Governance in the Americas: Decentralization, Democracy, and Subnational Government in Brazil, Mexico, and the USA

6. The Past, Present, and Future of Subnational Governments and Federalism

C H A P T E R S I X The Past, Present, and Future of Subnational Governments and Federalism Peter K. Spink, Peter M.Ward, and Robert H.Wilson The principal question posed in this study has been the effect of decentralization and of changes in democratic practice on the efficacy of subnational policy making: that is, the ability and readiness of subnational governments to respond to the issues and concerns of the moral commonwealth . In this final chapter our intention is not to revisit directly the specific conclusions reached in each of the previous chapters; rather, we wish to draw back and look at some of the key themes that have emerged across the experiences of the three countries. First, we discuss the tensions created by decentralization and the recasting of federalism. Second, we offer an overview of what the newfound practices and responsibilities of subnational government mean for the nature and efficacy of policy making. This is where we also return to our opening question about the relative efficacy of subnational policy making. Third, having examined past and present experiences of federalism and subnational governments, we look to the future and ask: Whither federalism? How are the structures and processes that we have described in this book likely to evolve as these subnational governments become ever more embedded within a globalized political system—albeit often within discrete regional and hemispheric blocs? 248 The Past, Present, and Future 249 Tensions of Centralization and Decentralization The decentralization debate is affecting many countries, not only those with a federalist model. For example, the new institutional architecture of the confederation of nation-states in the European Union is built around a bottom-up governance structure predicated upon the concept of subsidiarity: retaining as much governance and policy implementation as possible at the local and subregional levels and passing upwards only those functions that, perforce, can best be managed at that higher level. But change and the implementation of new dimensions of representation and participation invoke tensions and create resistances. Our overview of the evolution of federalism in the three countries over two centuries (see chapter 2) underscored those tensions and dynamics, alerting us to the danger of assuming that decentralization is a linear process or that there is a single dynamic or pattern of its implementation. Seen from afar, the dynamic of decentralization—to use a different metaphor—resembles a pendulum that may appear to have been swinging from centralized to decentralized government structures. But closer up, at the level of our three countries, we observe quite marked differences in swing: closer still, within each country, we can see many different pendulums swinging in different ways across different policy areas. Our “pendulum” metaphor points to certain tensions created as different actors promote or resist the processes of decentralization and devolution . Such tensions are an inevitable part of this process and should not be viewed as negative or as peculiar to federal systems of government. All systems of governance are likely to demonstrate tensions and volatility , and these are an outcome of a number of overarching changes, as we point out above. Some pressures are unidirectional and derive from increasing globalization, but even here there is debate about whether they produce an overall convergence of political and socioeconomic outcomes across countries (Ritzer 2004) or, as we tend to view it, they have more regionally and locally differentiated impacts as global processes intersect with local ones. Other pressures are bidirectional between levels and branches of governments. These can have both positive and negative impacts on policy making depending in large part upon the “elasticity” that governments demonstrate to accommodate change and adjust. 250 SPINK, WARD, WILSON Our historical overview found that the colonial legacies in each of the three countries have significantly influenced the specific evolution of federalism. The creation of a central government followed independence from colonial powers in the three countries. In Brazil and the USA, the consolidation of a nation was far from automatic, and the regional nature of economic interests and political power has influenced the evolution of governmental structure. Although a centralizing authority, dating from the colonial period, was more prominent in the Mexican case, Mexico too has had to address the challenge of core-periphery relations in its governmental structure. Of course, an important part of the history of the three countries lies within their different legal traditions: common law in the USA and the...