In their important new book criticizing federalism, Malcolm Feeley and Edward Rubin argue that federalism (defined as constitutional guarantees for state autonomy) is unnecessary in the modern US in part because modern Americans no longer feel any major sense of identification with state governments.
Ilya Somin responds:
As John McGinnis and I explained in this 2004 article, declining public identification with state governments actually increases the benefits of foot voting. A citizen who strongly identifies with Virginia might hesitate to leave even if another state is otherwise vastly more attractive due to its superior public policies. But a person who feels little or no loyalty to her state won't suffer from any such inhibitions. To the extent that modern Virginians are more willing to leave than those of 100 or 200 years ago, state governments elsewhere have stronger incentives to woo them, and Virginia's state government has stronger incentives to adopt good policies that will convince them to stay. Once we recognize the importance of voting with your feet as a major benefit of federalism, it turns out that declining loyalty to state governments actually strengthens the case for limiting the scope of federal power.
It seems a bit of a chicken/egg issue. I try to watch the Georgia Gang on Fox 5, but in addition to it being really crappy television, the issues discussed seem like the leftover scraps from D.C. If federalism (and subsidiarity in general) was a greater governing philosophy, then not only would people take more interest in local politics, but both their ballot and feet voting would mean more.
No comments:
Post a Comment