Teaching Comparative

Good Question

Michael Harvey wrote from his classroom in Abu Dhabi, "I am looking for some help in the difference between decentralization and devolution." I'd guess this is one of those things that came up in class discussion and that wasn't resolved to anyone's satisfaction. It's very understandable since these ideas are obviously related, but apparently not identical. (Did I get that part right?)

Here's how I see it. Add your thoughts by clicking on the comments link at the bottom of this entry.

The difficulty, in this case I think, comes from merging the concepts of devolution, decentralization, and federalism into one amorphous idea. The process of devolution needs to seen as separate from federalism (a decentralized state).

Most governments are unitary. Those of us in the USA have to learn that since we live in a federal system where, constitutionally, the national government is granted some powers, some powers are denied to government, and the rest are reserved to the states and the people. (The Tenth Amendment restates the principle: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.") In other words, the U.S. federal system is decentralized. There are many (at least 51 -- 50 states and the national government) centers of constitutional power.

In unitary governments, there is one center of power. In the UK, it's Parliament. Unitary systems are more hierarchical than decentralized systems.

I usually referred to the unitary nature of U.S. state governments to help my students understand this. Counties, cities, metropolitan authorities, and special-purpose districts are created and their powers defined by state government. A state legislature can change structure and powers of those local governments. (Politics make such changes difficult, but they're legally and constitutionally possible.)

If, in a unitary system, the government gives some power to local authorities, that's devolution. (See Hauss' definition below.)

If a state legislature passes a law expanding the powers of an airport authority or city governments, that's devolution. If the British Parliament gives municipal authorities the power to levy taxes to pay for garbage collection and fire engines, that's devolution. Similarly, if Parliament allows the election of a Scottish Parliament and gives that body taxing and administrative powers, that's devolution.

Those actions look like decentralization. They place decision making power closer to the people affected by or benefiting from the decisions, but they don't create independent centers of power. The British Parliament could dissolve municipal authorities just as a state legislature could disestablish a port authority and take the devolved powers back. Conversely, the U.S. Congress could not turn North Dakota into a Puerto Rico-like federal territory. The U.S. system is decentralized, not unitary.

So, in my mind, devolution is a form of decentralization, but devolution doesn't create a decentralized state. It merely grants legal authority to a more local government body. A decentralized state is one in which legal and political power is constitutionally divided between national and sub-national governments.

Does that help?

References:

Hauss, in the glossary of his 5th edition, defines devolution as "The process of decentralizing power from national governments that stops short of federalism." (p. 528) The concept is cited only once in the index, in the chapter about the UK. Decentralization appears in neither the glossary nor the index. [Hauss, Comparative Politics, Domestic Responses to Global Challenges, 2006]

The AP (4th) edition of Kesselman, Krieger, and Joseph's text does not define devolution, but does define decentralization as "policies that aim to transfer some decision-making power from higher to lower levels of government, typically from the central government to subnational governments." The index does not cite devolution, but does refer readers to decentralization in China (p. I - 3). [Kesselman, Krieger, and Joseph, Introduction to Comparative Politics, 2007]

The AP Edition of Almond and Powell, on the other hand, does not cite devolution in the index (there is no glossary). Decentralization is cited nearly a dozen times in the first half of the book (mostly in the UK chapter). [Almond, Dalton, Powell, and Strom, Comparative Politics Today, 2007]

O'Neil refers extensively to devolution in chapter 7 ("Advanced Democracies") of his textbook, and defines it as "A process in which political power is 'sent down' to lower levels of state and government." (p. 301) Decentralization is not defined in the glossary, but is discussed at length in chapter 2 ("States" pp. 40-43) [O'Neil, Essentials of Comparative Politics, 2004]

Neither devolution nor decentralization appear in the index or the glossary of Lim's text. [Lim, Doing Comparative Politics, 2006]

posted by Ken Wedding @ 9:56 AM