Federal Government

Wheare argues that the essence of federalism is the coordinate and independent coexistence of general and regional governments, each supreme within its own sphere, with a written constitution and an independent arbiter to resolve disputes. He rejects the view that any state formally calling itself federal qualifies as federal; many are only quasi-federal because one level dominates the other. He also rejects purely legalistic definitions that ignore political practice, insisting that federalism is a matter of degree and must be assessed by how governments actually operate.

Wheare introduced the distinction between federalism as a principle and quasi-federalism as an approximation, along with the requirement of coordinate, independent governments and a judicial arbiter. The concept of quasi-federalism is still used to classify systems like Canada, India, and Australia, where federal forms coexist with strong centralizing tendencies. His criteria—written constitution, division of powers, bicameralism with regional representation, and judicial umpire—remain standard reference points in comparative federalism, even where later scholars have revised or rejected them.

Wheare's definition is legal-institutional and relatively strict: federalism requires coordinate, independent governments and a written constitution with judicial review. Later scholars, including Daniel Elazar and William Riker, broadened or shifted the analysis. Elazar emphasized covenant, political culture, and non-centralization beyond legal forms; Riker treated federalism as a strategic bargain among elites. Later comparative scholars also emphasized fiscal arrangements, party systems, and informal practice. Wheare's legalism is now seen as a useful baseline rather than a complete account of how federal systems actually function.

Federal Government was the standard Anglophone introduction to comparative federalism for decades and remains widely cited. Its strict criteria and quasi-federal category have been criticized for being too legalistic and for privileging the American model, while failing to capture systems where federalism operates through conventions rather than formal division. Subsequent scholarship on cooperative federalism, fiscal federalism, and multinational federalism moved beyond Wheare. Still, his definitions and comparative classifications are foundational, and his insistence on examining actual governmental practice remains influential.

Wheare applies his criteria to the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and other systems, classifying the U.S. and Switzerland as genuinely federal, while treating Canada and Australia as quasi-federal because of centralizing features such as residual powers or strong federal spending authority. He also examines federal experiments in Germany, India, and elsewhere. His classification influenced how political scientists categorize federations and prompted decades of debate over whether formal federalism matches operational federalism, especially in countries with parliamentary systems and disciplined national parties.

A common misconception is that Wheare treats federalism as a fixed institutional template that any country can adopt by copying the U.S. Constitution. He insists federalism is a matter of degree, shaped by political and social conditions, and that institutions alone do not guarantee federal practice. Another misreading treats quasi-federalism as a failure or lesser form. For Wheare, it is an analytical category describing systems that approximate but do not fully meet the federal principle. His approach is comparative and evaluative, not prescriptive.