Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: Comparative Conclusions
This article presents the conclusions of the project Why Centralization and Decentralization in Federations?, which analyzed dynamic de/centralization in Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Switzerland, and the United States over their entire life span. It highlights six main conclusions. First, dyna...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Publius 2019-01, Vol.49 (1), p.194-219 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 219 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 194 |
container_title | Publius |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | Dardanelli, Paolo Kincaid, John Fenna, Alan Kaiser, André Lecours, André Singh, Ajay Kumar Mueller, Sean Vogel, Stephan |
description | This article presents the conclusions of the project Why Centralization and Decentralization in Federations?, which analyzed dynamic de/centralization in Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Switzerland, and the United States over their entire life span. It highlights six main conclusions. First, dynamic de/centralization is complex and multidimensional; it cannot be captured by fiscal data alone. Second, while centralization was the dominant trend, Canada is an exception. Third, contrary to some expectations, centralization occurred mainly in the legislative, rather than fiscal, sphere. Fourth, centralization is not only a mid-twentieth century phenomenon; considerable change occurred both before and after. Fifth, variation in centralization across federations appears to be driven by conjunctural causation rather than the net effect of any individual factor. Sixth, institutional properties influence the instruments of dynamic de/centralization but do not significantly affect its direction or magnitude. These findings have important conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications for the study of federalism. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/publius/pjy037 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_publius_pjy037</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48586686</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48586686</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-98f4172eb116747bb3cb7eb5b22e754255abbe332ecc4928a7fba777dac159b13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9j81LwzAYxoMoWKdXb0KPXrq--eqbHqVzKgy86LkkWQopXVuS7lD_eqcdOz088HzwI-SRwppCyfPxaDp_jPnYzsDxiiQUBWZIAa9JAiBUJksJt-QuxhYAeKkwIc-budcHb9ONyyvXT0F3_kdPfuhT36dbt3fh38V7ctPoLrqHs67I9_b1q3rPdp9vH9XLLrMc6JSVqhEUmTOUFqd7Y7g16Iw0jDmUgkmpjXGcM2etKJnS2BiNiHttqSwN5SuyXnZtGGIMrqnH4A86zDWF-o-zPnPWC-ep8LQU2jgN4ZIWSqqiUAX_BVzwUoY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: Comparative Conclusions</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Political Science Complete</source><creator>Dardanelli, Paolo ; Kincaid, John ; Fenna, Alan ; Kaiser, André ; Lecours, André ; Singh, Ajay Kumar ; Mueller, Sean ; Vogel, Stephan</creator><creatorcontrib>Dardanelli, Paolo ; Kincaid, John ; Fenna, Alan ; Kaiser, André ; Lecours, André ; Singh, Ajay Kumar ; Mueller, Sean ; Vogel, Stephan</creatorcontrib><description>This article presents the conclusions of the project Why Centralization and Decentralization in Federations?, which analyzed dynamic de/centralization in Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Switzerland, and the United States over their entire life span. It highlights six main conclusions. First, dynamic de/centralization is complex and multidimensional; it cannot be captured by fiscal data alone. Second, while centralization was the dominant trend, Canada is an exception. Third, contrary to some expectations, centralization occurred mainly in the legislative, rather than fiscal, sphere. Fourth, centralization is not only a mid-twentieth century phenomenon; considerable change occurred both before and after. Fifth, variation in centralization across federations appears to be driven by conjunctural causation rather than the net effect of any individual factor. Sixth, institutional properties influence the instruments of dynamic de/centralization but do not significantly affect its direction or magnitude. These findings have important conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications for the study of federalism.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0048-5950</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1747-7107</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/publius/pjy037</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Publius, 2019-01, Vol.49 (1), p.194-219</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-98f4172eb116747bb3cb7eb5b22e754255abbe332ecc4928a7fba777dac159b13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-98f4172eb116747bb3cb7eb5b22e754255abbe332ecc4928a7fba777dac159b13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5580-7093 ; 0000-0003-1986-1604</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dardanelli, Paolo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kincaid, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fenna, Alan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaiser, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lecours, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Ajay Kumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mueller, Sean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogel, Stephan</creatorcontrib><title>Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: Comparative Conclusions</title><title>Publius</title><description>This article presents the conclusions of the project Why Centralization and Decentralization in Federations?, which analyzed dynamic de/centralization in Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Switzerland, and the United States over their entire life span. It highlights six main conclusions. First, dynamic de/centralization is complex and multidimensional; it cannot be captured by fiscal data alone. Second, while centralization was the dominant trend, Canada is an exception. Third, contrary to some expectations, centralization occurred mainly in the legislative, rather than fiscal, sphere. Fourth, centralization is not only a mid-twentieth century phenomenon; considerable change occurred both before and after. Fifth, variation in centralization across federations appears to be driven by conjunctural causation rather than the net effect of any individual factor. Sixth, institutional properties influence the instruments of dynamic de/centralization but do not significantly affect its direction or magnitude. These findings have important conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications for the study of federalism.</description><issn>0048-5950</issn><issn>1747-7107</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9j81LwzAYxoMoWKdXb0KPXrq--eqbHqVzKgy86LkkWQopXVuS7lD_eqcdOz088HzwI-SRwppCyfPxaDp_jPnYzsDxiiQUBWZIAa9JAiBUJksJt-QuxhYAeKkwIc-budcHb9ONyyvXT0F3_kdPfuhT36dbt3fh38V7ctPoLrqHs67I9_b1q3rPdp9vH9XLLrMc6JSVqhEUmTOUFqd7Y7g16Iw0jDmUgkmpjXGcM2etKJnS2BiNiHttqSwN5SuyXnZtGGIMrqnH4A86zDWF-o-zPnPWC-ep8LQU2jgN4ZIWSqqiUAX_BVzwUoY</recordid><startdate>20190101</startdate><enddate>20190101</enddate><creator>Dardanelli, Paolo</creator><creator>Kincaid, John</creator><creator>Fenna, Alan</creator><creator>Kaiser, André</creator><creator>Lecours, André</creator><creator>Singh, Ajay Kumar</creator><creator>Mueller, Sean</creator><creator>Vogel, Stephan</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5580-7093</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1986-1604</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190101</creationdate><title>Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations</title><author>Dardanelli, Paolo ; Kincaid, John ; Fenna, Alan ; Kaiser, André ; Lecours, André ; Singh, Ajay Kumar ; Mueller, Sean ; Vogel, Stephan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-98f4172eb116747bb3cb7eb5b22e754255abbe332ecc4928a7fba777dac159b13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dardanelli, Paolo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kincaid, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fenna, Alan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaiser, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lecours, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Ajay Kumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mueller, Sean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogel, Stephan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Publius</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dardanelli, Paolo</au><au>Kincaid, John</au><au>Fenna, Alan</au><au>Kaiser, André</au><au>Lecours, André</au><au>Singh, Ajay Kumar</au><au>Mueller, Sean</au><au>Vogel, Stephan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: Comparative Conclusions</atitle><jtitle>Publius</jtitle><date>2019-01-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>194</spage><epage>219</epage><pages>194-219</pages><issn>0048-5950</issn><eissn>1747-7107</eissn><abstract>This article presents the conclusions of the project Why Centralization and Decentralization in Federations?, which analyzed dynamic de/centralization in Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Switzerland, and the United States over their entire life span. It highlights six main conclusions. First, dynamic de/centralization is complex and multidimensional; it cannot be captured by fiscal data alone. Second, while centralization was the dominant trend, Canada is an exception. Third, contrary to some expectations, centralization occurred mainly in the legislative, rather than fiscal, sphere. Fourth, centralization is not only a mid-twentieth century phenomenon; considerable change occurred both before and after. Fifth, variation in centralization across federations appears to be driven by conjunctural causation rather than the net effect of any individual factor. Sixth, institutional properties influence the instruments of dynamic de/centralization but do not significantly affect its direction or magnitude. These findings have important conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications for the study of federalism.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/publius/pjy037</doi><tpages>26</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5580-7093</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1986-1604</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0048-5950 |
ispartof | Publius, 2019-01, Vol.49 (1), p.194-219 |
issn | 0048-5950 1747-7107 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_publius_pjy037 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Political Science Complete |
title | Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: Comparative Conclusions |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T03%3A03%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dynamic%20De/Centralization%20in%20Federations:%20Comparative%20Conclusions&rft.jtitle=Publius&rft.au=Dardanelli,%20Paolo&rft.date=2019-01-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=194&rft.epage=219&rft.pages=194-219&rft.issn=0048-5950&rft.eissn=1747-7107&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/publius/pjy037&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E48586686%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48586686&rfr_iscdi=true |