3

The Philippines may be implementing some form of federalism.

Are there economic benefits to federalism? I ask because I observe that both Malaysia and the United States have some kind of federalism, and they are relatively wealthy.

One explanation could be that people can "vote with their feet" in these kinds of federalist countries. Each territory can have different policies on some subjects and people can move to areas that match their preferences. For example, in the United States marijuana is legal in California. People who want to use marijuana can move there and spend their money on marijuana, something which they otherwise might not have done.

In Indonesia, we have a very controversial election. Basically half of the people of Jakarta wants Ahok as governor. The other half think that Ahok is against islam.

It seems that federalism is a good solution for those 2. Let each govern their province as they wish.

And I wonder if this sort of works out in other countries too.

  • 1
    Most of the wealthy countries of Europe are not Federal, or have a very strong central government. – James K Mar 3 '18 at 18:04
  • 1
    It may also be a backwards causation. A country that is poor is harder to be federated (richer areas would split off from poorer, ala Catalonia) – user4012 Mar 3 '18 at 18:18
  • Also, Japan has a strong central government and is prosperous. – ohwilleke Mar 5 '18 at 19:33
  • "Are there economic benefits to federalism?" Why not. If done right a more local representation could just be more effective. Just think about subsidiarity. – Trilarion Mar 7 '18 at 11:18
4

There is very little evidence of a correlation, less of a causative relationship.

Federal states include some very rich countries: USA, Germany. Some countries with middle levels of income: Argentina, Malaysia. And some extremely poor countries: Sudan, Ethiopia.

There are rich countries with a unitary government (France, Japan) and poor ones (Mali, Laos)

One can argue that there are confounding factors (such as war) that could be hiding an underlying trend

Taking countries within one region, one can compare Chile and Argentina. Chile is a Unitary, Argentina is Federal. These are two neighbouring countries, with related histories, culture and language and climate. One, Argentina, is Federal; the other, Chile, is Unitary. If federalism caused economic growth we would expect Argentina to be significantly richer than Chile. In fact, the GDP/capita of the two countries is similar, with Chile currently slightly wealthier than Argentina. This gives no evidence that a federal country makes greater economic growth.

Federal governments don't appear to be significantly different in income than Unitary governments. The ability to move to a state where the laws are different does not seem to greatly affect GDP.

  • 1
    Moreover a country doesn't actually need to be federal to have laws which vary within it (e.g. the UK). – origimbo Mar 3 '18 at 19:03
  • 1
    And "federal/not federal" is a matter of shades, not black and white. It is quite possible to argue that the UK is a federation of Scotland, England, NI and Wales. Most countries (eg Japan) have some form of local or regional government. It is a matter of degree – James K Mar 3 '18 at 19:39
  • There are definitely some rich countries without a federalist type of government and you've shown that. But are there any poor ones that do? There have to be negative examples in order to argue there is no correlation. The best you could say is that federalism might be a factor. – Wes Sayeed Mar 4 '18 at 4:00
  • @WesSayeed "Ethiopia", "Sudan" are among the poorest countries in the world. – James K Mar 4 '18 at 8:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.