Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T21:58:58.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federal Political Systems and Federal Societies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Michael B. Stein
Michael B. Stein
Affiliation:
McGill University in Montreal
Get access

Extract

Until these recent studies by Riker, Watts, and Wildavsky appeared, the theory of federalism was embodied largely in the work of K. C. Wheare. Wheare published the first truly pathbreaking book in the comparative study of federalism shortly after World War II. He defined federalism as that system of government in which the federal and regional governments are both coordinate and independent. In applying this definition, he stressed the sharp division in the powers and functions of two coequal sovereignties as a basis for classifying systems of government as federal. Wheare's definition was derived primarily from his analysis of die American Constitution and, in particular, its formally sharp division of powers between national and state governments.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , July 1968 , pp. 721 - 747
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Federal Government (Oxford 1946)Google Scholar; the fourth edition, cited hereafter, was published in 1963.

2 Ibid., chaps. 6–8.

3 Watts was hamstrung by lack of information about informal political processes within the new federations. This point is made below.

4 The distinction between pure power political relationships and sociopolitical patterns of action is often blurred in the literature. By sociopolitical patterns of action I mean all those behavior patterns that, directly or indirectly, contribute to authoritative decision-making in a society. Pure power political relationships are those that specifically involve power, authority, and rule, defined in a coercive sense.

5 Deutsch and others, Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton 1957), 58Google Scholar.

6 A. H. Birch makes this point in his excellent review of Riker (Wildavsky, pp. 59ff.).

7 See above.

8 A confederal structure is one in which the central decision-making authority is subordinate in power political terms to the regional or local decision-making units. A unitary structure is one in which regional and local units are subordinate to the central authority. In a federal structure the two authorities are in approximate power balance.

9 A Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (Ottawa 1965), 13Google Scholar. The Preamble reads: “Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, is passing through the greatest crisis in its history. The source of the crisis lies in the Province of Quebec.” It is also interesting that the Commissioners describe Canada as a nation-state containing “two societies” ibid., chap. 6.).

10 Smelser, Neil J., Theory of Collective Behavior (New York 1963), 14ftCrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Pinard, Maurice, “One-Party Dominance and Third Parties”, Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXXIH (August 1967), 358–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Ibid., 361.

12 M. Lévesque has since formed his own independence movement, Le Mouvement Souverainte Association (MAS). It is presently in the process of negotiating an alliance with the other two independence parties, the RN and RIN.

13 This poll, which has not yet been published, was conducted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.