Federalism and Administrative Decentralization
| Author | Mario Moya Palencia |
| Date | 01 March 1974 |
| Published date | 01 March 1974 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002085237404000103 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Federalism and Administrative Decentralization
by
Mario MOYA PALENCIA,
Minister of the Interior
The framework of public administration is
be static or dynamic, as regards the methods
defined by the political system of the communi-
of making and enforcing the rules. In other
ty which it serves. The functions of the admi-
words, the rules may be made or enforced by
nistration depend on the organization of the
the same organ or by different organs.
public authorities and, above all, on the
&dquo; Static &dquo; refers to the centralized or decen-
structure of the State. It follows that the form
tralized enforcement of the
of
rules, &dquo; dynamic &dquo;
government -
unitary or federal -
is one
to the
of the determining factors of the
making of the actual rules. And Kelsen
structure of
concludes that the most
the administration.
highly evolved form
of decentralization is one which implies that
Unitarism and federalism signify political
the rules are made by organs different from
centralization or decentralization, respectively.
those by which they are enforced.
That is why the adoption of one or the other of
those forms of government is reflected in
According to Greenwood (4), there are three
fundamentally different administrative
basic
systems.
differences between a federal and a
In a federal State, a national government and
unitary State. The first is that, in a unitary
local governments coexist and functions are
State, there is a body capable of exercising
divided
full
among them in such a way that theirs
powers over the national life, whereas in
several attributions do not interfere with one
a federal State there is no body empowered
another.
to regulate all the aspects of the country’s
activity.
The second distinction lies in the
The choice between keeping power at the cen-
nature of the division of powers between the
tre or dispersing it, i.e. centralization or decen-
central and the local authorities In a federal
tralization, is, according to Lipson (1) the
State, it is rigid, and the functions of both
major option of any political system.
This
levels of government are formally limited. In
opinion is shared by Tena Ramirez (2) at the
a unitary State, though functions may be allo-
beginning of his study of the powers of the
cated to local bodies, they may be withdrawn
part of the Federation under the Mexican
or modified by a unilateral decision of the
Constitution, after stating that &dquo; federalism is
central authority. The third distinction is of
a phenomenon of decentralization &dquo;.
a quantitative nature : in the federal systems,
Kelsen (3) analyses the
the functions
same subject in his
assigned to the state authorities
legal theory of the State and
are much wider than those which
uses the notions
unitary
of &dquo; centralization &dquo; and &dquo; decentralization &dquo;,
systems usually grant in practice to the local
but referring solely to the legal system. He
units.
states that a juridical system is centralized
CENTRIPETAL FORCES AND CENTRI-
when its rules -
and no others -
are applied
FUGAL FORCES
throughout the territory of a community. It is
decentralized when there are both rules appli-
The theories which explain the existence of
cable throughout the territory and rules which
centralized and decentralized political systems
have a more limited territorial validity.
are highly varied. They are the result -
it has
Besides, according to the Viennese philoso-
been stated -
of the simultaneous presence in
pher, centralization and decentralization may
any society of centripetal forces and centri-
fugal forces. The predominance of either kind
(1) Leslie
of force or a balance of both
Lipson, Los grandes problemas de la Po-
kinds, on account
litica. Mexico City, Edit. Limusa Wiley, 1964, p. 458.
of the action of various combinations of eco-
(2) Felipe Tena Ramirez, Derecho Constitucional
Mexicano. Mexico City, Edit. Porrúa, 1970, p. 134.
(3) Hans Kelsen, Teoria General del Estado. Mexico
(4) The Future of Australian Federalism, quoted by
City, Edit. Nacional, 1959, pp. 214-219.
Segundo V. Linares Quintana.
16
nomic, political, and social factors, leads to
itself, without any limits other than those
monolithic systems or to diversified systems.
established by the agreement by which it is
Both James Bryce, the famous liberal consti-
joined to the others. It is also required that
tutionalist, and Proudhon, the socialist thinker,
the communities should participate in the
have argued on those lines.
policy-making of the State which groups them
together. In short, political decentralization is
Bryce noted that, just as, in Newtonian
based on the principle of the freedom of each
astronomy, it is maintained that there are two
community to regulate its existence directly,
opposing forces which drive the planets in
in the sphere of the particular community as
various directions in relation to the Sun, in
well as in that of the aggregate society.
politics one force drives men to remain attached
to an organized community and another to
From a social point of view, decentralization
disperse. Proudhon, moreover, claimed that
corresponds to the plurality of groups which
the political order rests on two opposing prin-
necessarily live together in a State, and enables
ciples, authority and liberty, which are in
their variety to be expressed without their
constant strife and that unity can only be
unity being lost. It ensures that the individual
achieved by a compromise between them (5).
is not remote from the management of his
direct interests, and guarantees the primary
Setting aside the idea of a conflict, Jorge
solidarity of the intermediate communities
Scelle (6) spoke of two social requirements of
within the national solidarity.
political groups which are apparently contra-
From
dictory but, in
a
fact, complementary and equal-
legal point of view, decentralization
renders
ly essential. The first is the need for
possible the making of rules more
autonomy
and freedom in the
closely related to the various circumstances.
quest for personal ends
The
in the administration of particular communi-
legal order is shaped in conformity with
traditions and
ties, and the other is the need for order and
joint requirements and the rules
which
security and for work in
govern the communities become more
a larger community.
human.
It might therefore be said that, when the
As already pointed out, decentralization,
centripetal force predominates, political cen-
from the political point of view, reconciles
tralization ensues, since power becomes con-
power and freedom. It strengthens the rela-
centrated in a single nucleus. Should a centri-
tionships between the people and their govern-
fugal tendency prevail, the social body becomes
ment. Not only does the citizen take part
dismembered and various communities are
in the election of his representatives, but he
formed. In the latter event, federalism, a form
may also remain in close contact with the
of political decentralization, is put forward
discharge of their functions (8). This opportu-
either as an adequate means for achieving a
nity is lost when the arrangements all flow
balance between the opposing tendencies or
from a single centre of power. The political
as a system for reconciling the above two
...
To continue reading
Request your trial