2015 年 8 月 22 日
横山彰（中央大学）
第 80 回慶應 EU 研究会「連邦主義と多中心主義の再考察」
Reconsideration of Federalism and Polycentrism
１．はじめに“Federalism is often used as a synonym for decentralization and at the same time is often thought
to be a way of achieving decentralization democratically” (Wagner, 2005:184).
Federalism, Decentralization, (Dis)Integration, Polycentrism の意味内容の異同と相互関係についての考察が、先行研究では必ずしも十分になされていない。連邦主義（Federalism）と多中心主義（Polycentrism）との関係あるいは、連邦主義に基づく政治システムである連邦制（Federalism）と多中心主義に基づく政治システムである多中心制（Polycentric political system= Polycentricity）との関係を中心に考察する。
【先行研究の中での位置づけ】
Fiscal Federalism
Musgrave (1956), Oates (1972, 1999), Buchanan and Musgrave (1999)
Political (dis)integration
Buchanan (1995/96), Alesina and Spolaore (1997), Ruta (2005)
Secession
Buchanan and Faith (1987), Sunstein (1991), McGee (1992)
American Federalism
Ostrom (1991), Wood (2011), LaCroix (2010, 2011), Safty (2012), Duthu (2013)
Polycentrism (Polycentricity, Polycentric political system)
Ostrom, Tiebou and Warren (1961), Ostrom (1972, 1991), Wagner (2005), McGinnis andOstorm (2011)【連邦主義の政治経済学的考察】
財政連邦主義（効率基準に基づく財政機能の最適配分としての連邦主義）
立憲連邦主義（Leviathan government の統制手段としての連邦主義）【多中心主義の政治経済学的考察】多中心性（polycentricity）という概念は、Vincent Ostrom によって展開されてきた(Ostrom, Tiebou and Warren, 1961; Ostrom 1972, 1991)。多中心性（polycentricity）という1

言葉は、Ostrom (1972: 6) によると Polanyi (1951) が最初に用いた。
“We [the authors] identified a polycentric political system as having many centers of decision
making which were formally independent of each other” (Ostrom, 1972: 1).

“[P]olycentricity

conveys more than just federalism as it typically is understood. A federal system may consist
only of a sequence of neatly nested jurisdictions at the local, state or provincial, and nationallevels, but a polycentric system also includes crosscutting jurisdictions specializing in particularpolicy matters, such as an agency managing a river basin that cuts across state lines. In addition,
private corporations, voluntary associations, and community-based organizations play criticalsupporting roles in a polycentric system of governance, even if they have not been assigned
public roles in an official manner” (McGinnis and Ostrom, 2011: 15) .
２．Federalism, Decentralization, and (Dis)Integration(1) Federalism from the bottom up or the top down?

Fully autonomous

CompetitiveCentralizedseparate statesfederalism

unitary polity

Figure 1.

A constitutional reform schema

Source: Buchanan (1995/96: 266)

(2) Models of Political (Dis)Integration
Alesina and Spolaore (1997), Ruta (2005)
Max. u = y - t + g( 1 - as)subject tost = K.

s * = [ K/(ga)] 1/ 2
g is the public good, s is the size of the country and a is a positive parameter that measures thecosts of the size. The public good has a fixed cost K that is financed by the poll tax and the per capita
tax rate, t, is given by K /s, where st = K.

(3) The literature seldom differentiates between the top down and bottom up approaches, nor doesit differentiate between design and reform, when considering the relationships among federalism,decentralization, and political (dis)integration. The difference between the coercive and voluntary
movements has also gained little recognition.
2

(4) 意味内容の異同
Federalism means a system of federal government in which states and other local governments
reserve the powers not delegated to the federal government by agreeing to parcel out authority fromthe bottom up.
Decentralization only denotes the top down transfer of power from governments at a higher level togovernments at a lower level in a hierarchical structure.
Political (dis)integration shows change in both the configuration and the governing powers oflocalities, states, and countries.
３．Federalism and Polycentrism(1) 連邦制を巡る Wood (2011)と LaCroix (2011)の議論
Wood’s (2011: 724) argument for “federalism from the bottom up” is as follows: “Given theAmericans’ long experience with parceling [out] power from the bottom …, forming the Articlesof Confederation posed no great theoretical problems. Thirteen independent and sovereign statescame together to form a treaty that created a ‘firm league of friendship,’ [Articles ofConfederation Art III] a collectivity not all that different from the present-day European Union.”
LaCroix (2011: 733) argues against Wood’s assertion that: “From a disconnected and sometimes
ambiguous set of arguments about divided sovereignty in politics, American colonists and early
republicans fashioned a new architecture of legal and constitutional authority built on a subjectmatter division of governmental power. In contrast to earlier systems … of polycentric
government, the federalism of the late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century United States wasspecifically designed to avoid the ancient problem of imperium in imperio, or dominion within adominion, … The significant innovation of the American federal idea was to authorize the divisionof sovereignty and to create viable categories that could contain multiple sources of governmental
power within one overarching system.”(2) American Indian tribes の存在
Wood (2011) criticizes LaCroix’s argument “that the Iroquois Confederacy ---also known as
the Iroquois League or the Six Nations--- provided the inspiration for British American efforts atunion” in an endnote (LaCroix, 2010: 229, n.20). The significant aspect in considering thedifference between polycentrism and federalism is not the “Iroquois influence” thesis, but theexistence of the Iroquois Confederacy in the 1750s, despite the problem of dominion within adominion. As often noted, American Indian tribes now exist as “domestic dependent nations” within
the United States, with powers of self-government that operate within their territories (Duthu, 2013).
“American Indian tribes often have multiple identities. First and foremost they are ‘domestic3

dependent nations’ with their own constitutions and governing bodies. But many Indian tribes also
have a number of separate corporate identities” (Safty, 2012: 1593).
(3) 上記の議論から示唆される連邦制（主義）と多中心制（主義）の異同“[T]he difference between federalism and polycentricity is similar to the difference between astructure of government and the processes through which governmental entities operate within thatstructure. Federalism is the architecture or design of a system to solve the problem of dominion
within a dominion; polycentricity is a spontaneous process characterized by dominion within adominion. Polycentricity generates dynamic changes through the interaction between multiple
centers of decision making that are formally independent of one another. The reason why theinteraction occurs is the possibility of mutual gain through obtaining agreement among participants.
Furthermore, federalism has coordinated and intentional divisions of sovereignty. In contrast,
polycentricity does not have such intended divisions of sovereignty but rather accepts andoperates within the overlapping of sovereignty and territory” (Wagner and Yokoyama, 2014: 19).
(4) EU への示唆
Kanbur and Keen (1993), Eichenberger (1994), Frey and Eichenberger (1996), Mueller (1997),
Zodrow (2003), Piattoni. (2010), van Zeben (2013)⇒⇒

競争と協調、水平的租税競争と垂直的租税競争、Multi-level Governance、
FOCJ (Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions)

４．価値判断：帰結主義と非帰結主義(1) Competitive Federalism vs. Cartel Federalism
Eusepi and Wagner (2010), Yokoyama (2012b), Wagner and Yokoyama (2014)
帰結の比較：何らかの価値判断に基づき、連邦制というシステム設計（政策手段）の帰結は非連邦制のシステム設計（政策手段）の帰結よりも良いかどうか比較する。⇒⇒ 資料 2
非帰結の比較：システム設計（政策手段）そのものの比較
帰結主義：

W{F(X, Z), R(X -1)}

非帰結主義：総合主義：⇒⇒ Suzumura (1999)

W{X, H -1(X)}
W{X, H -1(X), F(X, Z), R(X -1)}

期待帰結 F(X, Z) ＝政策環境 Z のもとで政策手段 X によって実現されると期待される帰結（社会状態）関数 F(・) ＝政策理論
過去の現実帰結 R(X -1) ＝過去に政策手段 X を執行した結果として出現した現実帰結（社4会状態）
H (X) ＝政策手段 X の選び方や導出手続-1

W(・) ＝個人の利得（社会的厚生関数）(2) 政策環境と政策理論
外部環境 Zi の認識は現実には個人 i (i=1, 2, …ｎ)によって差があり、利得ないし社会的厚生関数 Wi (・)も個人 i によって異なり、政策理論 Fg (・) も、一般の個人ではなく専門知識を獲得した個人すなわち専門家 g (g=1,2, …d) によって提示され相互に異なるならば、個人i の帰結主義的評価は、この個人が選択する政策理論 Fi [g] (・)に左右された
Wi {Fi [g] (X, Zi), R(X-1)}に基づいてなされる。⇒⇒ Yokoyama (2012a)“While expressed policy differences might reflect preferences as primitive conditions, they also
might reflect quasi-scientific beliefs about reality. In this latter case, discussion can lead to changes
in beliefs and preferences, not as a reflection of brainwashing but as a reflection of how discussion
among equals might generate knowledge” (Wagner and Yokoyama, 2014: 22).
５．結論
“Federalism is the architecture or design of a system, while polycentricity denotes aspontaneously ordered process in which many people participate but which no single person plans orcontrols. Polycentricity is not designed; federalism is. Federalism can be formed either from the top
down or from the bottom up. In contrast, polycentricity is a natural form of societal existence, …
Polycentric arrangements operate best when participants proceed on equal-footing to secure mutual
gain by getting agreement and resolving conflict. The distinction between bottom up and top down,
however, is irrelevant for polycentrism because it is a spontaneously ordered arrangement and not anartificially created system of governments. Federalism is an artificial political system which
intentionally solves for political externalities of policy. In contrast, polycentricity internalizes
political externalities of policy by voluntary agreement, and generates a network externality. …
Finally, federalism is justified on the basis of the consequentialism, while polycentricity issupported by non-consequentialism rather than consequentialism. Policy is defined as people’sefforts to realize a better society. How, then, can we judge what constitutes a better society? Thisvalue judgment becomes important. … Consequently, individual visions of a “better society”
determine the constitutional rule of governance” (Wagner and Yokoyama, 2014: 23-25).

参考文献
Alesina, A. and E. Spolaore (1997), “On the Number and Size of Nations,” Quarterly Journal of5

Economics, 112(4): 1027-1056
Buchanan, J. M. (1995/96), “Federalism and Individual Sovereignty,” Cato Journal, 15(2-3): 259268.
Buchanan, J. M. and R. L. Faith (1987), “Secession and the Limits of Taxation: Toward a Theory ofInternal Exit,” American Economic Review, 77(5): 1023-1031.
Buchanan, J. M. and R. A. Musgrave (1999), Public Finance and Public Choice: Two Contrasting
Visions of the State, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Duthu, N. B. (2013), Shadow Nations: Tribal Sovereignty and the Limits of Legal Pluralism, New
York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eichenberger, R. (1994), “The Benefits of Federalism and the Risk of Overcentralization,” Kyklos,47(3): 403-420.
Eusepi, G. and R. E. Wagner (2010), “Polycentric Polity: Genuine vs. Spurious Federalism,” Reviewof Law and Economics, 6: 329-345.
Frey, B. S. and R. Eichenberger (1996), “FOCJ: Competitive Governments for Europe,”
International Review of Law and Economics, 16(3): 315-327.
Kanbur, R. and M. Keen (1993) “Jeux Sans Frontières: Tax Competition and Tax Coordination
When Countries Differ in Size,” American Economic Review, 83(4): 877-892.
LaCroix, A. L. (2010), The Ideological Origins of American Federalism, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
LaCroix, A. L. (2011), “Rhetoric and Reality in Early American Legal History: A Reply to Gordon
Wood,” University of Chicago Law Review, 78: 733-758.
McGee, R. W. (1992), “The Theory of Secession and Emerging Democracies: A ConstitutionalSolution,” Stanford Journal of International Law, 28: 451-476.
McGinnis, M. D. and E. Ostrom (2011), “Reflections on Vincent Ostrom, Public Administration, andPolycentricity,” Public Administration Review, 72(1): 15–25.
Mueller, D. C. (1997), “Federalism and the European Union: A Constitutional Perspective,” Public
Choice 90(1-4): 255-280.
Musgrave, R. M. (1959), The Theory of Public Finance, New York: McGraw-Hill Book.
Oates, W. (1972), Fiscal Federalism, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Oates, W. (1999), “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism,” Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3): 11201149.
Ostrom, V. (1972), “Polycentricity,” 1972 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Washington, DC, September 1972(http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3763/vostr004.pdf?sequence=1<2013.12.12>). Reprinted in M. D. McGinnis, ed., Polycentricity and Local Public
Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Ann Arbor:
6University of Michigan Press, pp. 52-74, 119-138.
Ostrom, V. (1991), The Meaning of American Federalism: Constituting a Self-Governing Society,
San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Ostrom, V., C. M. Tiebout, and R. Warren (1961), “The Organization of Government inMetropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry,” American Political Science Review, 55(4): 831842.
Piattoni, S. (2010), The Theory of Multi-level Governance: Conceptual, Empirical, and Normative
Challenges, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1951), The Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders, Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Ruta, M. (2005), “Economic Theories of Political (Dis)Integration,” Journal of Economic Surveys
19(1): 1-21
Safty, G., (2012), “Federal Diversity Jurisdiction and American Indian Tribal Corporations,”
University of Chicago Law Review, 79: 1593-1628.
Sunstein, C. R. (1991), “Constitutionalism and Secession,” University of Chicago Law Review, 58:633-670.
Suzumura, K. (1999), “Consequences, Opportunities, and Procedures,” Social Choice and Welfare,16(1): 17-40.
van Zeben, J. A. W. (2013), “Research Agenda For a Polycentric European Union,” The Vincent andElinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Working Paper Series, No.
W13-13.
Wagner, R.E. (2005), “Self-governance, polycentrism, and federalism: recurring themes inVincent Ostrom’s scholarly oeuvre,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57(2):173-188
Wagner, R. E. and A. Yokoyama (2014), “Polycentrism, Federalism, and Liberty: A Comparative
Systems Perspective,” George Mason University, Department of Economics, Working Paper
no. 14-10. <<資料 1>>
Wood, G. S. (2011), “Federalism from the Bottom Up,” University of Chicago Law Review, 78: 705732.
Yokoyama, A. (2012a), “The Calculus of Consent at Fifty: the Development of Public Choice inJapan,” Public Choice, 152(3-4): 345-349.
Yokoyama, A. (2012b), “Constitutional Rules of Overlapping Taxation among Multi-tieredGovernments,” Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice, 30(1-3): 169-182. <<資料 2 の出所>>
Zodrow, G. R. (2003), “Tax Competition and Tax Coordination in the European Union,”International Tax and Public Finance, 10(6): 651-671.
7