Federalism

Discuss the system of checks and balances in the Canadian Political system. I. E. The relationship between the crown, the prime minister, the house of commons, the Senate and the Judiciary. Are these checks an effective way to manage political power In democratic Canada? 2) Thanks to a well-run campaign, The Party du Quobcoos narrowly won the 2014 Quebec provincial elections.

It is now 201 5 and you have been asked by the party to write a referendum question that will satisfactorily address the Party’s vision for Cubeb’s future. How will you word that question and why? What objectives do you anticipate from Federalist forces? In answering these questions, be certain to reflect upon the Issues surrounding previous referendums In Quebec. 4) Canada is a federal rather than a unitary state. What does this mean? How deeply entrenched if Federalism in the Canadian constitutional order?

In your answer, be certain to discuss the division of power between the federal and provincial government (look at section 33, section 1 for question #3) 5) In the Canadian Senate an anachronistic relic of a bygone age? Does It perform any liable functions for the Canadian political system? Should it be reformed? If so, why? If not, why not? 6) Discus the polis CIA of terrorism: as a contestable political category, as a recurrent historical phenomenon, and as a modern policy concern.

What do you make of Miller’s argument: “That the costs of terrorism very often come mostly from the dear and consequent reaction (or overreaction) If characteristically Inspires (qualities stoked by terrorism industry) not from its direct effects which are unusually comparatively limited” In light of your discussion, what strategy would be most effective to reduce “terrorism violence”) 7)In a speech delivered In march 201 2, us president Barack Obama outlined us policy towards Iran. L reserve all options and my policy here Is not going to be one of containment; my policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and as, I indiscriminately in my speech, when I say all options are on the table I mean it. Does nuclear proliferation represent a fundamental threat of world security? If so, what should be done about?. In answering this question be certain to explore the arguments of both proliferation

Democracy as a system of political administration has been termed over years as a product of several institutions working together to ensure the sustainability of an exclusive political system. Democratic institutions in a state are saddled with the responsibility of sustaining a nation’s democratic process such institutions like legislature, judiciary and the executive are the major institutions that guarantee efficiency in a democratic system. ( Ologbenla 1996) Basically, the legislative arm is the major institution that guarantees such because it represents the generality of the people’s interest.

The doctrines of separation of power and checks and balances are two major tenets of democracy. Both doctrines provide basic principles that should be upheld in any democratic state. The adherence to these democratic tenets depends largely on the level of political adherence that follows the basic rules and regulations that guides the conduct of both the ruler and the ruled in an exclusive political community. Such rules and regulation are codified in a document known as constitution. A constitution is a legal framework that spells out the composition, function, and jurisdiction of government officials. Almond et al. 1966) It is a body of fundamental rules guiding the affairs of state. It states the relationship between the governors and the governed. Separation of powers is a doctrine propounded by Baron de’ Montesquieu which stipulates that in order to avoid arbitrary use of power, power should be decentralised and shared among the organs of government such that no organ becomes too powerful. (Neumann 1949) The principle of checks and balances states that an organ of government should act as a watchdog on the other organs of government so as to curb their excesses.

In a democratic system all governmental powers are derived from the constitution, it also spells out the functions and relationship of major governmental institutions such as the executive, judiciary and the legislature such that no organ of government can interfere in the affairs of the other. The constitution makes each arm of government to be an independent and coordinate unit, independent in terms of its sphere of influence and coordinate in its inter-governmental relationship with other arms of government.

With cognisance to the American democratic structure, the constitution provides for separation of powers by stipulating the functions of the various arms of government and also the jurisdiction of the different tiers of government, whereby the executive cannot meddle in the affairs of the legislature and vice-versa. The primary function of the legislature is the making of laws ;( Easton 1961) it would be a total negation of the principle of separation of power if such function is being exercised by the executive.

Although, the executive can propose a bill after much deliberation by the legislature can be passed into law but the power to make laws lie in within the jurisdiction of the legislature. But in recent times the principle had been challenged due to the overwhelming power and personality of the executive. For example, President George Bush after the Sept 11 attack on the world trade centre proposed a bill to the congress to invade Iraq. Before the house could pass the bill he had sent troops to wage war in Iraq.

This was contrary to the constitutional provisions which states that before United State would engage in a war it must be ratified by the congress in a joint session. Checks and balances on the other is to serve as a balance between the various organs of government in such a way that an arm of government serve as the watchdog over the other arms of government. (Neumann 1949) This function is majorly that of the judiciary this is the done through judicial reviews which help scrutinize both activities of the executive and the legislature.

For this function to be performed to the optimum level there is the need for an independent judiciary that is free from executive manipulation. A bill is a proposed law that is not yet law until it is passed by the law making body in the country and received the executive or presidential assent. (Easton 1961) There are several stages that are involved in the passing of a bill before it becomes law. The first stage of the bill is the first introduction of the bill to the house. The introduction of bill could either be a private member bill or it originates from the lower house depending on the type of legislative chamber in operation.

In a two chamber legislative house, bills originate from the lower house and are deliberated on in a joint session. This stage marks the first reading of the bill to the house. The second reading marks a stage where the bill is fully deliberated upon by lawmakers and it represents a crucial stage in the passing of such bill into law, because this stage determines whether such bill would become law. After the bill had successfully passed through the second reading then a committee would be constituted to critically examine and analyse the bill, give recommendations and possible impact of the bill if passed into law.

This stage represents the committee stage. After constituting the committee, the next stage is the report stage where the committee presents their report to the house on the bill. After the committee stage the bill is presented to the lawmakers for adoption. It should be noted that at this stage the bill can still be rejected if the lawmakers refuse to adopt the bill by voting against it. But if the bill was accepted by the lawmakers then it can now proceed to the third stage which requires the president’s assent.

If the bill passed by the legislature was not assented to by the executive, the legislature can constitutionally veto such bill into law after a period of 14 days. Federalism is a political system in which governmental powers are shared among the different tiers and organs of government such that each tier and organ is coordinate, independent, and exclusive in its own sphere of authority. (Leslie 1954) With reference to the debate on whether state power had been reduced or increased in a federal structure, cognisance would be given to emerging democracies mostly in third world countries where democratic structures are still growing.

In Nigeria, state powers are gradually reduced as the constitution vested much power in the exclusive legislative list which only allows the federal government to legislate. (Ologbenla 1996) Matters such as currency, defence, health, mining, state creation, local government creation, boundary adjustment, leaving the state with little area to exercise its sphere of control. Unlike other federal structures like the United State of America where states have the autonomy on state police, the Nigerian federal structure did not provide for such provisions even at the agitation of states to have their autonomy on the issue.

In 2003, the Lagos state government embarked on the creation of local government which was later regarded as unconstitutional and led to a legal matter between the state and the federal government. (Tadese 2012) The judgement was later passed in favour of the federal citing that states do not have the constitutional right to create such establishment. In the American federal structure allows for state power to be shared between the central, state, and municipal governments in such a way that each state has its own constitution where it derives it powers from.

Although when such laws clashes with national constitution the latter prevails. Federalism has been the major factor sustaining the democratic values as it has it functionality in both the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances which is maintained through the efficacy of institutions that guarantees a smooth democratic process.

References Almond Gabriel, Gabber Powell. (1966). Comparative Politics: A developmental approach; Little Brown ; Co, Boston. Print. Easton David. (1961). A framework of political analysis, Yale University Press, New Haven. Print. Leslie Lipson. (1954). The Great Issues of Politics (5th edition) Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Print. Neuman Franz. (1949). Introduction to Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws. Translated by Thomas Nugent: Halfner publishers, Chicago. Print. Ologbenla Derin. (1996). Introduction to political science, Olucity Press Limited, Lagos. Print. Tadese. Oyeniyi. A battle of legal supremacy; Lagos State faces FG on creation of local government. Vanguard Newspaper. Web 30 September 2012.

1) Key theoretical approaches to the European Integration Background – Intellectual context -­? to understand the theories of European integration, it is important to consider the intellectual context from which the idea of European integration emerged Federalism – Altiero Spinelli -­? -­? -­? -­? -­? Spinelli: leader of the European Union of Federalists: Idea: after the Second World War, the classes most privileged under old national system will seek a new order of nation states, that might appear democratic, but the power will return to the privileged classes eventually a? renewing war between states Proposal: o prevent this development, create a federal European state to subordinate national governments to a federal authority a? strategy of the Federalists, aimed to create a federal constitution for Europe Development: Congress took time to organize, taken place in Hague in 1948. By that time, national political systems were already re-­? established a? Congress turned into the Council of Europe, not a new federal constitutional order Problem: diversity of Europe, different connotations in different part of Europe Mitrany: born in Romania, lived in UK and US, to build a “working peace system”, influencing integration heorists Against federalism b/c: o Single world government = threat to individual freedom o Regional federations = reproducing national rivalries on a larger scale Idea: root of the war = nationalism Proposal: create a separate international functional agencies, each with authority over specific area of human life o Scheme: individual tasks taken out of the control of the government, handing them to the functional agencies o Argument: Governments will surrender control because they will not fear the loss of sovereignty over e. g. health care, but rather appreciate the advantages of such tasks performed at the egional/world level o a? the more areas of control surrounded, the less states are capable of independent action a? the harder it is to break from the agencies Jean Monnet: planner of a Schuman Plan Combining ideas of functionalism and federalism, crucial for the neofunctionalist theory of European integration Functionalism – David Mitrany -­? -­? -­? -­? Functional-­? Federalism – Jean Monnet -­? -­? -­? -­? Idea: European nation state is inadequate as an economic unit Proposal: developing of supranational institutions as the basis for building economic community (coal and steel at the beginning) o Scheme: remove ontrol of the strategically crucial industries (coal and steel) from the governments, handing over to a free-­? standing agency (High Authority) o Challenge: Western German State o Solution: strategic industries removed from German control; ensuring adequate supplies of coal for the French steel industry a? economies are interconnected Theories Neofuncionalism – Ernst Haas -­? -­? -­? -­? -­? Pluralist theory – state not a single unified actor, neither it is the only actor on the international stage (non-­? state actors also important) Integration = process, once started, would undermine the sovereignty of states eyond the expectations of governments Activities of states = outcome of pluralistic political process, in which government decisions are influenced by the interest groups and bureaucratic actors European Commission = most important non-­? state international actor, manipulating domestic and international pressures on national governments to advance to process of European integration Mechanisms of the integration o Spillover §? Integration in one sector will cause integration in further sectors, in order to fully enjoy the benefits of the integration of the original sector 1. Functional spillover • Economies made up of nterconnected parts a? impossible to isolate one sector from others • If MS integrated one sector of the economies, the interconnectedness between the sectors will lead to a spillover into other sectors • Integration in one sector will work only if the interconnected sector is also integrated • E. g. : increasing coal production across MS requires brining other forms of energy into the scheme. Otherwise, switch by one MS away from coal towards e. g. oil or nuclear fuel will throw out all the calculations for coal production 2. Political spillover • Building up political pressure in favor of further integration • Once ne sector is integrated, lobbying of interest groups occurs at supranational level (the organization in charge of running that sector) -­? -­? Groups will appreciate the benefits as a result of integration, realizing the barriers preventing these benefits from being fully enjoyed (not integrating other sectors) a? advocating further integration and lobbying the governments • E. g. : ECSC makes the representatives it the coal and steel industry switching the lobby activities (partly) from national governments to the new supranational agency (High Authority) o Technocratic automaticity §? Institutions created will sponsor urther integration as they become more powerful and autonomous than member states Assessment of the theory o 1950s: neofunctionalism = winning theory explaining the transition from the ECSC into EC o 1960s: the end of neofunctionalism – Empty Chair Crisis (1965 – 1966) Gaulle’s veto; national governments showing power they are ready to use to determine the nature and pace of integration Aspects to be considered – theory not always applicable o Pluralist social structures §? Member states must be democratic o Substantial economic and industrial development §? A certain level of development – no significant gap among hem o Common ideology among participating units §? No centrally planned economies • Mistakes of neofunctionalism: o Regional integration is not a self-­? contained process, but influence by a wider international context o Governments are uniquely powerful actors as they had formal sovereignty and democratic legitimacy o integration in low politics, not high politics (national security, defense) as states tend to protect their sovereignty (advocated by French in 1950) national government controls the nature and pace of integration in order to protect and promote national interest acknowledges the importance of other ctors than governments: o low politics (e. g. social policy): interest groups did influence, but were no the only ones – also government officials, parties in office rejects the theory of spillover effects: rejects the idea of common security policy, foreign policy or common armed forces power of supranational institutions increased because governments believed it to be their national interest a? integration only as far as the government allows power to the European Council and Council of Europe Intergovernmentalism – Stanley Hoffman -­? -­? -­? -­? -­? -­? -­? Liberal intergovernmentalism – Andrew Moravcsik -­? -­? ational interests = part of a domestic political process, within which economic interests are dominant two-­? level game o demand side §? political elites, lobbyist, interest groups are acting and forming the demand of the state a? domestic events influence the demands of state interests on the international level o supply side §? interacting of each state with conflicting interests on the level of intergovernmental sessions – Council of Ministers • 1st stage – reach agreement on the common policy • 2nd stage – reach agreement on institutional arrangements supranational institutions reduce transactional costs – more fficient to co-­? exist a? institutions = tools, the main emphasis is on member states that can reduce the power of its supranational bodies Theory applied on negotiation of the Treaties of Rome (1955 – 58), Consolidation of the common market and CAP (1958 – 83), negotiation of SEA (1984 – 88), negotiation of the Treaty on EU (1988 – 91) a? conclusions: 1. Decisions = reflection of the preferences of national governments, not preferences of supranational organizations 2. National preferences = reflection of the balance of economic interests 3. delegating the power to the supranational authority means to ensure the ommitments of all parties, not a belief in the inherent efficiency of international organizations -­? -­? Extra Supranational governance – Stone Sweet, Sandholtz -­? -­? EU not one international regimes, but a series of regimes Increased transactions across national borders would create supranational society that favored the creation of supranational rules (more simple for operation) Multi-­? level governance – Gary Marks -­? -­? -­? -­? -­? rather an approach – EU as a political system with interconnected institutions existing at multiple levels with unique features national government = important decisional role, upranational institutions = autonomic role multilevel actions by multilevel actors (lobbies, companies, parties, states, interest groups) at international, state and regional level a? no superior actor, they are equal many informal relations existing (European norms), that are respected by different actors theory does not address the issue of transferring sovereignty and loyalty Constructivism -­? -­? rather an approach advocate of Europeanization, establishing common norms, habits, culture to bring people together – new social community (ministries with European department to synchronize the policies with the ones of he EU) – recognizes multi-­? level governance popular in EU 15 -­? 2) Formation of 3 Communities in the context of economic and political developments in post-­? WWII Europe ECSC – 1952 – Treaty of Paris EEC, EURATOM – 1957 – Treaty of Rome Motives for the formation of the Communities -­? -­? -­? -­? Reaction to the World Wars: horrifying example (lost lives) a? seeking a peaceful and stable European environment, political and economic cooperation instead of competition Soviet threat: cooperation blocks further Soviet expansion a? Cold war = catalyst for integration of western Europe Political willingness: political ooperation and development replacing economic competition, viewed as a factor in the outbreak of wars o countries seeking cooperation for different reasons §? Germany, Italy – seeking respectability §? France – seeking security from Germany Economic development: destroyed Europe needed reconstruction o Marshall plan (US interested in Europe) – financing the reconstruction of Europe, establishing what is now known as OECD o Bretton Woods Conference §? 1944, 44 nations to talk about post-­? war economic order §? GATT §? IMF (to regulate the international monetary and financial order a? stable exchange rate) Schuman:

French Foreign Minister; plan in collaboration with Jean Monnet Key points o relations between France and Germany needs to be renewed o linking French and German coal and steel industry by placing under control of a supranational body a? making war unthinkable and materially impossible (coal and steel = needed to produce armaments, thus capability of waging war) UK no involved in negotiations 1950 Schuman plan -­? -­? -­? ECSC – Treaty of Paris (1951/1952) -­? -­? -­? reduce tariffs by imposing levies on coal and steel production failed to create a single market for coal and steel a? further step needed joined by

6AP US History Federalism Questions I. Answer the following questions as fully as possible. Use the Internet, The American Pageant, or other sources to find the answers. Also please list your sources for each question. 1. What were the major weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation? The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution at the Constitutional Conference in May 1787. Members of the Conference saw to replace the Articles because it was weak. The articles did not effectively unify the nation with a central government. No centralized government would lead to conflicts within and between states.

Also Constitution had direct taxation, which would be a source of money for the government. There was no strong foreign policy either. 2. What were some of the key elements of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787? The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was a very important law for the newly founded America. It gave all unclaimed land to the federal government. It allowed the government to establish territories, which could become states after the area achieves a population of 60,000. Territories could also establish governments when their population of free white men was 5,000.

The law also made waterways like the Mississippi and St. Lawrence rivers free for travel for United States Citizens. Religious freedom, habeas corpus and bans on cruel and unusual punishment were established. The northern Territories were also declared free of slavery. 3. Why was Shay’s Rebellion such a dangerous situation for the new USA? Shay’s Rebellion, an uprising of central and western Massachusetts farmers, started because the government did not pass laws that would forgive debt and print more money. The farmers needed this because the area was experiencing an economic crisis.

Daniel Shays, a former member of the Continental Army led the cause. The cause was dangerous because so many people supported them. Citizens saw the rebels as the same as those who rebelled in the Revolution. When the government squashed their movement, many people were discontented and other rebellions sprung up. 4. Why did the Constitution have a system of checks and balances? The Constitution had a system of checks and balances to keep the three branches in even power. If an unconstitutional law is being passed by congress the Judiciary Branch can stop it.

The Judicial Branch can do the same for presidential acts. This would keep the power more evenly spread and allow more voices to be heard too. The checks could prevent dictatorial rule too. 5. Explain the 3/5 Compromise. How/why did this happen? The three-fifths Compromise was an agreement between the North and South met during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. The law stated that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for things such as how many House Representative a state would get and state tax distribution.

The compromise was met because anti-slavery delegates wanted only free men to count, which would take power away from the South and pro-slavery delegates wanted every slave to count as a person. 6. Why did Alexander Hamilton welcome the Whiskey Rebellion? The Whiskey Rebellion was resilience against a tax on whiskey set forth by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton established the tax to pay off the United States’ large debt. Small western farmers protested because the tax was more lenient on larger eastern distilleries.

Soon, they rebelled and were quickly squashed by Washington’s newly formed administration. Hamilton welcomed the rebellion because he saw it as a test for the new government. The rebellion eventually also led to the formation of the Republican and Federalist Parties. 7. What was Alexander Hamilton’s view of the “masses” compared to Thomas Jefferson’s? 8. How did George Washington handle the issue of war between England and France? In 1792, after the French Revolution, the newly established French Republic went to war with almost all of Europe.

Washington decided to remain neutral for the course of his term. This became hard because both countries begin seizing neutral trade ships and America was trying to maintain trade with both sides. 9. Why were the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions such a threat to the Federal Government? During John Adams’ Presidency, the Congress was almost all members of the Federalist Party. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who were trying to fight the Alien and Sedition Acts, could not influence Congress at all. They decided take their case to state legislatures and wrote resolutions to Kentucky and Virginia.

The documents suggested that states had the power do declare laws unconstitutional, which was dangerous to the Federal Government. 10. Explain the XYZ affair. How did John Adams handle this event? The XYZ affair happened during John Adams’ service as president When Adams assumed his presidency, the French did not recognize him. Agents codenamed X, Y, and Z, demanded huge amounts of money for loans and bribery. Adams spoke to Congress and called for a navy which resulted in what is called the Quasi-War, an undeclared war that consisted of a few naval skirmishes in the Caribbean.

The outcome of the war was that France would no longer attack U. S. trade vessels and United States neutrality. 11. How did the 2 party political system in American politics evolve? Sample AP questions. 12. “The Declaration of Independence issued a call for a democratic government of equal citizens that was rejected by the writers of the Constitution, who created an aristocratic government that benefited only the wealthy few. ” Assess the validity of this statement. Issued on July 4, 1776 by the Constitutional Congress, the Declaration of Independence was a document that fervently called for equality for all citizens.

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was declared as the supreme law of the United States. The statement, “The Declaration of Independence issued a call for a democratic government of equal citizens that was rejected by the writers of the Constitution, who created an aristocratic government that benefited only the wealthy few,” is invalid because while the Constitution made for a more powerful federal government, officials were elected by the people, those officials’ terms were all terminal, and checks and balances were put into place.

In the United States, all officials are elected by the citizen. Members of the government like the President, Congressmen, Representatives, Judges, Sheriffs, and City Officials are all decided by people in the community that they concern. Even though power is put onto a single person at some times, that individual was decided on by the people. While some officials like Supreme Court Judges and Cabinet Members are not decided by the people, they re decided by the President, who is elected by the people. The government officers who are elected by the masses, all serve for finite terms. For example, Presidents serve four years until going up for re-election. At the time, there was no limit to how many terms a President can serve, but the people would decide that limit with their votes. Members of Congress, the House of Representatives and city officials all serve for various amounts of time before being put up to be re-elected.

This means that new ideas and values can flow throughout the government and a dictatorial rule is impossible. The United States Government also has checks and balances to keep all three branches within equal power. The Legislative Branch has the power to impeach the President, approve federal Judges, and declare war, while the Executive Branch has the power to veto bills, appoint Supreme Court Judges, and the President is the Commander in Chief of the Military.

The Judicial Branch can have Judicial review on both the Legislative and Executive Branches. These help evenly distribute the power more throughout government and keep one branch from taking too much control. With its election of officials by the people, finite serving terms for government officers, and checks and balances, the U. S. government established by the Constitution is far from an aristocracy.

This essay will outline the issues discussed during the ‘Policy Roundtable on Federalism’ hosted by the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA) and the Institute of Public Administration Australia (IPAA) on the 17–18 May 2007 and will explore their impact on federalism and provide possible steps to overcome them. The Roundtable discussion made it apparent that Australian federalism is dysfunctional and needed shaping up. The reasons included a combination of external and internal factors and pressures. The pragmatic reform process could address these factors and pressures to improve Commonwealth-State relations.

This could achieve enhanced policy outcomes for the Australian community and provide a system of government that “delivers the Australian people the opportunities they deserve” (Brumby 2008). David Black (1998) describes federalism as ‘the process by which the Commonwealth of Australia was formed on 1 January 1901, was unusual then, and still is”. The federal system has provided a relatively stable cooperative form of government, however, changing demographics, global pressures and fiscal situations within government have meant that the system is now seen as being in a malaise and in need of repair (Wanna 2007).

The modernisation and globalisation of markets, media and communication has eroded regional identities in Australia. In the past the Australian states were protected from a centralised form of federalism but as modern technology reduced the physical distance institutional barriers were decreased. These global pressures mean that Australian states risk becoming agent providers for a central government (Wanna 2007: page). Increased activity has resulted in hyper-interaction involving all three levels of government.

Additionally, lack of cultural regions in Australia unlike most other federations meant lack of regionally based governance system (Wanna 2007: 276). Australia retains a highly centralised fiscal system, holds a high amount of concurrent powers across all levels of government and lacks institutional barriers that prevent a centralised system. Fiscal imbalance between states and the Commonwealth impacts directly at a regional level even though policies are driven nationally.

Concurrent Commonwealth-State powers also impact at regional level due to lack of adequate attention given to real impacts while decisions are made at federal level. The reduced effectiveness of federalism has contributed towards these issues and has failed to keep pace with modern times. It is now in need of repair to make it more efficient and capable of providing support to the modern Australian public. Current federal arrangements are holding back necessary micro-economic reform while there is a continuous struggle to respond to global economic forces. (Podger 2008).

Although federalism can work it is not performing at the level expected. Participants at the Roundtable agreed that the process of reform can improve federalism but needs a different policy approach. Individual agreements on shared responsibilities will be needed to reshape policy areas. Increased cooperation and collaboration around national and state issues would need to be achieved. Participants started by looking at improving the generic architecture by enhancing the primary cooperation of levels of government through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

This could be the platform for any further detailed reform in order to avoid policy making failures around shared responsibility between governments. It is also important to note that the attendees agreed reform would need to start from the current position and not echoing any previous attempts. The Australian federal system is characterised by a significant level of vertical fiscal imbalance and this issue would need to be addressed to assist in reforming federalism.

The Commonwealth holds the monopoly on tax revenue from income and GST and much of this is paid back to the states by way of Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs). These SPPs allow the Commonwealth to grant funds to states with conditions in areas that are constitutionally the states’ domain. As SPPs make up 40 % of Commonwealth grants the streamlining of these with a focus on outcomes would allow increased efficiency. In addition, guaranteed revenue would allow states to fund their responsibilities without central pressures.

Whilst this imbalance could be reduced by assigning state expenditure responsibilities to the Commonwealth, it is an unrealistic expectation to reduce such a significant imbalance. (Carling, 2008: page/s) Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the different levels of government is essential, as Carling (2008: page) states, “A federal system needs to be ?rmly anchored to a rational allocation of roles and responsibilities for the different levels of government” Lack of clearly defined roles can cause duplication of processes and conflict in policy making, giving states the opportunity to avoid accountability.

A review of roles and responsibilities is a logical starting point, with the functional roles of Commonwealth and the state’ clearly defined. This may require that the Commonwealth takes a leadership role to ensure states are able to effectively deliver services. It is important to understand that the distribution of responsibilities between the levels Government has evolved aver time, and will presumably continue to change as policy and political imperatives require. (Podger 2008)

Collaboration between governments to deliver long term sustainable national solutions is needed to face the significant social, economic and environmental challenges. Recently, all three levels of government have become receptive towards the idea of cooperative federalism. For effective federation architecture of cooperation consisting components such as principles to guide, supporting legal and institutional arrangements and appropriate cultural practices and attitudes are required.

Focus could be on formalisation of COAG through intergovernmental agreement, clarification of COAG and ministerial council relation, ongoing review of federal financial relations and development of cultural practices to support the best of federalism. The change offers opportunities to make lasting improvements and Australian governments should seize the opportunity towards delivering effective national responses and generating substantial benefits for Australians. (Wanna, J. May 2009)

Although the Australian federal system is perceived as declining and in need of reshaping, Australia is a prosperous nation. Federalism has seen Australia through times of significant stress including depression and war, and has led to the development of a welfare state. Rapid globalisation and modernisation demands that federalism adapt and adjust to meet competing demands. The options outlined in this essay provide the extending steps for already happening improvements by an ambitious government.