What Is Federalism? Definition, Types and Examples

Federalism in plain terms

Every country has to decide where decisions get made. In a federal system, the answer is: in more than one place, by design.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes a federal order as one that divides final authority between member units and common institutions, so that each level is self-governing in some areas. Scholars often sum this up as shared rule plus self-rule. The national government handles what the whole country has in common, such as defense, currency and foreign policy. Regional governments handle much of daily life, such as schools, policing and local roads.

Three features usually mark a real federation:

1. Two levels that both govern citizens directly. You pay taxes to and obey laws from both your state and your national government.
2. A written constitution that protects the division. Neither level can abolish the other or rewrite the split on its own.
3. An umpire. Usually a supreme or constitutional court settles disputes about which level may do what.

It helps to place federalism between two alternatives. In a unitary state, such as France or Japan, the national government holds final authority and regional bodies exist at its pleasure. In a confederation, member states keep most power and the center depends on them. The United States tried that model under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 and replaced it with the Constitution of 1787 because the central government could not raise revenue or enforce its decisions.

The Forum of Federations, an international network of federal governments, counts roughly 25 federal countries, home to about 40 percent of the world's population.

Federalism in the US Constitution

The American founders did not invent federalism, but they gave it its best known modern form.

The Constitution lists specific powers of Congress, such as regulating commerce among the states, coining money and declaring war. The Tenth Amendment, ratified in 1791, adds that powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

James Madison defended this design in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 45 he wrote that the powers delegated to the federal government were "few and defined," while those left to the states were "numerous and indefinite." In Federalist No. 51 he argued that dividing power first between two governments, and then among branches within each, created "a double security" for the rights of the people. Alexander Hamilton, by contrast, pushed for a more energetic national government, and the tension between his vision and that of Thomas Jefferson shaped the first party system.

A long argument over the balance

The line between federal and state power has moved many times:

• 1819. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court read federal powers broadly and barred states from taxing a national bank.
• 1830s to 1860s. John C. Calhoun argued that states could nullify federal laws. The dispute over states' rights and slavery ended in civil war.
• 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment let federal courts protect individual rights against state governments.
• 1930s. The New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt greatly expanded federal programs, often run jointly with states.
• 1980s and 1990s. Ronald Reagan promoted a "new federalism" that returned some programs to states, and in United States v. Lopez (1995) the Court struck down a federal gun law as beyond the commerce power.
• 2022. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization returned abortion regulation to the states.

You can browse how every US president scores on our political axes, including on questions of central versus local power.

Dual vs cooperative federalism

Political scientists often describe two broad models.

The political scientist Morton Grodzins popularized the marble cake image around 1960, arguing that functions in the American system were mixed, not stacked. Other labels you may meet include fiscal federalism, about how taxing and spending are divided, and competitive federalism, about states competing for residents and businesses with different mixes of taxes and services.

Federalism around the world

Federations differ a great deal in how they divide power and why they formed.

• Germany. The 1949 Basic Law created 16 Länder. The states administer most federal laws, and their governments sit in the Bundesrat, the upper chamber. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer led the new federal republic. See also our list of German chancellors.
• Canada. The 1867 Constitution Act divided powers between Ottawa and the provinces. Quebec's distinct language and legal tradition made federalism central to Canadian politics, from Pierre Trudeau's defense of a strong federation to René Lévesque's push for sovereignty.
• Australia. Six colonies federated in 1901, with Edmund Barton as the first prime minister. Its constitution borrowed from the American model.
• Switzerland. The 1848 constitution turned a loose confederation into a federal state. Its 26 cantons keep wide powers, and federalism is paired with frequent popular votes, covered in our guide to direct democracy.
• India. The 1950 constitution, drafted by a committee chaired by B. R. Ambedkar, describes India as a "Union of States" and gives the center strong powers, including over the creation of new states.
• Brazil. The 1988 constitution treats the union, the states and even municipalities as federal units.

The Stanford Encyclopedia notes a useful distinction. Some federations are coming together, formed when separate states pool sovereignty, as in the US and Switzerland. Others are holding together, formed when a unitary state devolves power to keep a diverse country united, as in India, Belgium and Spain.

The case for and against federalism

The case for

Defenders make several arguments.

• Protecting liberty. Splitting power makes it harder for any one government to dominate. This was Madison's "double security," and it is a central theme for classical liberals and libertarians.
• Laboratories of democracy. Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932), wrote that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory" for new policies without risk to the rest of the country. Welfare reform, school choice, same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization all spread state by state before national action.
• Fitting policy to place. A huge and varied country may not want one rule for everything. People can also move to states whose policies suit them.
• Accommodating diversity. Federalism lets linguistic, religious or national minorities govern themselves within a larger state, which can reduce pressure for secession.
• Civic participation. Alexis de Tocqueville admired how American local and state institutions drew ordinary citizens into public life.

The case against

Critics raise their own concerns.

• Shielding injustice. In the US, appeals to states' rights were used to defend slavery and, later, segregation. Critics argue that national standards are needed to protect individual rights everywhere.
• Unequal outcomes. Where you live can shape your access to health care, schooling and benefits. The Stanford Encyclopedia discusses research suggesting that some federations face more poverty and uneven provision than unitary peers.
• Blurred accountability. When several levels share a program, voters may not know whom to blame.
• A race to the bottom. Some economists worry that states competing for business will cut taxes, regulation or benefits below what voters actually want.
• Collective problems. Pandemics, climate change and financial crises cross borders, and critics argue they need a coordinated national response.

Where it lands today

Most Americans express more confidence in governments closer to home. In a Pew Research Center survey from late 2023, 22 percent of US adults had a favorable view of the federal government, compared with 50 percent for their state government and 61 percent for their local government. Gallup's 2023 governance poll likewise found trust highest for local government, at 67 percent, and lowest for Congress, at 32 percent. Views also swing with party control: supporters of whichever party holds Washington tend to rate the federal government more warmly.

Federalism as a political ideology

Federalism is a system of government, but it is also a political belief. As an ideology, it holds that decentralized, layered government is better than concentrated power, and some federalists go further and support federation between nations, for example in Europe.

Our federalism ideology page maps where this view sits. It overlaps with localism, which wants decisions made at the smallest workable level, and with communitarianism, which stresses community ties. Compare them in federalism vs localism and see how federalism relates to free-market thought in classical liberalism vs federalism.

Federalism also connects to the bigger question of how a republic should be built. Our guide to democracy vs republic covers how the US combines representation with popular control.

Find where you fit

You may lean federalist if you think most decisions belong to states, provinces or communities rather than the national capital. You may lean centralist if you think one national standard is fairer and more effective. Many people mix the two, wanting national rules on some issues and local control on others.

Take the Political Values Test to see how you weigh liberty against authority, or the 12 Axes Political Test for a fuller picture that matches you with ideologies like federalism and localism. For a two-minute check, try the Libertarian Quiz or the Liberal or Conservative Quiz. Then read what is a libertarian and what is a conservative.