How to not speak the ‘F‐word’: Federalism between mirage and imperative in the euro crisis

The recent financial and debt crisis has resuscitated the debate about European federalism – a theme that seemed not to have survived the painful constitutional adventure that ended with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. With the adoption of significant policy and institutional measures for tightening macroeconomic and budgetary coordination (including a constitutionally enshrined debt brake), the reforms of the monetary union have undisputedly brought the European Union further on the path towards an ever closer union. In an era where EU integration has been increasingly politicised, and Euroscepticism has been on the rise and exploited by anti‐system parties, national leaders have to face a political hiatus and respond to increased needs for symbolic and discursive legitimation of further federalisation. This is all the more crucial for French and German leaders who have brokered the main decisions during the crisis of the eurozone. Against this background, the purpose of this article is not to assess whether, or to what extent, the recent reforms of economic and monetary union have made the EU more federal. Rather, the purpose is to tackle the following puzzle: How have EU leaders legitimised the deepening of federal integration in a context where support for more European federalism is at its lowest? To elucidate this, a lexicographic discourse analysis is conducted based on all speeches held by the German Chancellor Merkel and the two French Presidents Sarkozy and Hollande, previous to, or after European summits from early 2010 until the spring of 2013. The findings indicate that federalism is both taboo and pervasive in French and German leaders' discourse. The paradox is barely apparent, though. While the ‘F‐word’ is rarely spoken aloud, two distinctive visions co‐exist in the French and German discourse. The coming of age of a political union through constitutional federalism is pictured as ineluctable, yet as a distant mirage out of reach of today's decision makers. At the same time, the deepening of functional federalism in order to cope with economic interdependence is a ubiquitous imperative that justifies further integration. The persisting gap between the constitutional and the functional vision of European federalism has crucial implications. Insofar as the Union is held responsible for not delivering successful economic policy, political leaders will fail to legitimise both functional and constitutional federalism.     

The Federalism Debate

These papers examine current Australian federalism from the perspectives of an academic and a practitioner. Both acknowledge the opportunities arising from the current White Paper process, as well as challenges in the face of substantial cuts of proposed funding from the Commonwealth to the States. They insist upon the need for renewed commitment to the idea of federalism, and the importance of sustainable fiscal arrangements within the federation. Challenges in Reforming Australian federalism reminds us of the kind of federalism operative in Australia – concurrent, not coordinate – and develops reform proposals accordingly. Ten Steps to a Better Federation offers a range of ideas from a former state premier, drawing on his experience as both a participant at Council of Australian Government (COAG) and, later, Chair of the COAG Reform Council.     

Federalization with a Constitutional Guarantee to Secession: Controversies,Paradoxes and Imponderables in Ethiopia

Ethiopia's federal design has a number of anomalies interesting for comparative federalism. The explicit right to secede provided to member states has become, however, real political dynamite in the country. This article deals with this right, its constitutionalization, its constitutional and ideological underpinnings, and its practical impacts on federal construction in the country for the last two decades. It challenges the political expediency views on its constitutionalization and argues that the inclusion of the right in the federal constitution is motivated by ideological reasons. By having a look at the powers member states are provided by this ‘generous' constitution, it reveals its staggering paradoxes. As far as the practical impacts of the right are concerned, the hefty controversy the constitutionalization of the right has continued creating in the country, the article argues, is a significant federal nuisance.     

State Policy and National Representation: Marijuana Politics in American Federalism

Members of Congress represent geographically demarcated districts embedded in subnational policy environments. Drawing on policy feedback literature and literature on congressional representation, I argue that, because of this institutional configuration, subnational policy adoption can affect national representation. More specifically, policy reforms in the states they represent can increase pressures members face from organized groups and individuals in their constituencies to promote aligned federal policies. Empirically, I examine the effects of state marijuana legalization. The inferential design leverages differences across the states in statewide citizen initiative institutions, which provides exogenous variation in legalization. Instrumental variables analysis indicates legalization influenced pro-marijuana bill sponsorship and roll calls in the 116th Congress. The evidence points to growing influence of industry in legalizing states—including the ability to mobilize employees and customers—as the key mechanism, thus underscoring the importance of a political economy perspective for studying interdependencies in American federalism.     

Do Provincial Governors Control National Legislators? Quasi-Experimental Evidence of Argentine Federalism

Do governors control the behaviour of legislators from their provinces and parties in the national congress? The aim of the article is to test gubernatorial subnational political influence on national legislators. I first discuss the problems of the logic behind empirical exercises that measure the legislative influence of governors. Then the study tests gubernatorial influence using quasi-experimental evidence from Argentina, a federalism that bears all the hallmarks for governors to be central actors in the legislative arena. The results support the hypothesis that governors influence the behaviour of legislators from their provinces and parties in the national congress.