One clear advantage of devolving power to regions is that it can encourage policy innovation and development. These smaller regions can act as policy laboratories, as their size means if the policy is a failure it only affects a small region, and if it is a success it can be adopted by the national government. One such example of this is in Wisconsin, where the state government introduced vouchers to deal with the public school system. This is also seen in the UK, with numerous examples coming from Scotland (which is the largest and most powerful of the new bodies, having tax-varying powers and primary legislative authority in domestic policy areas) such as their provision of free prescriptions and no university tuition fees, where as in other regions of the UK this is not the case. The other advantage is that there is a reduction in political apathy as people are voting for local issues that directly affect them and are close to home. This not only results in greater policy innovation and policy made to deal with local problems, but political participation, which is encouraged when on a local scale is undoubtedly beneficial to democracy. When decisions are perceived to be made from a physically remote area, people often feel a degree of apathy to policies and to politics in general. Prior to devolution in Scotland, the introduction of the poll tax, indicates that testing policies does not work so well in a unitary system, due to the physical distance of the policy initiators and also the unpopularity of the law. Therefore, in devolving power, unitary states gain some of the advantages of federalism such as responsive politicians, a reduction in political apathy and it fosters greater policy innovation.
It is also evident to an extent that the disadvantages of a federal system are not present in a unitary system which devolves power. One of the biggest arguments against a Federal system is the fact that there are very little common standards throughout the country, as the Federal government has little control over what the states can do. For example, in America, where this issue is common, in the field of education, it is difficult to impose a national standard, although the No Child Left Behind legislation tried to make a step towards this. Because America is such a diverse nation, whatever the Federal government legislate, there will always be a large faction of states that disagree strongly with it and refuse to implement it. However, in a unitary system with devolved bodies, this is not the case as the central government still has overriding control over the smaller institutions and can implement laws; an example being how in the UK there is a national curriculum. Another example is that in the USA there has not been a common standard regarding counter terrorism. In a recent Guardian report on Peter King and the Homeland Security committee hearings on Islamic radicalisation, it reports that ‘systematic government failure to regulate content in nationwide counter-terrorism training and lax reporting requirements in federal counter-terrorism grant programmes.’ Indeed, a lack of common standards leads to another problem of federalism, which may be said not to exist in unitary governments that devolve power - the problem of accountability. Due to the different layers of government, which exists within a federal system, it is extremely difficult to know who is accountable. The state governments are quick to blame the Federal government in an attempt to shift the blame for any wrongdoings in their respective state. Thus it is unclear as to who is accountable for the failings in educational practice in America.
Where greater power is given to peripheral institutions cultural and regional divides are taken into consideration, which converse to assumptions, perhaps provides greater unity within a state. In Spain for example, a central unitary government is able to exist because autonomy is granted to areas such as the Basque region where cultural divides provide a strong regional identity. While the EU was established as a confederation, it is moving more towards being a supranational federal structure; yet only by providing autonomy to its member states, through their possible application of vetoes regarding matters such as new members entering the EU, are the central institutions of the EU able operate. By providing regional autonomy, central sovereignty is protected and therefore devolving power provides the benefits of a unitary system without the disadvantages of federalism.
Another disadvantage of federalism is that it can create divisions and also fails to deal with regional inequalities. For example, the federal structure of Germany with its sixteen Länder, perpetuates cultural divisions which a unitary system of government would minimise. Likewise, in the USA, the Federal system creates huge divides between the states, as representatives are interested in the welfare of the people in their state and not necessarily others. This can be seen with the worryingly increasing volume of earmarks being placed on bills, with representatives seeking millions of dollars. In a Federal system, this feature is unquestionable, and is a disadvantage. In unitary systems where power is devolved, however, the central government maintains its unity and sovereignty, but differences are still allowed for, thus providing strength to the assertion that ‘devolved power has all the advantages of unitary systems but none of the disadvantages of federalism.’ within a unitary state where power has been devolved there is also a greater opportunity for regional inequalities to be addressed, as the peripheral regions receive more and direct help form the central government, which may be difficult in a federal system.
However, there is no guarantee that with a unitary system that devolves power all of the disadvantages of Federalism will disappear, and instead, these disadvantages are often present. Regional jealousies are likely to develop in unitary systems where power has been devolved. For example, in Scotland, students receive cheaper university tuition fees, which has caused a degree of resentment amongst English people, which has been amplified by the recent increase of fees to £9000. Furthermore, this notion that unitary systems are some sort of perfect system of government is ultimately incorrect, as it also possesses a number of weaknesses itself. When power is highly centralised, the government often seems remote, and concentrating on specific areas whilst ignoring the peripheries. This is evident in the UK as many of the further out regions see Westminster as tendering to the needs of the elite and specifically London. This distance also reduces the responsiveness and accountability of representatives, and thus reduces the democratic nature of a system.
It is therefore clear, similar to everything in politics, no system is perfect as there are always going to be advantages and disadvantages. Devolved power superficially looks like the perfect system as it theoretically combines the advantages of unitary government without the disadvantages of a federal system. However, no system is perfect, and the unitary, devolved system has numerous negative aspects and therefore the notion cannot be fully accepted.
