Federalism’s Significance

In evaluating federalism's significance, Riker argues federalism is both ineffi­cient and does not foster freedom, because it is a system that favours minority decision making and imposes high external costs on everybody except the privileged minority.

In complex systems, however, assuming normal distributions and seeking averages will often miss the relevant variables and result in a misleading anal­ysis, because it is the abnormal distributions (that is, the long- or heavy-tailed distributions or patterns) that often have the greatest influence on the system. In complex systems, sufficient diversity and competition are actually bene­ficial; they make the system run smoother and better by fostering resilience, robustness and innovation that allow the system to withstand shocks and dis­ruptions and adapt to new situations, all without oversight, direction or plan­ning (Colander and Kupers 2014; Page 2011). In federal systems, competition between governments is a means to check tyranny, protect liberty and keep government attentive, accountable, efficient, resilient and innovative (Kincaid 1991; Oates 2001; Schneiberg and Bartley, 2008; Smith 2018).

The standard model and a complexity policy framework also differ in their treatment of values and norms. The standard model requires a strict separa­tion of facts and values, because science is unable to address metaphysical things like values. Also, under the rational choice model, norms and values are usually assumed to be fixed and unchangeable. Consequently, scientists are to defer the selection of values to two broad, aggregating and competitive processes—the market and politics. Each process relies on self-interested individuals and groups (firms and political parties) intentionally seeking to manipulate or alter the process for their own benefit. In both instances, little attention is given to norms, the public good, or the principles the public values.

Insisting on a strict fact-values distinction in public policy analysis can lead to value advocacy coming in through the back door under the pretence of value neutrality (Strauss 1953). Consider Riker's definition of freedom. Riker defines ‘freedom' as the ability to make policy. This allows the conclusion that one harms freedom by impairing either the majority or elite's ability to make and direct policy. Yet Riker's definition of freedom ignores the more common definition of freedom as the right to pursue one's version of happiness in both the public and private realm. Under this more common definition, federalism may foster freedom by supporting and protecting diversity and competition. Riker's non-normatively operationalized definition of freedomjustifies top­down elite policy making, while dismissing as irrelevant the common under­standing of freedom.

Riker's final conclusion about federalism also follows the fact-value dis­tinction. ‘If in the United States one approves of Southern white racists', Riker (1964, p. 155) writes, ‘then one should approve of American federalism. If, on the other hand, one disapproves of the values of the privileged minority, one should disapprove of federalism.

In contrast, complexity policy recommends evaluating and adopting a clear norms policy that identifies the values that define and bind a commu­nity. Norms and rules coevolve. The norms give meaning, purpose and con­text to the rules. Consequently, norms are the most effective means to stabi­lize or affect change in complex, human systems (Colander and Kupers 2014; Meadows 2008; Wheatley 2006;). This is because if people's values and ide­als change, then they change their behaviour, and that change reverberates throughout the system in ways that create new understandings, institutions and emergent properties that then reinforce those changes and norms. Given the power of norms to shape systems, conscious attention and choice should be given to studying and selecting the norms that underlie and animate com­plex, human systems.

The power of norms to shape complex, human social systems and the standard model's insistence on the fact-values distinction can result in pol­icy reforms that have little effect if they are inconsistent with the prevailing norms. Existing conditions may ‘lock-in' existing policies. Consequently, what exists as a public's norms may differ considerably from what a public desires for its guiding norms (Colander and Kupers 2014, p. 185). A benefit of a com­plexity policy model, then, is that it encourages a values debate beyond the merely abstract and analytical assessments to consider what are the genuine ideals and values, motives and passions within a specific context (Kass 2002, ch.

Neglecting the power of norms, the non-linear nature of complex sys­tems and the existence of emergence leads the standard model to exagger­ate human intelligence's ability to know and leadership's ability to control complex human social systems. Complexity theory teaches that control and prediction are impossible in complex systems. Unfortunately, an exaggerated view of intelligence fostered by the standard model has led to an unjustified deference to authority: justifying leadership action without genuine public discourse that harms democracy (Garsten 2006; Hirschman 1970; Manent 2006, 2007; Moore 2017);^{[16] [17] [18] shifting responsibility for solving problems from individuals to the government (Deneen 2018; Lane 2017; Lowi 1979; Milbank and Pabst 20i6);l(i and denying citizens important opportunities that could create social connections, meaning and purpose in their lives (Hawkins et al. 2018; MacIntyre 1984; Minogue 2010; Pally 2016; Sachs 2018). Moreover, when government fails to solve important problems, the public becomes cynical and alienated, because the government did not do what its leaders and advocates claimed it could. This has contributed to the crisis of authority in our world today (Appelbaum 2018; Brooks 2018).}

Political science's standard model teaches that politics is competition for resources and power, and the solution is often government centralization, unity and uniformity or market choices influenced by self-interested firms. The standard model rests on an assumption that people with differing ideas will behave in competitive and antagonistic relationships. This ‘tragedy of the commons' is a founding myth of modern political science. Yet, research shows, humans are often capable of resolving the allocation of common resources without government oversight (Ostrom 1990); and Ridley (1996) claims that actual tragedy-of-the-commons events are almost always the result of govern­ment intervention.

The standard model's recommendations are now highly suspect, because the standard model assumes a false anthropology, its methods miss a fundamental source of order, and it overestimates elites' ability to know and control. The stan­dard model that defines the social sciences needs to be rethought. It is time for a paradigm shift that gives due consideration to non-linear, dynamic systems, beneficial competition and natural human sentiments that favour social interac­tion, and cooperation.

In this paradigm shift, the potential lies in recognizing that individuals are smart and adaptive, who benefit from bearing some risk and respond with respon­sibility and restraint, whose nature seeks social connections, and who can work collaboratively to design institutions and structures that respect the common good and help them achieve their goals (Colander and Kupers 2014) This requires an environment that recognizes the value and place for both local interactions with bottom-up influence and limited top-down direction. How to accomplish this is not yet clear, but a federalism that values self-government may provide a valuable framework.

A federalism that values self-government will provide a minimal normative national framework that unites the nation, but allows significant local discre­tion. An example could be the United States' Declaration of Independence which defines some fundamental values that define an American identity, while the Constitution allows constituent units significant freedom and diversity consistent with those values.

Too much local control, however, can be harmful. The natural human senti­ments that contribute to cooperation also foster tribalism and local tyranny. A federalism that values self-government will recognize the problems of prej­udice and bias that make local tyrannies possible. Clearly, some top-down and macro-direction is both beneficial and necessary to overcome local tyrannies and tribalism, but it will also acknowledge that local control (or federalism all the way down) can be an effective means to empower minorities (Gerken 2010), and foster transformative bottom-up movements.

A federalism that values self-government provides a means to overcome the trust problem—how can you trust others to forgo their short-term self­interest for long-term cooperation (Ridley 1996)? The solution to problems of self-government is often more self-government. Many have noted that the rules that make trust and cooperation possible are more likely to be internal­ized, effective, robust and monitored if they are created closer to the people and through popular participation (Colander and Kupers 2014; Moore 2017; Morgol 2012; Ostrom 1990; Ridley 1996).^[19] Tocqueville famously noted that self-government teaches the art of associating and cultivates the virtues that make more self-government possible (Tocqueville 2000). Similarly, the value of character education for cultivating the ‘better angels of our nature' should not be neglected. This need was understood by America's founding fathers (see Vetterli and Bryner 1996).

Finally, developing shared public spaces that require responsibility and restraint provides an educative function. Hans Monderman (n.d.) noted that when people learn to navigate the ‘shared space' intersections they also often come to realize that government is not necessary to solve every problem. More self-government means more human interactions which require trust, and this leads humans to both behave more trustworthily and identify and sanction those who behave irresponsibly and untrustworthily.

In this regard, federalism's contribution will probably be less in refining the institutions of government or the techniques of intergovernmental man­agement. Rather, it will help structure an ecosystem that fosters greater self­government through human associations that self-organize in unplanned, unpredictable and creative ways. Making this work well requires a better understanding of when top-down command and control is efficient and effec­tive, and when bottom-up diversity and competition are better.

5