Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: comparative conclusion

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dardanelli, P., Kincaid, J., Fenna, Alan, Kaiser, A., Lecours, A., Singh, A.
Format: Journal Article
Published: OUP 2019
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/74895
_version_ 1848763403121721344
author Dardanelli, P.
Kincaid, J.
Fenna, Alan
Kaiser, A.
Lecours, A.
Singh, A.
author_facet Dardanelli, P.
Kincaid, J.
Fenna, Alan
Kaiser, A.
Lecours, A.
Singh, A.
author_sort Dardanelli, P.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
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.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T11:02:54Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-74895
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T11:02:54Z
publishDate 2019
publisher OUP
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-748952020-07-22T04:50:23Z Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: comparative conclusion Dardanelli, P. Kincaid, J. Fenna, Alan Kaiser, A. Lecours, A. Singh, A. 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. 2019 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/74895 10.1093/publius/pjy037 OUP restricted
spellingShingle Dardanelli, P.
Kincaid, J.
Fenna, Alan
Kaiser, A.
Lecours, A.
Singh, A.
Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: comparative conclusion
title Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: comparative conclusion
title_full Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: comparative conclusion
title_fullStr Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: comparative conclusion
title_full_unstemmed Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: comparative conclusion
title_short Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations: comparative conclusion
title_sort dynamic de/centralization in federations: comparative conclusion
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/74895