This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations

Federal states are able to remove trade barriers between members which would otherwise exist if there were independent states (such as difficulties in moving goods due to borders). This increases internal trade and economic growth and encourages investors.¹ Federal units are able to share resources and concentrate on producing what they are best at (called comparative advantage) at a better economy of scale. Even in cases of agreed free trade areas between states, there is no overarching authority to ensure timely compliance to agreements.²Finally, larger economic units are more able to influence international trade regimes.^3
1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,'
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,'
²BBC, 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute 
³Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism

improve this

Free trade areas are able to operate quite successfully even if they lack an overarching authority and full integration of currencies, such as NAFTA.¹
Economic homogenisation is not necessarily a good thing. Common currencies are best deployed in Optimal Currency Area, which are areas with sufficiently similar economies that a common currency can successfully function. Problems exist where there is a lack of political capital between nations in a federation or when there are logistical barriers (such as the different languages within the EU or the differing strength of public finances).² There is no reason why federal states are required for comparative advantage to exist, though economies of scale could be less.
¹ Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2004, 'NAFTA: A Decade of Success,'
. ²Wikipedia, 2011, 'Optimal Currency Are

Federal states allow local decision making to suit local needs due to their tiered decision making structures. This ensures that citizens are able to determine how they should live their lives without infringing upon the rights of citizens in other federal units who may have different opinions. However on security matters which affect the entire federal state, citizens are better protected because the federal units are stronger together than apart. A federal state also creates a common sense of purpose than can dissuade conflict between the federal units. A good historical example of this behaviour was the agreement of the Swiss Cantons to come together to collectively protect and enrich themselves from outside threats in 1848.^1
1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,'

States should not be overly concerned with size as a measure of strength since this is merely increasing the area that needs defending. Instead they should be concerned with having common sense of identity that encourages cooperation. Russia, Nigeria and India are examples of large federated states which suffer from internal insurgencies caused by political grievances.¹ The Democratic Republic of the Congo is an excellent example of a large federated state which has proven incapable of defending its borders.² It may be the case a common identity is better formed in independent nation states. Smaller states like Monaco and Singapore continue to exist with relative security in contrast.
¹ AlertNet, 2011, 'Bin Laden death weakens Russia insurgency- official,'
The Washington Post, 2006, 'Grievances Fuel Insurgency, Says Nigeria Media
'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand state', BBC News

²BBC, 2010, 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand State

It is not clear what the logical end point for splitting countries over political differences would be. Since each individual has a unique set of preferences, or at least there are large numbers of groups of people with different preferences, the state must aggregate preferences at some point. It makes more sense for the state to aggregate preferences in such a way that creates effective states that can meet their (aggregate) goals rather than attempting to find "pure" nation states. Furthermore, nations are often scattered in areas which do not provide a clear location for a state. An example of this is Eastern Europe or Africa where ethnic groups and tribes regularly cross state boundaries and exist as unconnected pockets.¹ It would be impossible to create states to cater to these groups.
¹ Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,'

It is true that there are few states which include homogenous national groups. However, there are some (Iceland and Japan for example) but there are many states which are predominantly a single "nation." And given that proposition has accepted that nations are constructed, it is possible for people to opt-into nationhood. Thus autonomous nation states can exist where groups of people agree to live with common cultural and political values. Therefore, it is not futile to attempt to accommodate a common set of political values within a state. Indeed, it is necessary to have some kind of common history, culture, practices or ethnicity often to bind groups together.^1
1Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'

Federal states tend to be larger and have different economic cycles. This allows the overall state to cope with different economic cycles by using fiscal transfers (tax) between wealthier states and poorer states to fund government programmes.¹ So for example if Mississippi and New Mexico were paying for all their services themselves from their own taxes they would have debts of over 500% of GDP,²however at the beginning of the Republic it was the Southern States who were the richest due to their cotton wealth.
¹Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer
²The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,'

improve this

In most cases parts of federated states remain in similar economic positions relative to other sections. California and Texas are regularly the most economically successful US states. Rather than receive economic benefit, they have federal taxes transferred to the weakest performing states in the Union. A similar argument is apparent with the German bailouts in the 2010-11 Eurozone financial crisis.^1
1The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,' 
The Economist, 2011, 'German business and politics: Goodbye to Berlin,'

improve this

Federal states are able to remove trade barriers between members which would otherwise exist if there were independent states (such as difficulties in moving goods due to borders). This increases internal trade and economic growth and encourages investors.¹ Federal units are able to share resources and concentrate on producing what they are best at (called comparative advantage) at a better economy of scale. Even in cases of agreed free trade areas between states, there is no overarching authority to ensure timely compliance to agreements.²Finally, larger economic units are more able to influence international trade regimes.^3
1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,'
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,'
²BBC, 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute 
³Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism

improve this

Free trade areas are able to operate quite successfully even if they lack an overarching authority and full integration of currencies, such as NAFTA.¹
Economic homogenisation is not necessarily a good thing. Common currencies are best deployed in Optimal Currency Area, which are areas with sufficiently similar economies that a common currency can successfully function. Problems exist where there is a lack of political capital between nations in a federation or when there are logistical barriers (such as the different languages within the EU or the differing strength of public finances).² There is no reason why federal states are required for comparative advantage to exist, though economies of scale could be less.
¹ Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2004, 'NAFTA: A Decade of Success,'
. ²Wikipedia, 2011, 'Optimal Currency Are

Federal states allow local decision making to suit local needs due to their tiered decision making structures. This ensures that citizens are able to determine how they should live their lives without infringing upon the rights of citizens in other federal units who may have different opinions. However on security matters which affect the entire federal state, citizens are better protected because the federal units are stronger together than apart. A federal state also creates a common sense of purpose than can dissuade conflict between the federal units. A good historical example of this behaviour was the agreement of the Swiss Cantons to come together to collectively protect and enrich themselves from outside threats in 1848.^1
1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,'

States should not be overly concerned with size as a measure of strength since this is merely increasing the area that needs defending. Instead they should be concerned with having common sense of identity that encourages cooperation. Russia, Nigeria and India are examples of large federated states which suffer from internal insurgencies caused by political grievances.¹ The Democratic Republic of the Congo is an excellent example of a large federated state which has proven incapable of defending its borders.² It may be the case a common identity is better formed in independent nation states. Smaller states like Monaco and Singapore continue to exist with relative security in contrast.
¹ AlertNet, 2011, 'Bin Laden death weakens Russia insurgency- official,'
The Washington Post, 2006, 'Grievances Fuel Insurgency, Says Nigeria Media
'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand state', BBC News

²BBC, 2010, 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand State

It is not clear what the logical end point for splitting countries over political differences would be. Since each individual has a unique set of preferences, or at least there are large numbers of groups of people with different preferences, the state must aggregate preferences at some point. It makes more sense for the state to aggregate preferences in such a way that creates effective states that can meet their (aggregate) goals rather than attempting to find "pure" nation states. Furthermore, nations are often scattered in areas which do not provide a clear location for a state. An example of this is Eastern Europe or Africa where ethnic groups and tribes regularly cross state boundaries and exist as unconnected pockets.¹ It would be impossible to create states to cater to these groups.
¹ Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,'

It is true that there are few states which include homogenous national groups. However, there are some (Iceland and Japan for example) but there are many states which are predominantly a single "nation." And given that proposition has accepted that nations are constructed, it is possible for people to opt-into nationhood. Thus autonomous nation states can exist where groups of people agree to live with common cultural and political values. Therefore, it is not futile to attempt to accommodate a common set of political values within a state. Indeed, it is necessary to have some kind of common history, culture, practices or ethnicity often to bind groups together.^1
1Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'

Federal states tend to be larger and have different economic cycles. This allows the overall state to cope with different economic cycles by using fiscal transfers (tax) between wealthier states and poorer states to fund government programmes.¹ So for example if Mississippi and New Mexico were paying for all their services themselves from their own taxes they would have debts of over 500% of GDP,²however at the beginning of the Republic it was the Southern States who were the richest due to their cotton wealth.
¹Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer
²The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,'

improve this

In most cases parts of federated states remain in similar economic positions relative to other sections. California and Texas are regularly the most economically successful US states. Rather than receive economic benefit, they have federal taxes transferred to the weakest performing states in the Union. A similar argument is apparent with the German bailouts in the 2010-11 Eurozone financial crisis.^1
1The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,' 
The Economist, 2011, 'German business and politics: Goodbye to Berlin,'

improve this

Federal states offer convenient guises for the exploitation of resource rich areas or areas of strategic importance. The Niger Delta is used by the Nigerian government to provide oil wealth that is insufficiently invested in the Delta leading to insurgencies¹. The Nigerian government is able to remove international pressure to reform by allying itself with UN principles of non-intervention in sovereign states which is only rarely overridden in cases of serious, systemic and widespread human rights abuses when 'all peaceful means have failed'.² In reality, this gives government's considerable leeway to commit abuses within their own territory. If the Niger Delta were a separate country, there would be much more political capital to ensure it was appropriately treated and a stronger legal basis to hold Nigeria to account.
¹Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007. 
² United Nations, 'An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-making,'

The comparative situation is that of a resource rich region being surrounded by aggressive neighbours which desire its resources. Weak states are usually incapable of defending their borders and thus fall victim to invasion and occupation (such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo).¹ Long term control by a federal state is preferable to repeated violence and conflict as outside forces move in and out of the region. Moreover, being part of a federal state ensures that there is only one party attempting to control the region rather than multiple competing governments which are likely to bring long term violence. Finally, there is the other side to the opposition's case. By being part of a federal state, there is international pressure for members of that resource rich federal unit to have something in return and for their state to adequately look after them.
¹ Consultancy Africa Intelligence, 2010, 'Security Situation in the DRC: A case of a weak state leaning on the UN,'

improve this

Firstly, Federal states involve compromise between different parties in order to reach proposals which can be acceptable to all members of the federation. This often means that states are forced to compromise on important issues. An example of this is Abortion in the USA.¹
Often, in order to protect minorities, voting is skewed towards smaller federal units (for example the US Senate with two Senators per state, regardless of population). This does not fulfil the principles of equal democratic representation. Such an issue exists to far less a degree in independent states, which can be more homogenous in preferences and more reflective of local needs.²
Moreover, given that it is unlikely that any state has chosen the appropriate position of compromise, all federal units will end up with a policy which is sub-optimal for them.
Secondly, Federal arrangements tend to be complex, inhibiting transparency as vested interests at different levels of government defend their spheres.^2
1 USA Today, 2010, 'Abortion deal helps ensure enough votes for health care,' 
²Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'

Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; it prevents federal units from selecting extreme policies which could harm minority groups.¹Moreover, the devolved power structure of federal states means that the decisions which have to be collective are normally in areas of collective interest, for example defence, where there is a "whole" which should have preference over individual federal units. Whilst different levels of federal arrangements will have different interests, this reflects their different functions and prevents any one function from being overridden completely. Finally, this argument ignores the comparative which includes the benefits of federation to the constituent units
¹Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'

The proposition arguments repeatedly rely on the federal state being limited in strength enough to allow local differences and choices. However, historically, federal states have moved to extend their control from the centre often with the justification of necessity. Both the USA and Russia are examples of this trend.¹ In the USA, debates about overstretch of federal control are numerous and time consuming. This argument is especially likely if one or a group of federal units are significantly stronger than the other unit, for example the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1871 German Union. In this case, Prussia was able to use its financial strength and size to eventually dominate the Union and control the other federal units.^2
1Garratt, Thomas and Rhine, Russell. 'On the Size and Growth of Government.' Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 88 (1). 2006. 
World Savvy, 2008, 'Centralization of Power in Modern Russia,' 
² Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'

Often decisions are forced on states by powerful neighbours. Examples include the South African policy of dumping crops in neighbouring states, Russia's brief war with Georgia and the United States' treatment of Latin America.¹ Under the proposition they at least have the ability to influence and challenge decisions that are being made.² There are also the comparative benefits of being within the federal state, detailed in the Proposition section.
¹ 'A Good neighbour? South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets and policy makersACB Briefing Paper p. 14 
'The Russia-Georgia war, three years onThe Economist 
'Bullying Latin AmericaQuarterly Americas
² 'FederalismSection 3.1, Stanford

Within federal states, some federal units are often persistently weaker within the state that others and thus have to repeatedly accommodate (this links to the argument above).¹ In countries such as Nigeria, resource rich parts of the country are consistently used by the rest of the country as a source of wealth with insufficient investment in return.^2
1Centre for European Economic Research, 2011, 'Poor States, Rich Federal Government- Winners and Losers of the Emissions Trading Scheme,' 
Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'
²Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007.

This point ignores the fact that weak federal units would make weak states unable to protect their interests anyway. Mississippi would have very little global influence if it were not in the USA. Within the USA it gains the benefit of collective bargaining. Weaker federal units together are more powerful than apart and have the protection of more powerful units in global diplomacy.

improve this