Carl J Friedrich Limited Government A Comparison Essay

1 See Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies, for my statement of the theory of consociational democracy and for references to the writings of other authors belonging to the consociational school: Hans Daalder, Luc Huyse, Gerhard Lehmbruch, Kenneth D. McRae, Eric A. Nordlinger, G. Bingham Powell, Jr., and Jürg Steiner.

2Lane, Jan-Ėrik, “Some Theoretical Notes on Institutional Autonomy,” Stalsvelenskaplig Tidskrift4 (1977), 256–57.

3Riker, William H., “Federalism,” in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W.(eds.), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 5: Governmental Institutions and Processes (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1975), 101.

4 See Elazar, Daniel J., “Federalism,” in Sills, David L. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 5 (New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1968), 356.

5Friedrich, Carl J., Limited Government: A Comparison (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974), 55.

6Herman, Valentine and Mendel, Françoise, Parliaments of the World: A Reference Compendium (London: Macmillan, 1976), 4. Ivo D. Duchacek calls attention to the two exceptions of federal but unicameral parliaments: those of Cameroon and Pakistan. See Duchacek, , Comparative Federalism: The Territorial Dimension of Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970), 248–49. However, Herman and Mendel describe Pakistan's legislature as bicameral, and they regard Cameroon as nonfederal.

7Ameller, Michel, Parliaments: A Comparative Study of the Structure and Functioning of Representative Institutions in Fifty-Five Countries (London: Cassell, 1966), 5–6; Herman and Mendel, Parliaments of the World, 5.

8 Friedrich, Limited Government, 21. See also Duchacek, Comparative Federalism, 230–31; and Elazar, “Federalism,” 360.

9 Unfortunately, the first World Handbook does not supply comparable figures for the highly decentralized Swiss federal system, and the second World Handbook does not report similar data at all. An even more striking illustration of the link between federalism and decentralization appears when we examine the percentages of all government employees that are employed by the central government in the six countries for which the necessary figures are given in the first World Handbook: 80, 69, and 59 per cent respectively in three unitary states—France, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand—and 41, 28, and 27 percent respectively in federal West Germany, Australia, and the United States. See Russett, Bruce M. et al. , World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), 70–71.

10Livingston, William S., “A Note on the Nature of Federalism,” in Wildavsky, Aaron (ed.), American Federalism in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 37. See also Stein, Michael B., “Federal Political Systems and Federal Societies,” World Politics20 (1968), 721–47.

11 Duchacek, Comparative Federalism, 250.

12Vile, M. J. C., “Federal Theory and the ‘New Federalism,’” in Jaensch, Dean (ed.), The Politics of “New Federalism” (Adelaide: Australasian Political Studies Association, 1977), 4.

13 Elazar, “Federalism,” 357.

14Friedrich, Carl J., “Corporate Federalism and Linguistic Politics,” paper presented at the Ninth World Congress of the International Political Science Association,Montreal,1973. See also McRae, Kenneth D., “The Principle of Territoriality and the Principle of Personality in Multilingual States,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 4 (1975), 33–54.

15Uustalu, Evald, The History of Estonian People (London: Boreas, 1952), 220.

16Aun, Karl, “Cultural Autonomy of Ethnic Minorities in Estonia: A Model for Multicultural Society?” paper presented at the Third Conference of Baltic Studies in Scandinavia,Stockholm,1975, 1, 11–12.

17 Friedrich, “Corporate Federalism and Linguistic Politics,” 9, 14.

18Friedrich, Carl J., Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice (New York: Praeger, 1968), 124.

19 Riker, “Federalism,” 107; Lijphart, “Federal, Confederal, and Consociational Alternatives,” 5 and Fig. 1.

20Tarlton, Charles D., “Symmetry and Asymmetry as Elements of Federalism: A Theoretical Speculation,” Journal of Politics, 27 (1965), 868–69, 873. Lawrence Mayer draws a similar contrast between “congruent” (that is, asymmetrical) and “formalistic” (that is, symmetrical) federations; see his “Federalism and Party Behavior in Australia and Canada,” Western Political Quarterly23 (1970), 795–96.

21Rae, Douglas W. and Taylor, Michael, The Analysis of Political Cleavages (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 22–23.

22 The figures are mainly based on census data, but no such data are available for the subunits in India and in semifederal Belgium. The indices for these two countries are based on the assumption that the Indian states are 80 per cent linguistically homogeneous on the average, and that Flanders and Wallonia are 95 per cent and Brussels 80 per cent linguistically homogeneous.

23 For descriptions of the federal characteristics of Belgium and the Netherlands Antilles, see Heisler, Martin O., “Managing Ethnic Conflict in Belgium,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science433 (1977), 32–46; Zolberg, Aristide R., “Splitting the Difference: Federalization without Federalism in Belgium,” in Esman, Milton J. (ed.), Ethnic Conflict in the Western World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 103–42; and Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies, 192–97, 202–06.

24 Heisler, “Managing Ethic Conflict in Belgium,” 42.

* This essay is a revised version of my chapter, “Consociation and Federation: Conceptual and Empirical Links,” which will appear in N. J. Rhoodie (ed.), Conflict Regulation in Southern Africa (London: Macmillan, 1980). The original version was prepared for the Conference on Southern African Affairs, organized by the Institute for Plural Societies of the University of Pretoria, in New York, October 23–25, 1978. It represents an elaboration of a number of ideas first presented in my paper, “Federal, Confederal, and Consociational Alternatives for the South African Plural Society: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives,” prepared for the Conference on Future Political Alternatives for South Africa and Implications for the West, organized by the World Peace Foundation and the South African Institute of International Affairs in Rustenburg, South Africa, July 26–29, 1978. It also relies to a considerable extent on my book, Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), and my article, “Majority Rule versus Democracy in Deeply Divided Societies,” Politikon 4 (1977), 113–26.

Althusius, Johannes. 1964. Politics. Translated by Carney, Frederick. Boston: Beacon Press.

Banting, Keith, and Simeon, Richard, eds. 1985. Redesigning the State: The Politics of Constitutional Change. Toronto: University ot Toronto Press.

Banting, Keith, and Simeon, Richard. 1981. Politics of Constitution Making. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Barber, Benjamin. 1974. The Death of Communal Liberty: A History of Freedom in a Swiss Mountain Canton. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bowie, Robert T., and Friedrich, Carl J., eds. 1954. Studies in Federalism. Boston: Little, Brown.

Burgess, Michael, ed. 1966. Federalism and Federation in Western Europe. United Kingdom: Croom Helm.

Codding, GeorgeJr., 1961. The Federal Government of Switzerland. London: Allen and Unwin.

Davis, S. Rufus. 1978. The Federal Principle: A Journey Through Time in Quest for Meaning. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

de Rougemont, Denis. 1965. La Suisse, ou l'histoire d'un peuple heureux. Lausanne: Le Livre du Mois.

Diaz, Cesar. 1981. “The State of the Autonomic Process in Spain.” Publius11(3–4): 193–219.

Dikshit, Ramash Dutta. 1975. The Political Geography of Federalism. New York: Halsted Press.

Diamond, Martin. 1959. “Democracy and The Federalist: A Reconsideration of the Framers' Intent.” American Political Science Review53: 52–68.

Duchacek, Ivo D.1970. Comparative Federalism: The Territorial Dimensions of Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Earle, Valerie, ed. 1968. Federalism: Infinite Variety in Theory and Practice. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.

Elazar, Daniel, ed. 1982. “The Continuing Legacy of the Articles of the Confederation.” Publius12:4.

Elazar, Daniel. 1987. Exploring Federalism. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Elazar, Daniel. 1983. Governing Peoples and Territories. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Elazar, Daniel J., Carroll, R. Bruce, Gray, Kenneth E., Levine, E. Lester, and Angelo, Douglas St.1969. Corroboration and Conflict. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Eschet-Schwartz, Andre. 1991. “Can the Swiss Federal Experience Serve as a Model of Federal Integration.” In Constitutional Design and Power-Sharing in the Post-Modern Epoch, ed. Elazar, Daniel J.. Lanham: University Press of America.

Essays in Federalism. 1961. Claremont: Claremont Mens College.

Esterbauer, Fried, Heraud, Guy, and Pernthalers, Peter, eds. 1977. Foderalismus. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumuller.

Forsyth, Murray. 1990. Federalism in the Soviet Union. Leicester: University of Leicester Press.

Franck, Thomas. 1966. Why Federations Fail: An Inquiry into the Requisites for a Successful Federation. New York: New York University Press.

Frenkel, Max. 1984. Foderalismus und Bundessat. Band I: Foderalismus. Bern: Verlag Peter Lang AG.

Frenkel, Max. 1977. Partnership in Federalism. Bern: Peter J. Lang.

Friedrich, Carl J.1968. Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice. New York: Praeger.

Grodzins, Morton. 1966. The American System: A New View of Government in the United States. Ed. Elazar, Daniel J.. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Hamilton, Alexander, Jay, John, and Madison, James. 1788. The Federalist.

Hughes, Christopher. 1963. Confederacies. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Kapur, Anup Chand. 1970. Constitutional History of India: 1765–1970. New Delhi: Niraj Prakashan.

Katz, Ellis, and Schuster, Benjamin R., eds. 1978. Dialogue on Comparative Federalism. Philadelphia: Center for the Study of Federalism.

King, Preston. 1982. Federalism and Federations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Livingston, William D.1956. Federalism and Constitutional Change. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Locke, John. 1965. Second Treatise on Government. Ed. Laslett, Peter. New York: Mentor Books.

Marc, Alexandre. 1948. A Hauteur d'Homme: La Revolution Federaliste. Paris: Editions du sers.

Marc, Alexandre, and Aron, Robert. 1948. Principles du Federalisme. Paris: Le Portulan.

Mathews, Russell, ed. 1977. “Federalism in Australia: Current Trends.” Publius7:3.

Maxwell, James. 1977. Financing State and Local Governments, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Macmahon, Arthur, ed. 1955. Federalism: Mature and Emergent. New York: Columbia University Press.

Michel, Roberto. [1915] 1959. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Dover.

Ostrom, Vincent. 1986. The Political Theory of a Compound Republic. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Riker, William H.1964. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown.

Sawer, Geoffrey. 1977. “Constitutional Issues in Australian Federalism.” Publius7(3): 21–34.

Seligman, Alan. 1992. The Idea of a Civil Society. New York: Free Press.

Siegfried, Andre, n.d. Switzerland. Translated by Fitzgerald, Edward. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

Smiley, Donald B.1980. Canada in Question: Federalism in the Eighties, 3rd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Stevens, R. Michael. 1977. “Asymmetrical Federalism: The Federal Principle and the Survival of the Small Republic.” Publius7(4): 177–204.

Watts, Ronald. 1966. New Federation: Experiment in the Commonwealth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wheare, K. C.1964. Federal Government, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

One thought on “Carl J Friedrich Limited Government A Comparison Essay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *