Evolution of American Federalism

Certainly, the origin of the modern concept of federalism can be traced to the United States (see
Finer, 1932: 244). Dicey (1939) contended that distribution of powers is an essential element of
federalism where the central government and the constituent units coexist and operated within their
respective jurisdictional competencies as provided in the constitution. If A.V. Dicey defined
federalism as “a political contrivance intended to reconcile national unity and power with the
maintenance of state rights”, one’s apprehension may be provoked about the capacity of central
government to manage the centrifugal forces, which can be propelled by the peculiarity in socio-
political and economic affections of its various constituent units especially when (some) states
repudiate consecration of accommodation and bargaining to the federalist practice. This
apprehension was evident in the major litmus test that the United States had in its federalist sojourn
when civil war broke out 72 year after the Federal Constitution had come into effect in the country.
Though, the framers of the Constitution were not assertive on the abrogation of slave trade
but allocated huge power to the federal government in its delegated powers and more importantly in
the necessary and proper clause, privileging the Congress “to make all law which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution” of implied powers1 . Though, historical revisionists
discountenanced the view that the war was caused by contentions among states over slavery
(Bradford, 2010: 101) but the main source of the civil war was the use of slaves for cotton farms.
The southern states were pre-occupied in cotton farming and the rapid growth in cotton market in
the early 19th century created a fear about their continued membership of the Union because of the
possible abolition of slavery by the Congress. They believed that such abolition could spell a doom
to their internal economies. The South’s sympathizer, John C. Calhoun and his ‘apologetics’ argued
for doctrine of nullification and attempted to opiate the states with power to nullify any federal
laws. Meanwhile, all attempts to explore the doctrine of nullification failed even at the Supreme
Court2.
In analyzing the evolution of American federalism, one would identify different theoretical
models that have been explored by various regimes in the United States in the conduct of the
country’s federalist experimentation since 1789. LaCroix (2010) opined that federalism in the
United States can be best appreciated by studying the political philosophy of ‘multiple sovereignty’
that dominates the state affairs in pre-independence era. This philosophy also informed the decision
of the framers of America’s federal constitution to allocate power to federal and state governments
within their different areas of competence or jurisdiction but created convergence in their relation
through concurrent list.
Without doubt, the framers’ motivation for stronger central government was due to the
failure that pervaded the Articles of Confederation. In avoiding the mistake of too strong states
which was one of the factors responsible for the ineffectivess of confederal government, the framers
provided in the new constitution, the national government the elastic power through the necessary
and proper clause as articulated in the Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Consequently, the
federal government has continued to arrogate more power to itself putting the states at disadvantage
(Elazar, 1990; Mayer, 2013; Utt, 2012; Morrison, 1998).
The federal government was entrusted with Delegated or Enumerated Powers which include
regulation of inter-state and international trade as well as power to coin money, declare war,
maintain armed forces, establish a postal system, enforce copyrights and sign treaties. On the other

1 Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution.

2See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 2 (1958); Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), United States v. Peters 9 U.S. (5
Cranch) 115 (1809).
hand, the states are allotted with Reserved Powers to regulate intra-state trade, establish schools,
establish local government, make and enforce state laws and run elections. There are concurrent
powers that are jointly shared by the federal and state governments among which include tax power,
maintenance of courts and borrowing of money. The overwhelming powers enjoyed by the central
government over the constituent units in the US have made the state become “reluctant
partners” (Stoker, 1991). Mayer’s study (2013: 4) cited a Gallup poll conducted in September 2011 which
revealed that 82 percent of the respondents felt disappointed in the way the Congress carried out its
functions, 57 percent expressed having little or no confidence in the federal government in addressing
local problems. Similarly, many of the respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with wastages that
accompany too large bureaucracy and lavish spending of the federal government.
A pure theory of federalism transcends time and place. It identifies general properties of a
system that one expects to find, at least to some degree, in any historical instance (Peterson, 1984:
22). The mammoth arrogation of power that the US federal government that dominates
intergovernmental relations in the United States can be best appreciated through historical prism.

Dual Federalism
From 1789 to 1937, United States adopted “dual federalism”. In dual federalism, each level of
government strictly adhered to its specific areas of competence as ordained by the constitution.
During this period, there were some landmark constitution-related matters that were experienced.
One of such events was eventual incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the US Constitution in
1791 as contained in the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. In the same year, Charter of
the Bank of the United States was also enacted by the US Congress.
Expectedly, the issue generated a lot of debate when it was proposed by Hamilton. Thomas
Jefferson was also against the establishment of such institution because of his belief that the
National Bank could undermine state sovereignty. The Congress in order to create an atmosphere of
win-win between the opposing parties, it accorded the Bank a 20 year Charter and twenty years
later, the Bank became liquidated when the charter was not renewed by the Congress. The issue of
“implied power” became a subject of national debate and legal battle when the second Bank of the
US was charted in 1819. When the matter was brought to the US Supreme Court in the case
McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court ruled in favour of the federal government by relying on the
provision of the US Constitution in Article 1 (Necessary and Proper Clause). The principle was
explored by the Court to determine Gibbons v. Ogden. In 1890, the Congress also enacted Sherman
Anti-trust Act to make unlawful “combinations in restraint of trade” to reduce the problem of
monopoly also within the confine of the necessary and proper clause of the US Constitution.

Cooperative Federalism
Between 1937 and 1963, the relationship between the federal and state governments became
cooperative as a way of addressing some of the fundamental flaws that dominated the dual
federalism. For instance, it became imperative for the national government to invest massively on
road construction for greater inter-state trade. For efforts like this to yield anticipated result,
cooperation between federal and state governments would be required. Under cooperative
federalism, in 1910, President Roosevelt initiated a New Nationalism, arrogating more power to the
national government. When Woodrow Wilson took over, he consolidated the Roosevelt’s distortion
of the balance of power between the federal and state governments in which more powers were
arrogated to the central government. The New Freedom Agenda of Wilson rapidly increased the
power of federal government while putting American states at disadvantage on intergovernmental
power equilibrium.
Regulated Federalism
From 1963 to 1981, we had the era of “regulated federation”. During this period, there was often
application of withdrawal of national grants threat by federal government to influence the states.
Again, decision-making processes on specific programmes especially those that bother on social
problems were not adequately addressed by the states either as a result of lack of political will or
paucity of funds. For instance, during this period, President Johnson in his Great Society Agenda
provided grants to states for specific programmes including urban renewal, poverty alleviation,
education and job training but there must be commitment on the part of the concerned states to
carry-out the programmes within federal government directives. Johnson administration built
confidence in the relationship between the federal government and the constituent units by
increasing grants-in-aid with increased regulation. Also during that period, states got categorical
grants for specific programmes at the discretion of the federal government or its relevant agencies.
One of the challenges that bedeviled the regulated federalism is that most of the federal
mandates were not backed with adequate funding, creating burdens on the states and local
authorities. For instance, a study carried out by an Urban Institute indicated that among six federal
mandated programmes, the 1977 Clean Water Act posed the highest financial burden to seven cities
and counties considered for the study inspite of between 75% and 85% federal government grant
(funding). The counterpart funding was provided by the benefiting local authority (Muller & Fix,
1980: 327). Most of the time, federal government’s grants did not involve maintenance, and the cost
of maintenance became the preoccupation of the local authority with far-reaching financial
implications (see Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, nd: 22). The habitual use
of Necessary and Proper Clause contained in Article I of the US Constitution appears to be a
veritable tool to reduce the power of American states and many times the US Supreme Court has
restrained this power usurpation by the federal government in a number of rulings like National
League of Cities v. Usery (1976)3 .

New Federalism
This stage of American federalism emerged in 1981 and still subsists till date. Under the New
Federalism Agenda, the federal government provides block grants to the states to address some
social concerns. The federal government in providing funding often assesses the results of the
programmes while the states are empowered to use their discretion to execute the programmes or
initiatives to resolve a social demand. During the Reagan administration, national government
rapidly reduced its interventions in states and his New Federalism policy made a tremendous
achievement in making the states to become more active players by reducing federal government
superintendence of some relevant activities in the states with attendant shift in the
intergovernmental relations (Williamson, 1990). The states therefore were made to realize that “it
was no longer possible to turn to Washington for solutions to most of their problems and that,
therefore, it was necessary to rely on their own efforts” (Elazar, 1990: 16).
The administration of Bush (Snr.) never advanced any significant departure from the
administration of his former boss, President Reagan with whom he served as Vice President. The
Clinton administration did not only consolidate the devolution of power through his “Devolution
Revolution” to the states but also transferred some of the economic regulatory and social welfare
powers to states. Through provision of waivers and transferring some revenue sources to states, the

3 In National League of Cities v. Usery (1976), US Supreme Court decided that it would be abuse of power for federal
government to explore its commerce power to “force directly upon the states its choices as to how essential decisions
regarding the conduct of integral governmental functions are to be made”. (cited in Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations (nd : 17). Also available on http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/Reports/brief/B-7.pdf.
Retrieved on 15 June, 2013.
administration enabled the states to become more active players in American federalism under the
Clinton government. During the period, the US experienced the expansion of state powers through
the New Federal Order in 1997 as more autonomy was granted to the states by federal government
(Nathan et. al., 2003: 9-10).
Inspite of the growing autonomy granted to American states, federal government often acted
in its usual way by compelling states to succumb to the interest(s) of the central government (ibid.).
Infact, under W. Bush administration, there was a shift from theory of devolution to that of
concentration of power. In what was termed coercive federalism, Bush government often mobilized
the principle of pre-emption because the primary aim of the administration was to “…focus on
fiscal exigencies and not on federalism reforms that underlie the choices the administration is
making that influence federal-state relations” (ibid.). Under Obama administration, one of the issues
that have generated cacophonic debate and legal tussles was the healthcare plan, which many states
believed would increase their burdens in the face of growing economic downturn and paucity of
fund to carry-out their existing responsibilities. The issue of medical marijuana, abortion and gay
marriage is still raging (see Ryan, 2012; Pinello, 2009).
Federal System of Government

Introduction
In this lecture, we shall focus on federal system of government. In our quest to firmly appreciate the
subject, we shall begin our discourse by looking at various conceptual definitions of the term
federal system or federalism. Perhaps, in furtherance of our desire to attain a full grasp of the
subject matter, we shall also be explaining other central issues like reasons and the features of
federalism, among others.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. define federal system of government;
2. identify reasons for adoption of federalism;
3. describe the features of federalism;
4. discuss the advantages of federal system;
5. explain the disadvantages of federal system; and
6. differentiate between the federal and unitary systems.

Pre-Test
1. How do you describe federal system?
2. State the reasons for adopting federalism.
3. Highlight the features of federalism.
4. Explain the advantages and disadvantages of federal system.
5. How do you differentiate between federal and unitary systems?
CONTENT
Defining Federal System of Government
There is no doubt that the term Federation emanated from the Latin word foedus, which means
treaty or agreement. A federal system usually involves sharing of political power among various
component units of any state (country) where the central governments and regional governments are
given varying powers by the constitution and each of them has power to have its own laws without
relying on other. But, in a situation where there is clash between the central government and
regional governments, the court is the last resort. Now let us look at various definitions of federal
system or simply, federalism.
Meanwhile, several scholars have worked extensively on federalism, and they have come out
with different definitions of the term federalism. But due to challenge we are likely to face resulting
from the limited time and space in this lecture, it is difficult, or even impossible to exhaust all
available definitions of federalism. Rather, we shall be looking at some of the definitions.
Federalism or federal system can be defined as follows:
“the form of government where the component units of a political organization participate in
sharing powers and functions in a cooperative manner through the combined forces of
 ethnic pluralism and cultural diversity, among others, tend to pull their people apart.
Delicate arrangements of this kind, where carefully worked out, provide sufficient room for
the coexistence of centre-seeking and centre-fleeing forces” (Tamuno, 1998:13)
“a device for limiting government power by dividing it between national and various
regional governments based in different regions of the country. Federalism, like the
separation of powers between organs of a unitary government, is an important instrument of
constitutionalism” (Nwabueze, 1992:107)
“… the method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each
within a sphere, coordinate and independent” (Wheare, 1970 : 11).
“…..a joint national enterprise in which the centre and the states are partners, united in a
common purpose and working with agreed policies in different fields of national
development” (India Progress Report, 1953: 1).
“a system of government in which central and regional authorities are linked in a mutually
independent political relationship; in this system a balance is maintained such that neither
level of government becomes dominant to the extent that it can dictate decisions of the other,
but each can influence, bargain and persuade the other… the functions of government will
be distributed between these levels” (exclusively, completely or cooperatively) (Vile, 1961:
197).
“the system of division of powers, a federal polity is a dual government, in which powers are
divided and distributed by the constitution between a central government and regional
governments… Both the central and regional governments are coordinate, independent
authorities within their allotted spheres of jurisdiction. Neither can encroach upon the
powers of the other” (Kapur, 1950: 402-403)
“… a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a
central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces).
Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national and
state governments, creating what is often called a federation” (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Federalism).
However, considering various definitions above-mentioned, you may agree with me that
federal system is a very effective instrument of governance, which enables the component units to
have political power independent of central political authority, not only to function on their own but
also to make policies in accordance with their various peculiarities. Such peculiarities may likely
not be given sufficient attention under a form of political system where power is centralized
(unitary system) due to the uniformity in policy formulation and implementation of such political
arrangement.
Nonetheless, it is pertinent in this lecture to stimulate our further appreciation of the subject
(federalism) by looking at various reasons or factors responsible for adoption of federal system.
Therefore, the next segment of this lecture will be devoted to explain various reasons for the
adoption of federal system (federalism).

Reasons for federalism

1. Fear of Domination: In multi-ethnic state(s) there is always fear that larger or major ethnic
group(s) will dominate the others, particularly as it relates to the allocation of state
resources. Such fear can likely be reinforced by unitary system. Thus various ethnic groups
will engage one another in rivalry for control of government at the centre;
2. Cultural Differences: Diversity in the socio-cultural background of the people in a given
state is enough reason to adopt federalism. What I am saying is that people may decide to
have a federalist state due to the differences in their languages, belief systems, norms,
values, customs among others, resulting from their different cultural histories. Thus, the
heterogeneous nature of multi-ethnic society is likely to demand for federal system to be put
in place, so that every people, in spite of their cultural diversity, can enjoy substantial
 autonomy to function effectively as a people. This will definitely create an opportunity for
‘unity in diversity’;
3. Administrative Efficiency: Decentralization of government powers among various levels of
government is capable of promoting effective administration of the entire nation. This
situation tends to allow development to reach every nook and cranny of the country;
4. Economic Reasons: In as much that, it should be the desire of every responsible government
to ensure that all its component units are evenly developed, and knowing that these
component units don’t enjoy the same amount of natural resources, efforts should be made
by the central government to create conducive atmosphere for rapid development in all the
component units (states or regions). The government at the centre will need to assist those
states or regions, which have less resource to develop through a number of interventions like
offer of grants, technical assistance, among others. The government must also ensure that
each of the component units enjoy considerable control of its resources. This can more be
guaranteed under a federal system;
5. Geographical Contiguity: Federalism can be adopted where ethnic groups are geographically
contiguous, having history of inter-ethnic integration or economic co-operations i.e. trade
relations before colonialism. Such integration enables them to appreciate the inter-
dependence in their relations; and
6. Historical Reason: There is no way we can talk about the history of Nigeria as a nation
without considering the colonial experience of its people. The colonial experience and
Western values that the local people inherited at independence are a source of the emergent
culture of modern state in Africa. But despite the common history of colonialism shared by
the people, primordial sentiments and ethnic rivalry are still popular on the continent,
making efforts at nation-building less fruitful.
Therefore in such situation like this, federalism can be adopted to reduce inter-ethnic tension
in the state and to foster peaceful coexistence among various ethnic groups. In this case,
each region will be given its own power to administer its boundary, so that, each ethnic
group, big or small, will have a deep sense of belonging particularly as it relates to the fiscal
autonomy they will enjoy under a federal government.

Features of Federal System

1. A federal state is a product of union among various component units, and each of them
retains its power according to its independent jurisdiction;
2. The component units such as states transfer their sovereign power to a large political entity
(central government) that represents and directs the affairs of the entire political system or
country;
3. Political power is shared between the central government and regional or state governments
where each will its own executive, legislative and judicial councils;
4. The power is divided and distributed between the two levels of government (central or
federal and regional or state authorities) and each of them have jurisdictions over various
subjects. According to the Nigerian constitution, there are three lists that allocate different
subjects or functions that can be undertaken by each of the two levels of government within
a jurisdictional interpretation (according to their jurisdiction). The first list is called
exclusive list which belongs to the central government. The second list is called residual list
which belongs to the state governments). The third is concurrent list, which can be
undertaken by both levels of government;
 5. It does not evolve but a union that is made;
6. The power, functions and relations between the levels of government are usually contained
in a written constitution;
7. Presence of rigidity of official document (constitution), making amendment process(es) a
difficult task;
8. The ways through which any section or all sections of the constitution can be amended are
spelt out in the official document (constitution); and
9. The union is permanent and not susceptible to adjustment. Adjustment may come in form of
secession by a segment of the federation, which may likely be suppressed by the central
government as evident during the Biafran War (1967-1970).

Advantages of Federal System

1. Fostering peaceful coexistence among various ethnic groups in a given state by ensuring that
political interests of all groups are protected;
2. It assists for even development of various component units and also ensures effective local
administration. The autonomy enjoyed by regional or state government enable them to make
their own laws and policies, considering their various peculiarities and problems in the
decision making process, so that they will come out with result-oriented programmes;
3. It is the best system of government for political systems with large territories and
multiplicity of ethnic groups, racial, religious and cultural differences. The point is that,
federalism helps as “it harmonizes local autonomy with national unity and thereby provides
equilibrium between the centripetal and centrifugal forces.” (Kapur opcit, p.423);
4. Federalism promotes wider political participation through decentralization of political power
as well as duplication of political institutions; and
5. It prevents too much or absolute concentration of political power in the hands of central
political authority capable of promoting authoritarianism.

Disadvantages of Federal System

1. Duplication of political institutions may amount to wastage of public funds;
2. There is often jurisdictional conflict between the two levels of government, which is capable
of undermining the law and order of the state. For instance, the Yar-Adua government
reaction to electoral rigging and violence in the conduct of council elections in various states
was challenged by several state governors. The Yar-Adua government wanted reelection in
states where local government elections had been conducted, and postponement where
council elections were about to be conducted. Incidentally, several state governments
challenged the authority of the federal government, saying that local council election falls
under the jurisdiction of state government;
3. The agreement for the federalist union (federalism) lies within the constitution. There is
tendency that in a situation whereby there are defaults in the constitution, there will be
perpetual conflict between the two levels of government. Therefore in order to address such
anomalies, it is necessary to amend conflicting sections of the constitution, which is also
difficult to accomplish. The reason is that written constitutions are always rigid and very
difficult to amend;
4. Decision making is slow under federal system of government; and
5. It promotes inconsistency in government. This is because states may have divergent
interests, which cannot be reconciled.