith from the London School of Economics, and three political scientists, Arthur MacMahon of Columbia University, A. H. Birch from Hull University, and myself. A group of a dozen 'local specialists' drawn mainly from E.A.C.S.O. and from the economists, lawyers, and political scientists at the University Colleges in East Africa also presented papers and played a significant role in the discussions. The total number of participants, including 22 observers, amounted to over 90.