Unit 4. The Forms of State: Territorial Distribution of Power PDF

Unit 4. The forms of State: territorial distribution of power. Introduction to Political Science. 2024/2025. Irene Lanzas Index  1. The vertical distribution of power.  2. Territorial models of the State.  3. Federalism and its modalities.  4. Centralised political power and decentralised poli...

Unit 4. The forms of State: territorial distribution of power. Introduction to Political Science. 2024/2025. Irene Lanzas Index  1. The vertical distribution of power.  2. Territorial models of the State.  3. Federalism and its modalities.  4. Centralised political power and decentralised political power.  5. The multiple levels of the State in the 21st century. 1. The vertical distribution of power. (I)  The vertical distribution of state power refers to the territorial distribution of its structure. History and development of nation-state territorial model.  In Europe, the expansion and territorial centralisation of power is a historical phenomenon that began in the Middle Ages.  The liberal state continued this pattern in the 19th century:  To generate a nationalist feeling among citizens that they belonged to a single political community: the nation-state.  Because centralised organisation and a single law are ideal for the internal market and equal rights.  A peripheral administration of the central government is imposed on the territory: system of prefects.  Former autonomous territories (or even independent territories in Italy or Germany) are now subsumed in a centralised liberal state, but there are regions that maintain their aspiration for self-government.  A rejection of this model linked to the desire for more freedom was also born in some groups. 1. The vertical distribution of power. (II)  Some territories that had constituted themselves as states during the 19th century did not follow this pattern because:  They had gained independence from a European metropolis and were wary of a central government that was too powerful.  They were particularly large and sometimes dispersed colonies.  They turn an ideology of exercising power in a more popular and pluralistic way (federalism) into a form of organisation.  Federalism is a flexible formula that helps unity in the face of external threats and internal secessionism.  The prototype of this phenomena is the USA (which inspired Mexico, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, Australia, or India).  In the transition from the 19th to the 20th century and later, with interventionism (New Deal), there will be a centralising evolution in the federations (the centre has more resources and wishes to avoid vetoes). 2. Territorial models of the State. (I)  In small states, state power acts exclusively over the entire territory.  In larger states, there are sub-state territorial areas: cities, counties, regions... These territories have their own political institutions, whose powers are limited to a specific territorial area within the state.  These institutions coexist with the state power that covers the whole territory and maintain different types of links with it.  There are different models of state depending on the dispersion or concentration of power. There are two main ideal types: unitary and federated (compuesto). 2. Territorial models of the State. (II) Not political units, but administrative (that means that Unitary state. they can gestionar cosas como las carreteras y tal pero no temas importantes como la educación)  The original power (sovereignty) clearly resides in a single centre which is projected over the whole territory.  To be more effective, this central power can delegate powers and distribute resources among sub-state demarcations (municipalities, counties, counties, provinces, etc.). This regional level (if it exists) exercises delegated functions of a more administrative nature and can be revoked unilaterally. Resources also depend on the will of the centre. There is a clear vertical hierarchy.  The most common level is the local level: municipalities. They may have more or less competences, but these are always defined by the state, supervised by the state and financed by resources from a state endowment.  This model is mainly found in Europe, e. g. France, and the vast majority of small democracies: Sweden, the Netherlands... 2. Territorial models of the State. (III) Federated state (Estado compuesto).  What distinguishes federated states is that political power is shared between institutions that control different territorial areas.  There is a political agreement at the outset to share power (and not just delegate it) between levels of government, without a single political centre being able to impose itself on the other institutional actors in all fields of activity.  The principle of horizontal coordination between institutions prevails.  The federations conform to this model, but there are strange models such as the United Kingdom or Spain.  In other words, there is a lack of clarity as to where the original power lies and the political autonomy of the regions in exercising their competences.  The federations group together political entities with different names: states (USA), länder (Germany), cantons (Switzerland), provinces (Canada). There are very disparate configurations; there is no single model of federated state. 2. Territorial models of the State. (IV)  Their general characteristics are:  A constitutional distribution of competences that strictly specifies those that belong to the federation and those that belong to the states. Everything that is not entrusted to the federation is assumed to be the responsibility of the federated entities.  The distribution of tax capacity plays an important role in this distribution, indicating how taxes are distributed.  There are federal institutions in the composition of which the federal states are involved.  There is a separate constitution in each of the federated entities.  There is a central or federal court with powers to settle disputes. 2. Territorial models of the State. (V)  Federated states sometimes emerged from the union of different countries, or from the decentralisation of previously unitary states.  In the more consolidated states, the tendency has been to intensify cooperation between the federation and its entities to deal with problems.  Why? It is a matter of providing a better response to the need for the adequacy of singularised social demands and greater ease of accountability.  There are particular models of federated states, such as Spain or the United Kingdom. Their main difference with federal States is that the competences assigned to sub-State entities, and those reserved to the State and those shared, are delimited. 2. Territorial models of the State. (VI) Confederations as a particular case.  Confederations cannot be considered a type of state. Strictly speaking, they are groupings of previously existing states which (without disappearing) decide to act jointly on specific political matters.  Any confederal decision must have the unanimous agreement of all the member states (right of veto for each of them).  The highest governing body of the confederation is made up of representatives of each state, who act as ambassadors. Its characteristics, therefore, are:  Voluntary membership (right of independence or expulsion).  The centre does not have original power but only delegated power.  Decisions by qualified majorities or even unanimity.  Confederations were the USA (1777-1787) or Switzerland (1291-1847). Historical confederations were unstable because of the difficulty of reconciling state interests. Perhaps the closest thing to the confederal model today is the European Union. 3. Federalism and its modalities.  Federal state is the paradigm of the federated state, and the most common form of State.  The modalities of federalism are:  Dual federalism, typical of American cases, such as the USA or Argentina, is based on the existence of separate spheres of power based on the distribution of different policies.  In both the USA and Germany, the original pure models have in practice evolved into cooperative federalism to avoid tensions (federal loyalty).  Executive federalism, typical of European cases, such as Germany or Switzerland, is based on legislative centralisation (Bundestag/Bundesrat) and political decentralisation.  In states with plural national identities, such as Canada, there is an added element of complexity that has been addressed by the formula of asymmetrical federalism (some provinces have more autonomy than others). 4. Centralised political power and decentralised political power. (I) The benefits of centralised political power.  General interest. Only a strong central government can impose the interest of the national community as a whole over that of its parts: territories, ethnicities or groups. A weak centre leads to rivalry and can break the unity of the nation.  Homogeneity. Free movement (market unity) and equal rights among citizens are only possible with uniform laws, education systems and public services.  Solidarity. The centre can redistribute resources between the more and less prosperous parts of the state (promotes equality).  Economies of scale. A centre is needed to reduce costs in the management of elements that help economic prosperity: currency, infrastructure, taxation system, etc. 4. Centralised political power and decentralised political power. (II) The benefits of decentralised political power.  Legitimacy of power. Decisions are taken close to those to whom they are addressed, are more intelligible and able to adapt to individualised demands (very important if there are national minorities to accommodate). Authority is better accepted.  Effectiveness. Decisions are taken close to their destination and policies can be better adapted to the specific characteristics of a territory (idea of subsidiarity).  Civic culture. Decisions are taken close to home and it is easier to participate in the decision-making process; this generates information, civic education and social capital (Tocqueville, Putnam).  Division of powers. Decentralisation would be an added element in the liberal system of checks and balances that avoids the potential tyranny of a powerful central government and thus protects freedom. 5. The multiple levels of the State in the 21st century. (I)  The complexity of contemporary challenges (globalisation) questions the traditional form of homogenous state sovereignty and favours the multilevel distribution of power, which requires managing intergovernmental relations (IGRs):  Local level (there is a generalised tendency to strengthen city councils as elected bodies, although they often suffer from problems of resources due to their small scale).  Regional level (even states such as France are decentralising).  National level (still retains pre-eminence).  International or supranational level (especially in Europe, where an international treaty comes to have direct effect on citizens).  However, the principle of subsidiarity presupposes that a local community can resolve by itself the issues of collective interest that it faces. It is only when it proves incapable of doing so that the intervention of a higher territorial political body should be called upon.  This double movement of integration and distribution configures a complex political map. The new configuration combines elements of both models: it tries to balance the integration of the unitary model and the pluralism of the composite or federal model. Politics develops through networks of interdependence and exchange.  5. The multiple levels of the State in the 21st century. (II) The European Union as a supranational territorial level.  Why member states created supranational institutions? different governments  Intergovernmentalism vs. supranationalism. sees some aspects of sovereignty ceded to a higher body working together without ceding any sovereignty  The EU provides the opportunity for its member states to respond to problems that they are not able to address in isolation.  Problems of opacity, democratic deficit and coordination.  Globalisation favours European integration but there is much resistance to progress in certain areas.