Federalism Disad



Download 0.57 Mb.
Page24/56
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size0.57 Mb.
1   ...   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   ...   56

Federalism K to Indonesian Economy




Federalism is key to an economically healthy Indonesia.


Roland White, Senior Public Sector Specialist with the World Bank. AND, Paul Smoke, Associate Professor of Public Finance and Planning @ NYU Wagner. 2005. The World Bank Report: East Asia Decentralizes. “Making Local Government Work.” http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPDECEN/Resources/dc-full-report.pdf

East Asia’s remarkable achievements in economic growth and poverty reduction over the past 30 years can be attributed largely to significant public investment in human capital formation and infrastructure, and to the establishment of a regulatory environment conducive to private enterprise.1With decentralization, subnational governments are now at the heart of a range of investment, fiscal, and regulatory activities that affect both the pace and quality of economic growth. For example, they are now responsible for planning and financing economic infrastructure, such as local roads and irrigation schemes, and for regulating and taxing businesses. In some East Asian countries, such as Cambodia, the role of local and regional authorities in these areas is still limited. But in most, including China and Indonesia, it has become crucial.


Federalism Good – War

Federalism solves war

Calabresi ‘95


(Steven G., Assistant Prof – Northwestern U., Michigan Law Review, Lexis)

Small state federalism is a big part of what keeps the peace in countries like the United States and Switzerland. It is a big part of the reason why we do not have a Bosnia or a Northern Ireland or a Basque country or a Chechnya or a Corsica or a Quebec problem. 51 American federalism in the end is not a trivial matter or a quaint historical anachronism. American-style federalism is a thriving and vital institutional arrangement - partly planned by the Framers, partly the accident of history - and it prevents violence and war. It prevents religious warfare, it prevents secessionist warfare, and it prevents racial warfare. It is part of the reason why democratic majoritarianism in the United States has not produced violence or secession for 130 years, unlike the situation for example, in England, France, Germany, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, or Spain. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that is more important or that has done more to promote peace, prosperity, and freedom than the federal structure of that great document. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that should absorb more completely the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court.


Federalism promotes consolidation which reduces the risk of war

Calebresi ‘95


[Stephen, Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A. 1980, J.D. 1983, Yale, “Reflections on United States v. Lopez: "A GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED AND ENUMERATED POWERS": IN DEFENSE OF UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ,” 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752, Michigan Law Review, December, 1995]

Internationalist Federalism: Preventing War, Promoting Free Trade, and Exploiting Economies of Scale. So far, I have focused on the advantages of American-style small-state federalism in defusing centrifugal devolutionary tendencies, alleviating majority tyranny, and accentuating crosscutting social cleavages. But what about the advantages of international federalism; what are the advantages of consolidating states into larger federal entities, as happened in North America in 1787 or in Europe in 1957? A first and obvious advantage is that consolidation reduces the threat of war. Because war usually occurs when two or more states compete for land or other resources, a reduction in the number of states also will reduce the likelihood of war. This result is especially true if the reduction in the number of states eliminates land boundaries between states that are hard to police, generate friction and border disputes, and that may require large standing armies to defend. In a brilliant article, Professor Akhil Amar has noted the importance of this point to both to the Framers of our Constitution and to President Abraham Lincoln. n52 Professor Amar shows that they believed a Union of States was essential in North America because otherwise the existence of land boundaries would lead here - as it had in Europe - to the creation of standing armies and ultimately to war. n53 The Framers accepted the old British notion that it was Britain's island situation that had kept her free of war and, importantly, free of a standing army that could be used to oppress the liberties of the people in a way that the British navy never could.



Federalism Good – War
Federalism solves multiple theaters for war and conflict

Norman Ornstein, resident scholar in social and political processes at American Enterprise Institute, Jan-Feb 1992. The American Enterprise, v3 n1 p20(5)



No word in political theory more con­sistently causes eyes to glaze over than “federalism.” Yet no concept is more critical to solving many major political crises in the world right now. The former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Eastern and Western Europe, South Africa, Turkey, the Middle East, and Canada are suffer­ing from problems that could be solved, if solutions are possible, by instituting creative forms of federalism. Federalism is not a sexy concept like “democracy” or “freedom”; it describes a more mundane mechanism that bal­ances the need for a central and coordi­nating authority at the level of a nation-state with a degree of state and local autonomy, while also protecting minority interests, preserving ethnic and regional identification and sensibilities, and allow­ing as much self-government as possible. Federalism starts with governing struc­tures put in place by formal, constitu­tional arrangements, but beyond that it is a partnership that requires trust. Trust can’t be forged overnight by formal ar­rangements, but bad arrangements can exacerbate hostilities and tensions. Good ones can be the basis for building trust. Why is federalism so important now? There are political reasons: the breakup of the old world order has re­leased resentments and tensions that had been suppressed for decades or even cen­turies. Ethnic pride and self-identifica­ tion are surging in many places around the globe. Add to this the easy availabil­ity of weapons, and you have a potent mixture for discontent, instability, and violence. There are also economic con­siderations: simply breaking up existing nation-states into separate entities can­not work when economies are inter­linked in complex ways. And there are humane factors, too. No provinces or territories are ethnically pure. Creating an independent Quebec, Croatia, or Kazakhstan would be uplifting for French Quebecois, Croats, and Kazakhs but terrifying for the large numbers of minorities who reside in these same territories. The only way to begin to craft solu­tions, then, is to create structures that preserve necessary economic links while providing economic independence, to create political autonomy while preserv­ing freedom of movement and individual rights, and to respect ethnic identity while protecting minority rights. Each country has unique problems that require different kinds of federal structures, which can range from a federation that is tightly controlled at the center to a con­federation having autonomous units and a loose central authority. The United States pioneered feder­alism in its Union and its Constitution. Its invention of a federation that bal­anced power between a vigorous national government and its numerous states was every bit as significant an innovation as its instituting a separation of powers was in governance—and defining the federal-state relationship was far more difficult to work out at the Constitutional Con­vention in 1787. The U.S. federalist structure was, obviously, not sufficient by itself to elimi­nate the economic and social disparities between the North and the South. De­spite the federal guarantees built into the Constitution, the divisive questions of states’ rights dominated political conflict from the beginning and resulted ulti­mately in the Civil War. But the federal system did keep conflict from boiling over into disaster for 75 years, and it has enabled the United States to keep its union together without constitutional cri­sis or major bloodshed for the 125 years since the conclusion of the War Between the States. It has also enabled us to me­liorate problems of regional and ethnic discontent. The American form of federalism fits the American culture and historical experience—it is not directly transfer­able to other societies. But if ever there was a time to apply the lessons that can be drawn from the U.S. experience or to create new federal approaches, this is it. What is striking is the present number of countries and regions where deep-seated problems could respond to a new focus on federalism.
1   ...   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   ...   56


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page