Federalisms Advantages

Fosters state loyalties: Many Americans feel close ties to their home state, and
federalism maintains that connection by giving power to the states.
Practices pragmatism: Running a country the size of the United States, with such a
diverse population, is much easier to do if power is given to local officials. Likewise,
state and local officials are closer to the problems of their areas, so it makes sense
for them to choose policies to solve those problems.
Creates laboratories of democracy: State governments can experiment with policies,
and other states (and the federal government) can learn from their successes and
failures.
Example: California has frequently led the nation in environmental regulations:
Many measures adopted by California are subsequently adopted by other states.
And during the 1990s, Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson experimented with
welfare policy, and those experiments influenced federal welfare reform.
Leads to political stability: By removing the national government from some
contentious issue areas, federalism allowed the early U.S. government to achieve
and maintain stability.
Encourages pluralism: Federal systems expand government on national, state, and
local levels, giving people more access to leaders and opportunities to get involved
in their government.
Ensures the separation of powers and prevents tyranny: Even if one person or group
took control of all three branches of the federal government, federalism ensures
that state governments would still function independently. Federalism, therefore,
fulfills the framers vision of a governmental structure that ensures liberty.
Federalisms Disadvantages
Critics argue that federalism falls short in two ways:
Prevents the creation of a national policy: The United States does not have a single
policy on issues; instead, it has fifty-one policies, which often leads to confusion.
Leads to a lack of accountability: The overlap of the boundaries among national and
state governments makes it tricky to assign blame for failed policies.
Citizen Ignorance
Critics argue that federalism cannot function well due to ignorance. Most Americans
know little about their state and local governments, and turnout in state and local
elections is often less than 25 percent. Citizens consequently often ignore state and

local governments, even though these governments have a lot of power to affect
peoples lives.
http://m.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/americangovernment/federalism/section4.rhtml

Advantages:
1. Federal laws can be written and enforced within the respective states
2. Uniform currency system easy to create and manage
3. Uniform immigration policies are written and (hopefully) enforced
4. Military is more powerful
5. Trade agreements gain international respect, unlike trade agreements did under
the anti-federalist Articles of Confederation

Disadvantages:
1. Individual states lose their identity to a degree under the title of United States
2. Local interests are sometimes sacrificed on the altar of federalism
3. Rebellion against federal authority is a constant threat (this of course is counterbalanced with a strong federal military.)
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091013121443AAO9Iky
Benefits of Federalism:
As a Protection Against Tyranny One of the most important points of federalism in
dividing the power between the national government and state governments, and
spreading the national governments power among three branches that serve as a
check and balance on each other, is that it serves as a deterrent to tyranny and
runaway power. The protections we have in our system against a tyrannical,
runaway government are one of the most important points to why the system was
designed the way it was.
Diffusing Power The form of federalism that we have in our country, where power
is shared with state governments, and where the federal government is separated
into three branches, serves as a means to make sure that all power is not

centralized into a single person or group of people, since excessive power among a
single group tends to be corrupting.
Increasing Citizen Participation By not centralizing all power into the hands of a
national government, but sharing that power with state governments, which are
closer to the level of the common citizen, our founders actually increased a citizens
ability to effect their government, government policy, and lawmaking.
More Efficient When some of the power of the government is dispersed among the
states, giving states the right to solve some of their own problems, you allow for
more efficiency within the system. To try to have a national solution to all problems,
which could be refered to as a cookie-cutter method of law and policy making, you
end up with solutions that are more effective in some states, and less effective in
others. To allow states to create solutions to their own problems, using policies and
laws that work best in their state, means that each state can come up with its own
solution, making government more efficient.
Conflict Management By allowing different communities and states to create their
own policies, they allow for people with irreconcilable differences, or very strong
disagreements, to live in separate areas, and create their own solutions, or policies,
that would be totally disagreeable to the other people in other states or regions of
the country.
Innovation in Law and Policy is Encouraged By allowing for many state
governments, different sets of policies can be tried, and the ones found most
effective at solving its problems can then be implemented in other states, or on the
national level. Imagine Christopher Columbus trying to get funding to voyage across
the Atlantic Ocean if there was a unified Europe back then, with its head saying no!
to him; instead, he had several governments from which he could try to get his
funding he got turned down by several governments before Spain gave him the
okay. The same principle applies today with our many states something that is
rejected in one state can most likely be tried in another state, with competition
leading the way, based on effectiveness of those laws.
State Governments Can be More Responsive to Citizen Needs The closer a
government entity is to its citizens, the more likely it is the respond to the needs of
citizens. States are more likely to listen to citizen needs, and respond to them, than
the national government would be.
Negatives of Federalism:

It had a History of Protecting Slavery and Segregation This is often cited as one of
the main detriments of the system of federalism that we have in this country, that

since slavery was a state issue, it was something that could not be removed on the
national level.
It Allows for Inequalities Between Different States For example, instead of
education funding throughout the country being the same, since it is a state issue,
some states will spend more, per capita, on education than other states, causing
what could be considered a disparity. The same goes for other things, as well, such
as taxes, health care programs, and welfare programs.
The Blockage of Nationalist Policies by States States can fight against the
existence of certain national laws by challenging them in court, or going out of their
way to not enforce those national laws, or even deliberately obstructing
enforcement of national laws.
Racing to the Bottom One argument given is that states will compete with each
other in an oppositional way, by reducing the amount of benefits they give to
welfare recipients compared to, say, a neighboring state, motivating the
undesirables to go to the neighboring state, thereby reducing their welfare costs
even more. This reduction of state benefits to needy has been deemed the race to
the bottom.
Summary
So, our federalist form of government has several advantages, such as protecting us
from tyranny, dispersing power, increasing citizen participation, and increasing
effectiveness, and disadvantages, such as supposedly protecting slavery and
segregation, increasing inequalities between states, states blocking national
policies, and racing to the bottom in terms of how they treat their citizens. Do the
advantages outweigh the disadvantages? I believe so. I support the system of
federalism, agreeing with the benefits, and doing my best to give counterarguments
to the disadvantages, in order to negate them. All in all, I think our system is
superior even to the parliamentary and cabinet system found in the United
Kingdom, as well the confederation system found in Canada, as well as the one
preceding our present system.
http://www.bloomp.net/articles/benefits_federalism.htm
Federalism -- Definition and Characteristics:
The term "Federalism" -- "federation," "federal union," or "federal system" -- refers
to a federated sovereign state formed by establishment of a closely-knit, or tightlyknit, union of two or more smaller political communities, which, after formation of
the union, are no longer sovereign (completely independent) but do retain a
significant degree of autonomy (partial self-government). The smaller political
communities that are members of the larger federal union possess and exercise a
substantial amount of home rule, but, at the same time, are bound by the

constitution and constitutionally valid laws of the national government, or central

government -- i.e., the general, or common, government over the entire federation
and country.
The fifty smaller regional political communities comprising the membership of the
federal union known as the "United States of America" are officially designated as
"states." And so are the six constituent political units of the federation called the
"Commonwealth of Australia." The ten regional political communities comprising the
federation of Canada are officially designated as "provinces."
There are important features which distinguish federalism from unitary government
on the one hand and from confederal government on the other -- characteristics
that distinguish a federal union from a governmental system characterized by a
very high degree of political centralization as well as from a governmental system
that is almost completely decentralized. The distinguishing features of federalism,
as a set of constitutional power relationships between a country's central
government and the governments of its local or regional political subdivisions, place
the federation somewhere in between the high level of centralization that
characterizes the unitary state and the thoroughgoing decentralization that defines
the confederation..
What are the distinguishing characteristics of federalism?
Unlike a confederation, the general government of a federation -- the national, or
central, government of the federated sovereign state -- has unchallenged
constitutional authority to speak, decide, and act for the entire country in its
relations and dealings with foreign governments. In this sense, the national
government is the sole possessor and exerciser of sovereignty. Only the national
government can operate as the government of a completely independent political
community with absolute power to chart its course in the arena of international
relations.
The smaller regional or local political communities comprising the larger, federated
sovereign community -- the member "states" or "provinces" of the federal union -are not sovereign states (as they would be in a confederation). That is, the smaller
communities are neither completely nor virtually independent. Instead, they are
semiautonomous -- i.e., partially self-governing. They possess autonomy, not
sovereignty. However, the degree of autonomy, or self-government, is substantial.
In the case of a federation, the national constitution -- the constitution over the
whole country -- divides and distributes the constitutional powers of government
between the national government and the constituent political units -- the smaller
communities comprising the larger community. The national constitution recognizes
the existence of two levels of government in the country: (1) the national, or
central, government and (2) the governments of the smaller regional communities.
And the national constitution grants substantial authority to each of the two levels

of government -- national and regional. Each level of government is given the right
to make final decisions on at least some governmental activities and services.
In a federal system, the national constitution protects the right of each level of
government to exist. Legally, neither level of government can destroy the other
level. The U.S.A., for example, has been referred to as "an indestructible union of
indestructible states."
In a federal union, the national constitution gives the central government control
over matters of general, or common, concern to the country as a whole and permits
the constituent political communities to regulate matters of more regional or local
concern.
Neither level of government in a federation receives its powers from other. The
constituent communities do not receive their powers from statutes enacted by the
national legislature. And the national government does not receive its powers from
decisions and actions of the regional legislatures. Both levels of government -national and regional -- receive their respective sets of powers from a common
source, and that common source is the national constitution.
Both levels of government in a federal union operate through their own agents and
exercise power directly over individuals. In a given geographic, or territorial, region
within the country, two different governments -- one national, and the other regional
-- simultaneously govern the same land and people.
Under ordinary conditions within the country, neither level of government in a
federal system is dependent upon the other for enforcement of its decisions within
its own constitutional sphere of authority.

2. Examples of Federal Systems of Government:

Examples of federations in the world today include the United States of America,
the Commonwealth of Australia, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria,
and Switzerland.

FEDERALISM, UNITARY STATE, & CONFEDERATION

1. How Federalism Differs from a Unitary State:

Unitary Government:
The national constitution

Federal System:

The national constitution di-

vests all the constitutional

vides the constitutional pow-

authority of government in

ers of government between the

the central government.

central government and the

constituent units.

Regional or local political

Regional political units re-

units are created by acts

ceive their powers from pro-

of the national legislature

visions of the national con-

and receive their powers

stitution. These powers can

from national legislative

be taken from the regional

statutes. These powers can

be withdrawn from the regional or local units by

the national constitution.

Both levels of government

statutes of the national

legislature.

communities only by amending

must consent to changes in

the national constitution.

The national legislature

can, by statute, abolish or
completely reorganize the
regional units, which exist

The national constitution

protects the right of the
constituent communities to
exist.

and operate at the sufferance of the national government.

2. Examples of Constitutional Democracies That Are Unitary Governments:

Examples of unitary constitutional

http://www.proconservative.net/cunapolsci201partsixb.shtml
Why federalism will be good for the Philippines
WHAT MATTERS MOST By Atty. Josephus B. Jimenez (The Freeman) | Updated April
25, 2016 - 12:00am
6 301 googleplus3 1
One of the strongest reasons why Mayor Digong Duterte's political campaign for the
presidency is making waves is, aside from his strong advocacy against crimes and
drugs, of course, his strategic and trailblazing platform proposing a federal form of
government for the Philippines. In fact, the survey says that most of Mayor
Duterte's supporters are not fixated on his personality or idiosyncrasies but on the
need to introduce a draconian change in governance via federalism. The other
presidential candidates are promising ambitious results by merely seeking to
continue the same way of leading and managing the nation.

Federalism is doing well not only in the United States but also in our close neighbor
in southeastern Asia, Malaysia whose people can be comparable to the Filipinos in
culture, outlook and ways of looking at government. Federalism can assure for us an
authentic and really working local autonomy, not the same old pretension of
devolution today, where major and even tactical decisions are all done in the
imperialistic Metro Manila. The southern regions today are still marginalized
considering that most of the powerful officials are from Luzon.

Today, the president, the vice president, the speaker of the House, the chief justice
and most of the fifteen Supreme Court justices are from Luzon. Most of the cabinet
members are from Luzon. Military officials, bureau directors are almost all from
Luzon. The Visayas and Mindanao citizens are only relied upon as taxpayers, and as
sources of food supplies, mining products, and suppliers of cheap labor both in the
domestic and global labor markets. Even the commanding generals of the army, the
navy, and the air force are all from the north.

Once we are under a federal system, all component states collect their own taxes
and contribute only a small fraction of their revenues to the federal or central
government for only three centralized functions, namely: National Defense,
including the National Police, Justice and Foreign Affairs. All the rest shall be left to
each state, including health, education, labor and employment, trade,
transportation, communication, agriculture, agrarian reform, justice environment,
natural resources. The states will manage mining and forest matters and shall

control all natural resources. Each state will have its own unicameral congress and a
separate court of appeals. There will be only one centralized Supreme Court and
one federal senate with three senators from each state.

We propose the following states:

1. Northern Luzon state composed of Ilocos, Cagayan Valley and Cordillera (voting
population: 5,807,889);

Freeman ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch:

2. Central Luzon (6,055,889);

3. NCR (6,253,249);

4. Calabarzon (7,619,278);

5. Bicol (3,121,661);

6. Mimaropa (1,589,326);

7. Western Visayas (4,242,153);

8. Central Visayas (4,375,756);

9. Eastern Visayas ( 3,121,661 );

10. Northern Mindanao and Caraga (4,088, 4240);

11. Socsargen and Southern Mindanao (4,745,818); and

12. ARMM or Bangsa Moro (1,863,230).

Federalism will result to friendly "coopetition" or "cooperative competition," as well

as synergy and mutual reinforcement. Mayor Duterte is making waves because of
the vast potentials of federalism, his top advocacy.
http://www.philstar.com/freeman-opinion/2016/04/25/1576483/why-federalism-willbe-good-philippines

Menu

EN

Why Federalism may not be good for the Philippines

Federalism for the Philippines is an idea thrown around a lot these days, given the
popularity of Duterte and his staunch support of it. But do we really know what it
means? And is it really what we need?

Xenon Lequin
2K

Many ideas are floating around on the internet from supporters of Duterte about the
merits of federalism for our country. And the principal reason for their support is
that federalism supposedly promotes more equitable distribution of government
revenues under a scheme of "what they collect, they keep," as compared to our
current system, where major tax revenues are centrally administered at the national
level. The current system, they allege, is biased towards NCR when allocating
resources, to the detriment of the other provinces and regions. To sum up their
argument: when taxes are administered at the "state" level in a federal system, the
LGUs and municipalities will have more funds available to them compared to what
they are getting in the current system.

However, supporters of federalism appear to be missing many points relevant to

any kind of such move. I'm afraid even they themselves are not aware of the full
effects of such a transition and what it would mean for our country. I'm not even
sure if many of them realize what the true definition of federalism is, aside from
vaguely understanding it as "autonomous independent states under one federal
governing body." If we look into the question more closely, we will find that the
issues are more complex than they suppose, and the cause and effects are not as
straightforward as they seem, as there are "hidden" (hidden only for the less
informed) factors that would have to be considered.

In the following items, I seek to expound why I do not support federalism, and the
reasons and factors that led to my stance:

1. Federalism does not necessarily solve the issue of unequal distribution of

government revenues, and may potentially worsen it.

It is not as if all the revenues in the current system are being swallowed by NCR and
surrounding regions, to the detriment of the remote provinces, as many federalism
supporters will claim. A large part of the national revenues still go back to the LGUs
through a standardized formula as the IRA (internal revenue allotment). The IRA
system is actually a way to redistribute income from the wealthier communities to
the less wealthier ones: for small municipalities, IRA allocation may finance a
greater part of their budget compared to highly urbanized areas. Because the highly
urbanized areas have greater revenues from other sources, more of their budget
can be financed with these other sources. In the current scheme, it is actually the
"generosity" of the larger cities which contribute to the development of the smaller

communities. If all tax revenues were kept at the point they originated, we might
actually see the wealthier municipalities getting more income and the poorer ones
getting less, resulting in a worsening wealth concentration problem.

While it is true that some of the budget are still allocated at the national level (by
NEDA, for example, which is headed by the president), it is not as if the process is
wholly arbitrary and inherently biased towards NCR. NEDA has regional offices,
which can propose projects for their regions, for the consideration of the national
government. There may be perceived "biases" towards the highly metropolitan
areas, but this may simply be because these are the areas where the funds spent
could generate higher returns. Obviously, metropolitan areas have more people and
more businesses, and thus need more infrastructure and support. It should not be
surprising for us that many of the highly visible projects are there. But if the regions
can make a good case for projects on their locations, they should be able to make a
proposal for it and escalate it to the proper local/regional/national agency for
prioritization and inclusion in the budget.

With the above, I believe that the current system is theoretically sound and overall
does not need a drastic revision (such as shift to federalism). If you feel that your
town/province/region is not getting a lot of projects right now, I don't think it is a
problem with the budgeting and income distribution framework. It is more likely
because some official is embezzling the funds for your town, or the development
officials in your region are sleeping on their jobs. In these cases, it is a problem with
the officials; change government structures and systems all you want; if it is the
same corrupt, lazy and incompetent people running the show, nothing will change.

So, do we need federalism to promote equitable distribution of revenues? It does

not seem so. The current system actually looks good in structure, but what we
urgently need is to implement an effective framework or mechanism of oversight,
accountability and transparency to ensure that our resources are being used fairly
and equitably. Also, the structure of government should be conducive to
transparency and efficiency. Will implementing the federal structure result in more
transparency and efficiency? I think not, as I will discuss in item 3 below.

2. Overall, Federalism would increase the cost of administration and government.

Duterte's supporters often speak of federalism, but I honestly don't have the
vaguest idea of how specifically they want to implement federalism in our country. I
have not seen anything that would describe Duterte's vision of federalism; but,
assuming that we will draw from the US as an example, I believe the key features to
identify such a government would be as follows:

a. Each state will have its own executive department which will carry out the
functions of the government such as taxation, administration of basic services,
budgeting, etc.

b. To check on the power of the executive department, each state should have a
legislative department. This department is responsible for drafting the basic laws of
the state, and for checks-and-balance functions such as approving the state budget
drawn up primarily by the executive.

c. I think you know where this is going, but yes, since each state will have its own
state-specific laws, there should be a state-specific judicial department which is
responsible for interpreting the laws developed by the state legislature.

Whereas previously, the structure of the Philippine government is as follows:

National government > Provincial governments > City/municipality governments >

Barangays

Under federalism, it would now look like the following:

National government > State government > Provincial governments >

City/municipality governments > Barangays

Stating the obvious, the state government needs money to pay for its officials and
its infrastructure. How would the state government get this money? You got it: more
taxes, fees and debt. State taxation is actually also a feature of federalism as
implemented in the US.

It thus seems that proponents of federalism are pushing it supposedly to make more
funds available for their regions and municipalities, but they have failed to consider
the incremental and continuing costs of running this type of government, and the
potential additional burden to citizens in the form of higher taxes.

3. A larger government is not conducive to transparency and efficiency

A large and bloated government is not only costly, as discussed above, but can also
be difficult to oversee, unwieldy and inefficient. Our objective in the Philippines
should be to reduce red tape and bureaucracy and streamline the government, not
to bloat it further by adding an additional layer.

Most modern, innovative businesses make a good case for streamlined, compact
organizations. For example, in my current organization, there are only 6 levels from
the bottom to the top. The advantage of this is that decisions are made faster and
more efficiently (lesser approvals going up) and top level management have a
better grasp of what is occurring at all levels, including the grassroots (better
oversight).

In a compact organization, you would need less resources to control the activities of
each of the members, to ensure that each member is working within established
rules or limits (in another analogy to business, smaller internal audit/operational risk
management group). As the size and complexity of an organization grows, it
becomes more difficult to identify and root out offending members, and
accountability also becomes an issue (with more people, it is harder to identify who
is responsible for what). This is precisely the current state of the Philippines.

To sum up, there is no assurance that LGUs and regions will receive more funding
under a federal system compared to our present system. What is likely to happen
instead is that the revenues of high income communities/regions will rise further,
and those regions who have lower revenue generating capacity may have their
funding reduced. Also, federalism (if implemented in the way I described above) will

impose additional governing costs and inefficiency, since it adds a new layer of
government, and each state will have its own set of governing bodies and functions
independent of other states. Also, taxes will be imposed at both national and state
levels. Finally, the Philippines should be working towards having a more streamlined
and transparent government, but implementing federalism seems to be a step
backwards on this.

What we need to resolve our fundamental governance problems are measures that
enhance transparency, accountability and efficiency of our government, and not a
mere change in the government structure.

http://x.rappler.com/x/xenonlequin/1449355234471-Why-Federalism-may-not-begood-for-the-Philippines