Unit 5C: Governing the USA David Houghton The Lecturer in Government at University of Essex writes for BBC Parliament

Fifty states, one federal government

Federalism remains one of the most important features of the American political system.

As noted above, the system was set up to divide power not simply between Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, but between the federal government as a whole and the states and localities.

The latter retains important policy-making powers, though these are only vaguely specified in the Constitution itself.

ALSO IN THIS SECTION: Unit 5C - Governing the USA Constitution and Supreme Court Congress Presidency Federal Bureaucracy Reading list

This has important implications. Visitors to the United States are often struck by the way many important laws (such as those relating to the sale of alcohol or the possession of firearms) change as one crosses from one state into another.

There can be enormous variations in the way education and health care is provided as one travels.

This variability is the direct result of the federalist system; whereas one set of uniform laws prevail in a unitary system like Great Britain's, variability is the norm in a federalist system.

Separation and balance of power

The study of federalism involves intergovernmentalism - the study of the political and economic relationships between different levels of government.

The separation of powers concept and the division of authority between the executive, legislature and judiciary are mirrored at the state level, where each state has a governor, a state legislature and a state supreme court which enjoy formidable powers in relation to one another.

Each also has its own state constitution, which (though it must be compatible with the federal one) can lead to variations in the way particular rights are applied across states and indeed variations in the rights themselves.

The balance of power between the federal, state and local levels has shifted over time. Most notably, with the expansion of the federal government since the 1930s which accompanied Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the balance has shifted towards the centre.

Before this time, it was possible to view the system through the metaphor of a layer cake, in which each layer had clear and separate responsibilities.

Since the 1930s, however, the federal government has increasingly intervened in all areas of public policy, so that the system now looks more like a marble cake (in which the federal government gets involved in provision of services which used to be the exclusive province of the states).

However - in part as a result of the turn against big government during the Reagan era - there have been various efforts in recent years to shift back responsibility to the states and to revitalise subnational government.

This trend has occurred under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Pros and cons of federalism

It is important to realise the debate between the advocates of federal power and state power is an ongoing one which has been present throughout American history.

The balance between the two has shifted as political conditions and judicial interpretations of the Constitution have changed over time, and they will likely continue to do so in the future.

The general idea of having a federal system is rarely questioned and is generally agreed to be a practical necessity in a country as ethnically, regionally and religiously diverse as America.

But the question of what should be the precise balance in that system is continually divisive and constantly contested.

The choice between a strong central government versus strong states has profound consequences for the ability of the federal government to impose common policies and standards on the United States as a whole.

Debate in effect boils down to how desirable you think such standardisation is and how important local autonomy is.

On the one hand, the system of racial separation and discrimination commonly employed in the old South until the late 1960s might still be in existence had not the federal government been able to impose from above national civil rights policies on states like Mississippi and Alabama.

On the other hand, it is important in any democratic system that government be receptive to the local demands of citizens, and local government is probably better equipped to perceive and meet these demands than are policy makers in Washington DC.