The Theory and Practice of Contestatory Federalism

James A. Gardner
{"title":"The Theory and Practice of Contestatory Federalism","authors":"James A. Gardner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3068259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Madisonian theory holds that a federal division of power is necessary to the protection of liberty, but that federalism is a naturally unstable form of government organization that is in constant danger of collapsing into either unitarism or fragmentation. Despite its inherent instability, this condition may be permanently maintained, according to Madison, through a constitutional design that keeps the system in equipoise by institutionalizing a form of perpetual contestation between national and subnational governments. The theory, however, does not specify how that contestation actually occurs, and by what means. \n \nThis paper investigates Madison’s hypothesis by documenting the methods actually deployed on the ground to influence or to thwart national policy making used by subnational units in nine federal or quasi-federal states: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States. \n \nThe study produces two notable findings. First, the evidence confirms Madison’s prediction that subnational units in federal states will from time to time assert themselves against national power – ambition does appear to counteract, or at least to be deployed against, ambition. Second, the data show strikingly that subnational units in federal states have energetically developed a great variety of methods to attempt to shape, influence, or thwart national policies. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that subnational units have not confined themselves to the use of tools of influence provided by their constitutions, but have in many cases creatively developed new tools of influence outside of the formal constitutional scheme. This phenomenon raises the possibility that Madison’s institutional prescription for constitutional stabilization may have the perverse effect of creating the conditions for constitutional destabilization instead. This conclusion in turn throws doubt on the Madisonian premise that constitutions can, through careful engineering, be made to stabilize themselves at their initial design specifications.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"57 1","pages":"507-588"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3068259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Madisonian theory holds that a federal division of power is necessary to the protection of liberty, but that federalism is a naturally unstable form of government organization that is in constant danger of collapsing into either unitarism or fragmentation. Despite its inherent instability, this condition may be permanently maintained, according to Madison, through a constitutional design that keeps the system in equipoise by institutionalizing a form of perpetual contestation between national and subnational governments. The theory, however, does not specify how that contestation actually occurs, and by what means. This paper investigates Madison’s hypothesis by documenting the methods actually deployed on the ground to influence or to thwart national policy making used by subnational units in nine federal or quasi-federal states: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States. The study produces two notable findings. First, the evidence confirms Madison’s prediction that subnational units in federal states will from time to time assert themselves against national power – ambition does appear to counteract, or at least to be deployed against, ambition. Second, the data show strikingly that subnational units in federal states have energetically developed a great variety of methods to attempt to shape, influence, or thwart national policies. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that subnational units have not confined themselves to the use of tools of influence provided by their constitutions, but have in many cases creatively developed new tools of influence outside of the formal constitutional scheme. This phenomenon raises the possibility that Madison’s institutional prescription for constitutional stabilization may have the perverse effect of creating the conditions for constitutional destabilization instead. This conclusion in turn throws doubt on the Madisonian premise that constitutions can, through careful engineering, be made to stabilize themselves at their initial design specifications.
竞争联邦制的理论与实践
麦迪逊理论认为,联邦权力划分对保护自由是必要的,但联邦制是一种自然不稳定的政府组织形式,它不断面临崩溃为统一主义或分裂的危险。根据麦迪逊的说法,尽管存在固有的不稳定性,但通过宪法设计,通过将国家和地方政府之间的永久竞争形式制度化,使制度保持平衡,这种状况可能会永久保持。然而,该理论并没有具体说明这种争论实际上是如何发生的,以及通过什么方式发生的。本文通过记录九个联邦或准联邦州(阿根廷、奥地利、比利时、加拿大、德国、意大利、西班牙、瑞士和美国)的地方单位为影响或阻挠国家政策制定而实际部署的方法,对麦迪逊的假设进行了调查。这项研究得出了两个显著的发现。首先,证据证实了麦迪逊的预测,即联邦州的国家以下单位将不时地对抗国家权力——野心似乎确实会抵消,或者至少会被部署来对抗野心。其次,数据惊人地表明,联邦州的国家以下单位积极开发了各种方法,试图塑造、影响或阻挠国家政策。事实上,证据表明,国家以下各级单位并没有局限于使用其宪法提供的影响力工具,而是在许多情况下创造性地在正式宪法制度之外开发了新的影响力工具。这一现象增加了一种可能性,即麦迪逊为宪法稳定开出的制度处方可能会产生不利影响,反而为宪法不稳定创造条件。这一结论反过来又对麦迪逊的前提提出了质疑,即通过精心设计,可以使宪法稳定在最初的设计规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信