Description

A group of organisations, without ending their independant existence, create a new common institution to advance their common interests.

Motivation and Discussion

In government, as in other parts of life, great advantages can be gained by scale. Federation is an attempt to gain the benefits of scale without surrendering the identity or idiosyncratic power of the component organisations. War is one of the most obvious areas where scale is advantageous and mutual interest is greatly similar. By contrast with a simple merger or takeover of organisations, Federations are formed on a a principle of subsidiarity, where powers are held by default at the smallest and most individual scale.  

Federations are plastic and high maintenance institutions, prone to deform over time under the many forces acting on them. The new central organisation brought into being by a federation will, like all institutions, tend to draw power to itself. Over time a successful central government can take over more and more responsibilities originally assigned to the component organisations. This is often given philosophical support by appealling to the shared values and economies of scale that initially brought the component organisations together.  As popular allegiance to the central institution grows, the division of power to unevenly sized component organisations may increasingly seem unfair.

Federations involve multiple executives, at the central and component level. They therefore have higher maintenance costs and involve more officials than either a single central institution, or the several component organisations which preceded the Federation. These costs increase as the central institution draws power to itself, duplicating responsibilities nominally vested in the component organisations.  Avoiding an entropic collapse to the centre requires continual revision of the terms of Federation.  

By contrast, when the central institution is trusted with few responsibilities, its capability for advancing the common interest is diminished, and its reason for existence decreases. Where a common interest is no longer apparent, Federations dissolve with unpredictable violence back to their originating organisations.

Examples

Switzerland has been an evolving and enduring federation from 1291 to today, excepting a 5 year interruption under French republican occupation. The original confederacy of three cantons was formed to make common military cause against the Holy Roman Empire, and to manage trade and other shared interests. This fairly lightweight original alliance expanded over time, and under external pressure, to include eight canton communities and more territory under a patchwork of individual treaties. Cities such as Zürich and Berne continued to pursue their own interests including similar alliances with their other neighbours. In 1529 and 1531 inter-cantonal religious civil wars broke out, though due in part to the reputation of Swiss mercenaries Swiss territory was never a major battlefield of the Thirty Years War.  A Switzerland of thirteen cantons achieved formal legal independence at the end of that war with the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. This regime endured until Switzerland was engulfed by French revolutionary forces in 1798; the occupying army established a centralized Helvetic Republic.

The Helvetic Republic was hugely unpopular, and a political and economic failure. Intervention by Napoleon in 1803 restored some power to the cantons, and Swiss independence was fully restored at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, along with a last expansion of the included cantons, and formal guarantee of its (armed) neutrality by the Great Powers of the day. The political upheaval, tied up with other questions of reform such as the universality of suffrage and the role of the Church in the state, continued amongst domestic political parties until the outbreak of a brief and not particularly deadly Catholic/Protestant civil war in 1847. The victorious Protestant Free Democrat Party promulgated the first singular federal constitution in 1848; it was heavily influenced by the American and French constitutions. This constitution has since been periodically revised, including being wholly revised in 1874, the introduction of continual partial revision by voters in 1899, proportional appointment of the Federal Council in 1959, female suffrage in 1971, and another complete revision in 1999.

The United States of America was created in 1780 as a federation of geographically proximate colonies which declared independence from the British Empire. The initial version of this federation, the Continental Congress, was found to be powerless to the point of uselessness. The revised constitution gave more powers to the federal government, in return for explicit recognition of the rights of individuals within the founding document, as insurance against tyranny. Even then the resulting federation was on very loose, Swiss, lines. Over the two centuries since, a variety of internal and external shocks, including civil war, have seen the central government assume much more power at the expense of the states. Although the written constitution has had around 20 amendments, some as fundamental as banning slavery or alcohol, most of the assumption of power has been through evolutionary processes such as common law or Paymaster techniques.

Yugoslavia was a federation of Balkan states and ethnic communities united and shattered multiple times during the 20th century. The 19th century saw the Balkans be a violent playground for Great Powers, during the disintegration of the Ottoman and Austrian empires, and the expansion of Russian and other interests in the region. This competition culminated as World War I, and in its aftermath the constitutional monarchy, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, was established for mutual defence. This endured only until 1941 when it was invaded by Axis powers as part of WWII. They established a proxy government run by the sympathetic Ustase, extreme Croatian nationalists. At the end of WWII, and with the agreement amongst Great Powers that these states would be under a Soviet sphere of influence, Yugoslavia became a federation of communist republics. Although the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia retained the contempt for individual rights and market economics typical of communist regimes, regional and ethnic politics remained important, and useful elements of political leverage for the federal government. A potent example occurred in the early 1970s, during a resurgence of political liberalism. Marshall Tito supported greater regional autonomy as a way of stealing the liberals' most popular issue, then crushed the liberal movement using standard totalitarian techniques. Nevertheless, an extraordinarily complex constitution was amended in 1974 to include the right of republics to secede, and giving greater autonomy to regions such as Kosovo. This autonomy was expressed in practice even under Tito, and it later made legal secession easier for Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia. After multi-party elections in 1990 following the collapse of Eastern European communism, these republics declared independence in 1991, though their legal right to do so didn't prevent those secessions sparking a violent civil war.

Other successful states such as Australia, Brazil, Canada and Malaysia have been also established along federal lines and without civil war amongst the constituent states.

Unions such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) or the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) have been created from smaller unions in order to gain benefits of scale in negotiations with employers and governments. Different trade unions have common interests in their members' working conditions, as well as ensuring the organisation itself plays a role in wage negotiations and setting conditions of work. Trade unions financially and organisationally support political causes, even having formal roles within major political parties in the case of the Labor parties in Britain and Australia. Federated trade unions also suffer from diseconomies of scale - for instance in 2005 several component trade unions threatened to withdraw from the AFL-CIO due to philosophical differences over which politicians to support.

Related Patterns

Suffrage, Paymaster

Paul Dibbs has an interesting article in the SMH on the changing power relationships in the Middle East and Northern Asia titled; As one nuclear flashpoint reaches a lull, another simmers away . Two paragraphs on South Korea's relationship with its neighbours caught my attention.

Paul Dibbs writes;

Japan's relations with South Korea are at a low point, partly over Japan's view of the history of World War II but also because of territorial disputes, which Seoul has elevated to the level of national pride, threatening the use of military force. This is occurring when, from Tokyo's perspective, South Korea is drifting from the orbit of the US alliance and getting uncomfortably close to China, as well as appeasing North Korea.

South Korea has been a neo-conservative dream. While practicing Asian-capitalism, South Korean youth are moving toward a credit and consumption based economy. Of the North and South-East Asian nations I thought it would be the first to adopt an American/Australian style of economy.

South Korea has also chucked out autocratic rule and in 1988 established a multi-party liberal democracy with firm separation of powers. If the neo-conservative view of foreign policy holds, then South Korea should be forging closer ties to the global trading system within US hegemony - as Australia has done - rather than moving toward China.

I tended to think of South Korea's relationship to North Korea as similar between West and Eastern Germany where ultimately the more modern, wealthier and democratic nation bought its former enemy - amalgamating them into their political and economic system - at great pain to themselves.

The North Koreans desperately need it since China and Russia have discovered it is more profitable to trade with the west than to prop up ideologically compatible but unsustainable isolationist regimes.

This speech in 2003 by Alexander Downer mimics many of the conservative view points of current Australian foreign policy and methodology but contains genuine concern for Australian interests;

Our top four trading partners, for example - Japan, United States, China and South Korea - would be directly affected by any security crisis [on the Korean Peninsula].

However, as per Australian GAPF foreign policy doctrine, Australia participates mainly through its bilateral relationship with the US.

As to Dibbs' claim that South Korea is drifting away from the US and to China seems to be predicated on South Korea not following or adopting US policy toward North Korea.

For instance this article by Lee Kyo-kwan in the Asia Time titled, Seoul and Washington closer to divorce ;

South Korea and the US have drifted so far apart on North Korea policy there is now speculation the longtime partners are getting close to divorce. ...

It is believed US officials no longer trust their South Korean counterparts on North Korea policy.

Kyo-kwan lists several instances where Roh has opposed US policy and pressure toward the Jong-Il regime. It appears the political conflict in South Korea over such a path is a similar one facing Australian foreign policy makers - accept US hegemony in foreign policy and work inside it, or strike out on an independent path;

In South Korea, the progressive camp continues to seek a security policy much more independent of the United States regardless of concern over the weakening partnership, while the conservative camp strives to resurrect the struggling alliance.

South Korea is the tenth largest economy in the world, we may have to ask ourselves, just how big does a country have to be to strike out on a foreign policy path that is independent to the US?

What is a superpower and holder of the moral high ground to do when no matter what they do, they are criticised?

"At some point in time - sooner rather than later - you've got to say 'Enough is enough. Kosovo is independent', and that's the position we've taken," Bush said during a news conference with the prime minister of this impoverished Balkan country.

SMH

It is probably the most justifiable position to take - governance has to acquiescence of the governed or it can't ever work from either perspective.

And yet, at the risk of enduring the contempt of the contemptible for my ability to hold seemingly contradictory thoughts in my head, and fearing to fall prey to the dreaded Motives Fallacy, one can't help but wonder what George W. Bush will say when the Iraqi Kurds and the Taiwanese say that enough is quite enough, thanks for coming.

I suppose it depends on who has to deal with the shitstorm that results when China or Turkey starts lobbing bits of metal large and small.

It's perfectly all right to support the idea of Kosovar independence; it would certainly behoove him to pay some lip service to the dichotomies. On the one hand the US is happy to support independence when the opposition is weak - somehow I can't see Russia starting a war no matter how much they support Serbia. On the other, they tell the Kurds and the Taiwanese to cool it, suck it up, enough isn't quite enough yet. It doesn't seem frivolous to note that Turkey is US ally and China, the enemy of the Taiwanese, are major trading partners, holders of many many US dollars and armed with nukes.

And yet...the US more or less ignored the Balkans during the nineties - when the Croatians were expressing themselves - and were roundly criticised for it. There was even a pop song released calling on the US and the UK to intervene. They functionally ignored various uprisings behind the Iron Curtain and have rightly been criticised for it for years. What is a superpower and holder of the moral high ground - despite the reality - to do?

I suppose there is only so much that can be done. Certain quotes from a Condoleezza Rice profile in the June 2007 Atlantic - which is behind a subscription wall, sorry - expressed the opinion that US efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace are really only the end-result of months, or years, of effort behind the scenes by Israelis and Palestinians; when Rabin and Arafat shook hands, when Sadat and Begin shook hands, the US State Department took home credit when their contribution was merely the tip of the iceberg. That could be true, could be just disgruntled grumblings - although the quotes were from a retired head of Mossad, so hardly someone never listened to - and either way it hardly seems relevant what they are since all the peace accords have failed. So if the US just stepped up like your Dad agreeing to be a co-signer on your first car loan, or if the US had its fingerprints over every aspect during the entire timeline, it seems clear that the US can't do much when there are intractable issues between both sides and when it is politically - geo- and/or internally - unpalatable to make the sides compromise. Even when compromise does occur, the US can't force acceptance by the internal parties, thus the downfall of the Oslo Accords.

To answer my question, there is nothing they can do. They will be criticised no matter what tack they take on any and all questions of the fate of other nations. One can only ask that the policy each individual (it hardly seems fair to ask Bush to stay consistent with Clinton) administration remain internally consistent. So if the people of Kosovo are entitled to say that enough is enough and that they can go their own way, then it seems fair to ask that the Kurds be informed that there will be Army divisions and flight crews ready to hand down a world of pain to any Turkish military elements that cross the border if or when the Iraqi Kurds declare independence. Or Iraqi military elements, for that matter. But, that will never happen. Instead, for the sake of saving face, the Kurds are more likely than not being told it suck it up.

Phillip Adams writes in The Australian that Australia has a presidential system:

"Australia has had a de facto presidential system since the end of the Menzies era, accelerated and intensified by the influence of television. As in the fight for the White House, our race to the Lodge has voters choosing between two anointed candidates. Holt or Calwell? Whitlam or McMahon? Hawke or Fraser? Keating or Hewson? Howard or Beazley?"

He then argues:

"That's why we don't need a president. We've got one already. Unprotected by a two-term limit, we've had president John Howard for 11 years. Building on the bad example of his predecessors, he's happily downgraded the parliament and doesn't hesitate to brush aside the cabinet system."

I'm not sure exactly how he came to this conclusion, other than republicanism not being Phillips' main issue, rather presidentialism is. And as Phillips points out, presidentialism in a parliamentary system can be a bad thing. The Prime Minister of Australia is less restrained than his United States colleague, thanks to the constitutional conventions of responsible government. The Prime Minister simply "advises" the Governor-General to jump, and the Governor-General is obliged to ask his advisor "how high?".

This is how Prime Ministers - and Howard in particular - use their constitutional position to become all-powerful.

Cross-posted at HOLDENREPUBLIC.org.nz

The counties, cities and towns in the US raise most of their revenue by property taxes. The county I am in leverages property taxes on my house, my car and my business assets. Along with the bill for my car taxes the county sent this handy little breakdown of their budget and where the money is going and coming from.

It should be noted that the County budget is 1.4 Billion USD. This is larger than the budget for the Brisbane City Council which is approximately 1.2 Billion AUD. The counties in the United States are responsible for primary schools and high schools. This is their biggest expense and the building of local schools are the items that usually mean local property taxes will be increased.

In 2002 the Republican led US Congress created a 400 Billion Farm Bill which President Bush duly signed into law. The Democrat led US Congress has created a 300 Billion Farm Bill which President Bush is threatening to veto as it is fiscally irresponsible and hurts taxpayers. They must think we are fools without memory.

To put the 2002 Farm Bill into perspective; at the time with a strong US dollar that subsidy was equal to the GDP of Australia.

With the weak US dollar today, and the trimming of the Bill by a quarter from its 2002 height, the subsidy is now only about one half of Australian GDP.

America is the current global hegemon, so it is always possible to make analogies with the US and prior super-powers such as Britain, Rome, and even Athens. Victor Davis Hanson looks at the analogies between America and Athens in A War Like No Other. One of the curiosities of Sparta was that they would promise to bring tyranny to the states they liberated from Athenian democracy. Tyranny back then being a legitimate government form while democracy was the radical, liberal and egalitarian form of subversiveness.

Hansen writes:

Although Americans offer the world a radically egalitarian popular culture and, more recently, in a very Athenian mood, have sought to remove oligarchs and impose democracy - ... - enemies, allies, and neutrals alike are not so impressed.

They understandably fear American power and intentions while our successive governments, in the manner of confident and proud Athenians, assure them of our morality and selflessness.

Military power and idealism about bringing perceived civilization to others are prescription for frequent conflict in any age - and no ancient state made war more often than did fifth-century Athens.

Despite Athens' view of itself most of the ancient Greek states were more inclined toward Sparta despite its militant social structure and repugnant form of slavery. According to Hansen Greek states expected a higher level of moral and ethical behaviour from Athens than Sparta as well; which infuriated Athenians. We see a similar dynamic with the US. When America doesn't live up to its moral republican promise there is great disappointment, which must chap foreign policy realists in the US.

Ultimately however they are analogies. The modern state of America is drastically different to Athens or ancient Greece. Democracy, Republicanism, Liberalism, not to mention the fury and technology of warfare are significantly different. While the analogies offer whimsical curiosities the world is significantly different even if we can recognize modern patterns within the past and vice versa.

Richard Florida notes that the burden of upside down mortgages means that internal migration in the US has dropped and that this is coupled with decreased immigration into the US; making for a very immobile labor market.

IIRC Florida noted in his book that companies travel to where the skills are, not vice versa, I wonder what pressures this will place on the market in skills that companies compete for.

Another issue that I was not aware of is the effectively carteled professions; such as law and union manufacturing jobs that are effectively immobile courtesy of their 'guildlike' structure.

The legal profession is highly carteled due to the bar exam. Other than Louisiana which has a continental legal basis, the remainder of the US states are common law, so passing one bar exam is more than sufficient. Especially as the bar is a made up and imaginary legal system. The bar exam forces lawyers to remain put in a place and raises the cost of intra-state migration.

Since I work in Software my mobility is more determined by living circumstance such as housing and being in upside down mortgages. My mobility is flexible enough, and my profession sufficiently commodified that I can work anywhere on the planet; Australia, America, Europe, India if need be.