Federalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

  Federal states: regional separation of powers

  Unitary states: regional integration of powers

Federalism is a mode of government that combines a general level of government (a central or federal government) with a regional level of sub-unit governments (e.g., counties, provinces, states, cantons, territories, etc.), while dividing the powers of governing between the two levels of governments.

Johannes Althusius (1563–1638) is considered the father of modern federalism, along with Montesquieu. By 1748, in his treatise The Spirit of Law, Montesquieu (1689-1755) observed various examples of federalist governments: in corporate societies, in the polis bringing villages together, and in cities themselves forming confederations. In the modern era Federalism was first adopted by a union of the states of the Old Swiss Confederacy as of the mid-14th century.

Federalism differs from confederalism, where the central government is created subordinate to the regional states—and is notable for its regional-separation of governing powers (e.g., in the United States, the Articles of Confederation as the general level of government of the original Thirteen Colonies). Federalism also differs from the unitary state, where the regional level is subordinate to the central government, even after a devolution of powers (e.g., the United Kingdom).

Examples of federalism today include: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. At a multi-state level, the European Union has been characterized by some as a federation.

Overview

Etymology

The pathway of regional integration or regional separation

The terms "federalism" and "confederalism" share a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning "treaty, pact or covenant". Until the late eighteenth century their two early meanings were essentially the same: a simple league among sovereign states, based on a treaty; (thus, initially the two were synonyms). It was in this sense that James Madison referred to the new US Constitution as "neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both"—i.e., constituting neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two forms—according to Madison; "The Federalist No. 39".

Notably, in the course of the nineteenth century in the United States, the meaning of federalism shifted, now referring uniquely to the novel compound-political form established at the Philadelphia Constitution Convention—while the meaning of confederalism remained as a league of states.

History

In a narrow sense, federalism refers to the mode in which the body politic of a state is organized internally—and this is the meaning most often used in modern times. Political scientists, however, use the term federalism in a much broader sense, referring instead to a "multi-layer or pluralistic concept of social and political life".

The first forms of federalism took place in ancient times, in the form of alliances between tribes or city states. According to historian Joseph Baratta, his colleagues generally begin the history of federalism with the Israelite tribal confederacy led by a military leader called a Judge between c.1200 – c.1000 BCE. Examples from the Hellenic world between the seventh to second century BCE were the Archaic League, the Aetolic League, the Peloponnesian League, and the Delian League. An early ancestor of federalism was the Achaean League in Hellenistic Greece. Unlike the Greek city states of Classical Greece, each of which insisted on keeping its complete independence, changing conditions in the Hellenistic period drove city states to band together even at the cost of surrendering part of their sovereignty. Several leagues of states existed in the contemporary China. Subsequent unions of states included the first and second Swiss Confederations (1291–1798 and 1815–48); the United Provinces of the Netherlands (1579–1795); the German Confederation (1815–66); the first American union, known as the Confederation of the United States of America (1781–89); and the second American union, formed as the United States of America (1789-present).

Political theory

Modern federalism is a political system that (nominally) is based upon operating under democratic rules and institutions; and where governing powers are shared between a country's national and provincial/state governments. However, the term federalist comprises various political practices that differ in important details among the (so-called) federalist nations—some of which are democratic in name only (e.g., modern Russia)—leaving the terms "federalist", "federalism", "federation", etc., dependent on context. And, because the term federalization also proclaims distinctive political processes, its use also depends on context.

Typically, political theory today discusses two main types of the federalization process:

• integrative, (or aggregative) federalization, which encompasses several political processes, including: 1) transforming a confederation into a federation; 2) incorporating non-federated population(s) into an existing federation; or 3) integrating a non-federated population by creating a new or revised federation.
• devolutive, (or dis-aggregative) federalization: 1) transforming a unitary state into a federation.

Reasons for adoption

According to Daniel Ziblatt, there are four competing theoretical explanations for adopting a federal system:

1. Ideational theories, which hold: that among subunit population(s), a greater ideological commitment to decentralist ideas makes federalism more likely to be sought and adopted.
2. Cultural-historical theories: that in societies with culturally or ethnically fragmented populations, federalized subunits are more likely to be favored and adopted.
3. "Social contract" theories: that federalism emerges via a bargaining process between the center and a periphery (subunit)—where the center is not powerful enough to dominate the periphery, but the periphery is not powerful enough to secede from the center, (e.g., modern Iraq re Kurdistan).
4. "Infrastructural power" theories: that federalism is likely to emerge for the subunit population that already has highly developed infrastructures, (e.g., they already are a constitutional, parliamentary, and administratively modernized state).

Immanuel Kant noted that "the problem of setting up a state can be solved even by a nation of devils"—if they possess a constitution that pits opposing factions against each other with a durable system of binding checks and balances. Essentially, particular states may use federation as a mechanism (a safeguard) against the possibilities of rebellion or war—or the rise of repressive government via a would-be dictator or a centralized oligarchy.

Proponents of federal systems have historically argued that the structures of checks-and-balances and power-sharing that are inherent in a federal system reduces threats—both foreign and domestic. And federalism enables a state to be both large and diverse, by mitigating the risk of a central government turning tyrannical.

Examples

Main article: List of federal countries

Countries around the world have implemented federal systems using variations of central and regional sovereignty for their governments. For convenience of studying these governments, they may be divided according to several categories, such as: minimalistic federations, which consist of only two sub-federal units (subunits); as compared to multi-regional federations, consisting of three or more regional governments (subunits). Or, based on their body polity type: emirate, provincial, state, republicanism or constitutional monarchy, democratic—or democratic in-name-only. And, federal systems may be differentiated between those whose entire territory is federated, vs. only part of their territory is federated. Some systems are national while others, like the European Union, are supra-national.

Two extremes of federalism are notable: 1) at one extreme, the strong federal state is almost completely unitary, with few powers reserved to local governments; 2) at the opposite extreme, the national government may be a federation in name-only, while actually operating as a confederation, (see "pathway" graphic re regional integration or regional separation). Federalism may encompass as few as two or three internal divisions, as is the case in Belgium or Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In Canada, federalism typically implies opposition to sovereignty movements—most commonly the question of Quebec separatism. In 1999, the Government of Canada established the Forum of Federations as an international network for exchange of best practices among federal and federalizing countries. Headquartered in Ottawa, the Forum of Federations partner governments include Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan and Switzerland.

The governments of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, India, and Mexico, among others, are organized along federalist principles.

Europe vs. the United States

Main articles: Federal Europe and Federalism in the United States

In Europe, "federalist" is sometimes used to describe those who favor a common federal government, with distributed power at regional, national and supranational levels. The Union of European Federalists advocates for this development within the European Union, ultimately leading to the United States of Europe. Although there are medieval and early modern examples of European states which used confederal and federal systems, contemporary European federalism originated in post-war Europe; one of the more important initiatives was Winston Churchill's speech in Zürich in 1946.

In the United States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, the Federalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.

In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of the U.S. federal government has increased, some people have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe the Founding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially the judiciary (see Federalist Society, New Federalism).

The contemporary concept of federalism came about with the creation of an entirely new system of government that provided for democratic representation at two governing levels simultaneously, which was implemented in the US Constitution. In the United States implementation of federalism, a bicameral general government, consisting of a chamber of popular representation proportional to population (the House of Representatives), and a chamber of equal State-based representation consisting of two delegates per State (the Senate), was overlaid upon the pre-existing regional governments of the thirteen independent States. With each level of government allocated a defined sphere of powers, under a written constitution and the rule of law (that is, subject to the independent third-party arbitration of a supreme court in competence disputes), the two levels were thus brought into a coordinate relationship for the first time.

In 1946, Kenneth Wheare observed that the two levels of government in the US were "co-equally supreme". In this, he echoed the perspective of American founding father James Madison who saw the several States as forming "distinct and independent portions of the supremacy" in relation to the general government.

In anarchism

See also: Libertarian socialist decentralization

In anarchism, federalism, also referred to as council system is a horizontalist and decentralized organizational doctrine which holds that society should be built from the bottom-up, from the periphery to the centre. Higher-order units are merely the direct expression of lower-order units delegating, combining and coordinating. Though there is no central government or administration, higher-order committees and councils, composed of delegates from federal constituencies, may convene under a popular, revocable mandate.

Embracing the principle of free and voluntary association as the basis of a federal society, constituent entities of an anarchist federation are ideally autonomous and self-determining, collaborating equally, freely and mutually within the federation through the values of solidarity and autonomy.

Unlike a republican federation, federalism, in anarchy, is not simply a form of political division or devolution, but rather, federative principles apply to all aspects of society, including social relations and the economy. Consequently, anarchist federalism, promoting widespread, common ownership over the means of production, detests the centralized and unequal nature of capitalism, and the hierarchy of its companies and corporations: an anarchist federalist society would envisage widespread, federalized wealth distribution.

Comparing republican and anarchist federalism, James Guillaume states that Switzerland's federative cantonal system, despite its direct democracy, differs significantly from anarchist federalism: while Swiss federalism retains a state and provides only limited regional sovereignty, anarchist federalism as envisioned by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is stateless, providing every autonomy with absolute sovereignty and distinct individuality. The Swiss constitution, in its support of indivisibility and nationhood and its view that its cantons are mere territorial divisions rather than sovereign constituencies, is incompatible with anarchist federalism and its principles of free association, decentralization and autonomy.

Anarchist federalism is a rejection of the statism and nationalism present in modern federations, and instead provides an alternative system of federative organization founded on stateless individuality and autonomy. For anarchists, republican federalism is as oppressive as a centralized, unitary state, for all it is perceived to accomplish is delegate and transfer the perceived oppression of a state to local levels and jurisdictions.

Constitutional structure

Division of powers

Not to be confused with separation of powers.

In a federation, the division of power between federal and regional governments is usually outlined in the constitution. Almost every country allows some degree of regional self-government, but in federations the right to self-government of the component states is constitutionally entrenched. Component states often also possess their own constitutions which they may amend as they see fit, although in the event of conflict the federal constitution usually takes precedence.

In almost all federations the central government enjoys the powers of foreign policy and national defense as exclusive federal powers. Were this not the case a federation would not be a single sovereign state, per the UN definition. Notably, the states of Germany retain the right to act on their own behalf at an international level, a condition originally granted in exchange for the Kingdom of Bavaria's agreement to join the German Empire in 1871. The constitutions of Germany and the United States provide that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states. The Constitution of some countries, like Canada and India, state that powers not explicitly granted to the provincial/state governments are retained by the federal government. Much like the US system, the Australian Constitution allocates to the Federal government (the Commonwealth of Australia) the power to make laws about certain specified matters which were considered too difficult for the States to manage, so that the States retain all other areas of responsibility. Under the division of powers of the European Union in the Lisbon Treaty, powers which are not either exclusively of Union competence or shared between the Union and the Member States as concurrent powers are retained by the constituent States.

Satiric depiction of late 19th-century political tensions in Spain

Where every component state of a federation possesses the same powers, we are said to find 'symmetric federalism'. Asymmetric federalism exists where states are granted different powers, or some possess greater autonomy than others do. This is often done in recognition of the existence of a distinct culture in a particular region or regions. In Spain, the Basques and Catalans, as well as the Galicians, spearheaded a historic movement to have their national specificity recognized, crystallizing in the "historical communities" such as Navarre, Galicia, Catalonia, and the Basque Country. They have more powers than the later expanded arrangement for other Spanish regions, or the Spain of the autonomous communities (called also the "coffee for everyone" arrangement), partly to deal with their separate identity and to appease peripheral nationalist leanings, partly out of respect to specific rights they had held earlier in history. However, strictly speaking Spain is not a federation, but a system of asymmetric devolved government within a unitary state.

It is common that during the historical evolution of a federation there is a gradual movement of power from the component states to the centre, as the federal government acquires additional powers, sometimes to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The acquisition of new powers by a federal government may occur through formal constitutional amendment or simply through a broadening of the interpretation of a government's existing constitutional powers given by the courts.

Usually, a federation is formed at two levels: the central government and the regions (states, provinces, territories), and little to nothing is said about second or third level administrative political entities. Brazil is an exception, because the 1988 Constitution included the municipalities as autonomous political entities making the federation tripartite, encompassing the Union, the States, and the municipalities. Each state is divided into municipalities (municípios) with their own legislative council (câmara de vereadores) and a mayor (prefeito), which are partly autonomous from both Federal and State Government. Each municipality has a "little constitution", called "organic law" (lei orgânica). Mexico is an intermediate case, in that municipalities are granted full-autonomy by the federal constitution and their existence as autonomous entities (municipio libre, "free municipality") is established by the federal government and cannot be revoked by the states' constitutions. Moreover, the federal constitution determines which powers and competencies belong exclusively to the municipalities and not to the constituent states. However, municipalities do not have an elected legislative assembly.

Federations often employ the paradox of being a union of states, while still being states (or having aspects of statehood) in themselves. For example, James Madison (author of the United States Constitution) wrote in Federalist Paper No. 39 that the US Constitution "is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national..." This stems from the fact that states in the US maintain all sovereignty that they do not yield to the federation by their own consent. This was reaffirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reserves all powers and rights that are not delegated to the Federal Government as left to the States and to the people.

Bicameralism

The structures of most federal governments incorporate mechanisms to protect the rights of component states. One method, known as 'intrastate federalism', is to directly represent the governments of component states in federal political institutions. Where a federation has a bicameral legislature the upper house is often used to represent the component states while the lower house represents the people of the nation as a whole. A federal upper house may be based on a special scheme of apportionment, as is the case in the senates of the United States and Australia, where each state is represented by an equal number of senators irrespective of the size of its population.

Alternatively, or in addition to this practice, the members of an upper house may be indirectly elected by the government or legislature of the component states, as occurred in the United States prior to 1913, or be actual members or delegates of the state governments, as, for example, is the case in the German Bundesrat and in the Council of the European Union. The lower house of a federal legislature is usually directly elected, with apportionment in proportion to population, although states may sometimes still be guaranteed a certain minimum number of seats.

Intergovernmental relations

In Canada, the provincial governments represent regional interests and negotiate directly with the central government. A First Ministers conference of the prime minister and the provincial premiers is the de facto highest political forum in the land, although it is not mentioned in the constitution.

Constitutional change

Federations often have special procedures for amendment of the federal constitution. As well as reflecting the federal structure of the state this may guarantee that the self-governing status of the component states cannot be abolished without their consent. An amendment to the constitution of the United States must be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, before it can come into effect. In referendums to amend the constitutions of Australia and Switzerland it is required that a proposal be endorsed not just by an overall majority of the electorate in the nation as a whole, but also by separate majorities in each of a majority of the states or cantons. In Australia, this latter requirement is known as a double majority.

Some federal constitutions also provide that certain constitutional amendments cannot occur without the unanimous consent of all states or of a particular state. The US constitution provides that no state may be deprived of equal representation in the senate without its consent. In Australia, if a proposed amendment will specifically impact one or more states, then it must be endorsed in the referendum held in each of those states. Any amendment to the Canadian constitution that would modify the role of the monarchy would require unanimous consent of the provinces. The German Basic Law provides that no amendment is admissible at all that would abolish the federal system.

Other technical terms

• Fiscal federalism – the relative financial positions and the financial relations between the levels of government in a federal system.
• Formal federalism (or 'constitutional federalism') – the delineation of powers is specified in a written constitution, which may or may not correspond to the actual operation of the system in practice.
• Executive federalism refers in the English-speaking tradition to the intergovernmental relationships between the executive branches of the levels of government in a federal system and in the continental European tradition to the way constituent units 'execute' or administer laws made centrally.
• Gleichschaltung – the conversion from a federal governance to either a completely unitary or more unitary one, the term was borrowed from the German for conversion from alternating to direct current. During the Nazi era the traditional German states were mostly left intact in the formal sense, but their constitutional rights and sovereignty were eroded and ultimately ended and replaced with the Gau system. Gleichschaltung also has a broader sense referring to political consolidation in general.
• defederalize – to remove from federal government, such as taking a responsibility from a national level government and giving it to states or provinces.

In relation to conflict

It has been argued that federalism and other forms of territorial autonomy are a useful way to structure political systems in order to prevent violence among different groups within countries because it allows certain groups to legislate at the subnational level. Some scholars have suggested, however, that federalism can divide countries and result in state collapse because it creates proto-states. Still others have shown that federalism is only divisive when it lacks mechanisms that encourage political parties to compete across regional boundaries.

Federalism is sometimes viewed in the context of international negotiation as "the best system for integrating diverse nations, ethnic groups, or combatant parties, all of whom may have cause to fear control by an overly powerful center". However, those skeptical of federal prescriptions sometimes believe that increased regional autonomy can lead to secession or dissolution of the nation. In Syria, for example, federalization proposals have failed in part because "Syrians fear that these borders could turn out to be the same as the ones that the fighting parties have currently carved out."

Critical thinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to reach sound conclusions or informed choices. It involves recognizing underlying assumptions, providing justifications for ideas and actions, evaluating these justifications through comparisons with varying perspectives, and assessing their rationality and potential consequences. The goal of critical thinking is to form a judgment through the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluations. In modern times, the use of the phrase critical thinking can be traced to John Dewey, who used the phrase reflective thinking, which depends on the knowledge base of an individual; the excellence of critical thinking in which an individual can engage varies according to it. According to philosopher Richard W. Paul, critical thinking and analysis are competencies that can be learned or trained. The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind, because critical thinking is not a natural process; it must be induced, and ownership of the process must be taken for successful questioning and reasoning. Critical thinking presupposes a rigorous commitment to overcome egocentrism and sociocentrism that leads to a mindful command of effective communication and problem solving.

History

In the West, critical reasoning originated from the teachings of the Greek philosopher Socrates (470–399 BC).

In the classical period (5th c.–4th c. BC) of Ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato (428–347 BC) indicated that the teachings of Socrates (470–399 BC) are the earliest records of what today is called critical thinking. In an early dialogue by Plato, the philosopher Socrates debates several speakers about the ethical matter of the rightness or wrongness of Socrates escaping from prison. Upon consideration, Plato concluded that to escape prison would violate everything he believes to be greater than himself: the laws of Athens and the guiding voice that Socrates claims to hear.

Socrates established the unreliability of authority and authority figures as possessors of knowledge and consequent insight; that for an individual man or woman to lead a good life that is worth living, that person must ask critical questions and possess an interrogative soul, which seeks evidence and then closely examines the available facts, and then follows the implications of the statement under analysis, thereby tracing the implications of thought and action.

As a form of co-operative argumentation, Socratic questioning requires the comparative judgment of facts, which answers then would reveal the person's irrational thinking and lack of verifiable knowledge. Socrates also demonstrated that Authority does not ensure accurate, verifiable knowledge; thus, Socratic questioning analyses beliefs, assumptions, and presumptions, by relying upon evidence and a sound rationale.

In modern times, the phrase critical thinking was coined by Pragmatist philosopher John Dewey in his book How We Think. As a type of intellectualism, the development of critical thinking is a means of critical analysis that applies rationality to develop a critique of the subject matter. According to the Foundation for Critical Thinking, in 1987 the U.S. National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defined critical thinking as the "intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

Etymology and origin of critical thinking

In the term critical thinking, the word critical, (Grk. κριτικός = kritikos = "critic") derives from the word critic and implies a critique; it identifies the intellectual capacity and the means "of judging", "of judgement", "for judging", and of being "able to discern". The intellectual roots of critical thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the critical reasoning of the Presocractic philosophers, as well as the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago who discovered by a method of probing questioning that people could not rationally justify their confident claims to knowledge.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the exact term “critical thinking” first appeared in 1815, in the British literary journal The Critical Review, referring to critical analysis in the literary context. The meaning of "critical thinking" gradually evolved and expanded to mean a desirable general thinking skill by the end of the 19th century and early 20th century.

Definitions

Traditionally, critical thinking has been variously defined as follows:

• "The intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."
• "Disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"
• "Purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based"
• "Includes a commitment to using reason in the formulation of our beliefs"
• The skill and propensity to engage in an activity with reflective scepticism (McPeck, 1981)
• Thinking about one's thinking in a manner designed to organize and clarify, raise the efficiency of, and recognize errors and biases in one's own thinking. Critical thinking is not 'hard' thinking nor is it directed at solving problems (other than 'improving' one's own thinking). Critical thinking is inward-directed with the intent of maximizing the rationality of the thinker. One does not use critical thinking to solve problems—one uses critical thinking to improve one's process of thinking.
• "An appraisal based on careful analytical evaluation"
• "Critical thinking is a type of thinking pattern that requires people to be reflective, and pay attention to decision-making which guides their beliefs and actions. Critical thinking allows people to deduct with more logic, to process sophisticated information and look at various sides of an issue so they can produce more solid conclusions."
• Critical thinking has seven critical features: being inquisitive and curious, being open-minded to different sides, being able to think systematically, being analytical, being persistent to truth, being confident about critical thinking itself, and lastly, being mature.
• Although critical thinking could be defined in several different ways, there is a general agreement in its key component—the desire to reach for a satisfactory result, and this should be achieved by rational thinking and result-driven manner. Halpern thinks that critical thinking firstly involves learned abilities such as problem-solving, calculation and successful probability application. It also includes a tendency to engage the thinking process. In recent times, Stanovich believed that modern IQ testing could hardly measure the ability of critical thinking.
• "Critical thinking is essentially a questioning, challenging approach to knowledge and perceived wisdom. It involves ideas and information from an objective position and then questioning this information in the light of our own values, attitudes and personal philosophy."

Contemporary critical thinking scholars have expanded these traditional definitions to include qualities, concepts, and processes such as creativity, imagination, discovery, reflection, empathy, connecting knowing, feminist theory, subjectivity, ambiguity, and inconclusiveness. Some definitions of critical thinking exclude these subjective practices.

1. According to Scriven and Paul (1987), "Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action." This definition is endorsed by Harvey Siegel, Peter Facione, and Deanna Kuhn.
2. According to Ennis' definition, critical thinking requires a lot of attention and brain function. When a critical thinking approach is applied to education, it helps the student's brain function better and understand texts differently.
3. Different fields of study may require different types of critical thinking. Critical thinking provides more angles and perspectives upon the same material.

Logic and rationality

Main article: Logic and rationality

The study of logical argumentation is relevant to the study of critical thinking. Logic is concerned with the analysis of arguments, including the appraisal of their correctness or incorrectness. In the field of epistemology, critical thinking is considered to be logically correct thinking, which allows for differentiation between logically true and logically false statements.

In "First wave" logical thinking, the thinker is removed from the train of thought, and the analysis of connections between concepts or points in thought is ostensibly free of any bias. In his essay Beyond Logicism in Critical Thinking Kerry S. Walters describes this ideology thus: "A logistic approach to critical thinking conveys the message to students that thinking is legitimate only when it conforms to the procedures of informal (and, to a lesser extent, formal) logic and that the good thinker necessarily aims for styles of examination and appraisal that are analytical, abstract, universal, and objective. This model of thinking has become so entrenched in conventional academic wisdom that many educators accept it as canon". Such principles are concomitant with the increasing dependence on a quantitative understanding of the world.^{[citation needed]}

In the 'second wave' of critical thinking, authors consciously moved away from the logocentric mode of critical thinking characteristic of the 'first wave'. Although many scholars began to take a less exclusive view of what constitutes critical thinking, rationality and logic remain widely accepted as essential bases for critical thinking. Walters argues that exclusive logicism in the first wave sense is based on "the unwarranted assumption that good thinking is reducible to logical thinking".

Deduction, abduction and induction

Main article: Logical reasoning

Argument terminology used in logic

There are three types of logical reasoning. Informally, two kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished in addition to formal deduction, which are induction and abduction.

Deduction

• Deduction is the conclusion drawn from the structure of an argument's premises, by use of rules of inference formally those of propositional calculus. For example: X is human and all humans have a face, so X has a face.

Induction

• Induction is drawing a conclusion from a pattern that is guaranteed by the strictness of the structure to which it applies. For example: The sum of even integers is even. Let ${\displaystyle x,y,z\in \mathbb{Z}}$ then ${\displaystyle 2x,2y,2z}$ are even by definition. If ${\displaystyle x+y=z}$, then ${\displaystyle 2x+2y=2(x+y)=2z}$, which is even; so summing two even numbers results in an even number.

Abduction

• Abduction is drawing a conclusion using a heuristic that is likely, but not inevitable given some foreknowledge. For example: I observe sheep in a field, and they appear white from my viewing angle, so sheep are white. Contrast with the deductive statement: Some sheep are white on at least one side.

Critical thinking and rationality

Kerry S. Walters, an emeritus philosophy professor from Gettysburg College, argues that rationality demands more than just logical or traditional methods of problem solving and analysis or what he calls the "calculus of justification" but also considers "cognitive acts such as imagination, conceptual creativity, intuition and insight". These "functions" are focused on discovery, on more abstract processes instead of linear, rules-based approaches to problem-solving. The linear and non-sequential mind must both be engaged in the rational mind.

The ability to critically analyze an argument — to dissect structure and components, thesis and reasons — is essential. But so is the ability to be flexible and consider non-traditional alternatives and perspectives. These complementary functions are what allow for critical thinking to be a practice encompassing imagination and intuition in cooperation with traditional modes of deductive inquiry.

Functions

The list of core critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and metacognition. According to Reynolds (2011), an individual or group engaged in a strong way of critical thinking gives due consideration to establish for instance:

• Evidence through reality
• Context skills to isolate the problem from context
• Relevant criteria for making the judgment well
• Applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment
• Applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand

In addition to possessing strong critical-thinking skills, one must be disposed to engage problems and decisions using those skills. Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fairness.

Critical thinking calls for the ability to:

• Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems
• Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem-solving
• Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
• Recognize unstated assumptions and values
• Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discernment
• Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments
• Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions
• Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations
• Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives
• Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience
• Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life

In sum:

"A persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports or refutes it and the further conclusions to which it tends."

Critical thinking is significant in the learning process of internalization, in the construction of basic ideas, principles, and theories inherent in content. And critical thinking is significant in the learning process of application, whereby those ideas, principles, and theories are implemented effectively as they become relevant in learners' lives.

In professional fields

Critical thinking is an important element of all professional fields and academic disciplines (by referencing their respective sets of permissible questions, evidence sources, criteria, etc.). Within the framework of scientific skepticism, the process of critical thinking involves the careful acquisition and interpretation of information and use of it to reach a well-justified conclusion. The concepts and principles of critical thinking can be applied to any context or case but only by reflecting upon the nature of that application. Critical thinking forms, therefore, a system of related, and overlapping, modes of thought such as anthropological thinking, sociological thinking, historical thinking, political thinking, psychological thinking, philosophical thinking, mathematical thinking, chemical thinking, biological thinking, ecological thinking, legal thinking, ethical thinking, musical thinking, thinking like a painter, sculptor, nurse, engineer, business person, etc. In other words, though critical-thinking principles are universal, their application to disciplines requires a process of reflective contextualization. Psychology offerings, for example, have included courses such as Critical Thinking about the Paranormal, in which students are subjected to a series of cold readings and tested on their belief of the "psychic", who is eventually announced to be a fake. In short, critical thinking is considered important for enabling a professional in any field to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure thinking, thereby ensuring the act of thinking without false belief.

However, even with knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, mistakes occur, and due to a thinker's inability to apply the methodology consistently, and because of overruling character traits such as egocentrism. Critical thinking includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. Given research in cognitive psychology, some educators believe that schools should focus on teaching their students critical-thinking skills and cultivation of intellectual traits.

Habits or traits of the mind

The habits of mind that characterize a person strongly disposed toward critical thinking include a desire to follow reason and evidence wherever they may lead, a systematic approach to problem-solving, inquisitiveness, even-handedness, and confidence in reasoning.

According to a definition analysis by Kompf & Bond (2001), critical thinking involves problem-solving, decision making, metacognition, rationality, rational thinking, reasoning, knowledge, intelligence and also a moral component such as reflective thinking. Critical thinkers therefore need to have reached a level of maturity in their development, possess a certain attitude as well as a set of taught skills.

There is a postulation by some writers that the tendencies from habits of mind should be thought as virtues to demonstrate the characteristics of a critical thinker. These intellectual virtues are ethical qualities that encourage motivation to think in particular ways towards specific circumstances. However, these virtues have also been criticized by skeptics who argue that the evidence is lacking for a specific mental basis underpinning critical thinking.

Teaching critical thinking

John Dewey is one of many educational leaders who recognized that a curriculum aimed at building thinking skills would benefit the individual learner, the community, and democracy.

In a 2014 meta-analysis, researchers reviewed 341 quasi- or true-experimental studies of teaching critical thinking, all of which used some form of standardized critical-thinking measure. The authors describe the various methodological approaches and attempt to categorize differing assessment tools, which include standardized tests (and second-source measures), tests developed by teachers, tests developed by researchers, and tests developed by teachers who also serve the role as the researcher. The results emphasized the need for exposing students to real-world problems and the importance of encouraging open dialogue within a supportive environment. Effective strategies for teaching critical thinking are thought to be possible in a wide variety of educational settings. One attempt to assess the humanities' role in teaching critical thinking and reducing belief in pseudoscientific claims was made at North Carolina State University. Some success was noted and the researchers emphasized the value of the humanities in providing the skills to evaluate current events and qualitative data in context.

Historically, the teaching of critical thinking focused only on logical procedures such as formal and informal logic. This emphasized to students that good thinking is equivalent to logical thinking. However, a second wave of critical thinking, urges educators to value conventional techniques, meanwhile expanding what it means to be a critical thinker. In 1994, Kerry Walters compiled a conglomeration of sources surpassing this logical restriction to include many different authors' research regarding connected knowing, empathy, gender-sensitive ideals, collaboration, world views, intellectual autonomy, morality and enlightenment. These concepts invite students to incorporate their own perspectives and experiences into their thinking. Scott Lilienfeld notes that there is some evidence to suggest that basic critical-thinking skills might be successfully taught to children at a younger age than previously thought.

In the English and Welsh school systems, Critical Thinking is offered as a subject that 16- to 18-year-olds can take as an A-Level.

Well-educated citizens

See also: Citizenship education (subject)

In 1995, a meta-analysis of the literature on teaching effectiveness in higher education noted concerns that higher education was failing to meet society's requirements for well-educated citizens. It concluded that although faculty may aspire to develop students' thinking skills, in practice they have tended to aim at facts and concepts utilizing lowest levels of cognition, rather than developing intellect or values.

Critical thinking is also considered important for human rights education for toleration. The Declaration of Principles on Tolerance adopted by UNESCO in 1995 affirms that "education for tolerance could aim at countering factors that lead to fear and exclusion of others, and could help young people to develop capacities for independent judgement, critical thinking and ethical reasoning".

Assessment of critical thinking

Under the OCR exam board, students can sit two exam papers for the Advanced Subsidiary: "Credibility of Evidence" and "Assessing and Developing Argument". The full Advanced GCE is now available: in addition to the two Advanced Subsidiary units, candidates sit the two papers "Resolution of Dilemmas" and "Critical Reasoning". The A-level tests candidates on their ability to think critically about, and analyze, arguments on their deductive or inductive validity, as well as producing their own arguments. It also tests their ability to analyze certain related topics such as credibility and ethical decision-making. However, due to its comparative lack of subject content, many universities do not accept it as a main A-level for admissions. Nevertheless, the Advanced Subsidiary is often useful in developing reasoning skills, and the full Advanced GCE is useful for degree courses in politics, philosophy, history or theology, providing the skills required for critical analysis that are useful, for example, in biblical study.

There used to also be an Advanced Extension Award offered in Critical Thinking in the UK, open to any A-level student regardless of whether they have the Critical Thinking A-level. Cambridge International Examinations have an A-level in Thinking Skills.

From 2008, Assessment and Qualifications Alliance has also been offering an A-level Critical Thinking specification. OCR exam board have also modified theirs for 2008. Many examinations for university entrance set by universities, on top of A-level examinations, also include a critical-thinking component, such as the LNAT, the UKCAT, the BioMedical Admissions Test and the Thinking Skills Assessment.

In Qatar, critical thinking was offered by Al-Bairaq - an outreach, non-traditional educational program that targeted high school students and focussed on a curriculum based on STEM fields. The idea behind this was to offer high school students the opportunity to connect with the research environment in the Center for Advanced Materials (CAM) at Qatar University. Faculty members train and mentor the students and help develop and enhance their critical thinking, problem-solving, and teamwork skills.

Research of critical thinking

After undertaking research in schools, Edward M. Glaser proposed in 1941 that the ability to think critically involves three elements:

1. An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences
2. Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning
3. Some skill in applying those methods.

The Critical Thinking project at Human Science Lab, London, is involved in the scientific study of all major educational systems in prevalence today to assess how the systems are working to promote or impede critical thinking.

Contemporary cognitive psychology regards human reasoning as a complex process that is both reactive and reflective. This presents a problem that is detailed as a division of a critical mind in juxtaposition to sensory data and memory.

The psychological theory disposes of the absolute nature of the rational mind, in reference to conditions, abstract problems and discursive limitations. Where the relationship between critical-thinking skills and critical-thinking dispositions is an empirical question, the ability to attain causal domination exists, for which Socrates was known to be largely disposed against as the practice of Sophistry. Accounting for a measure of "critical-thinking dispositions" is the California Measure of Mental Motivation and the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory. The Critical Thinking Toolkit is an alternative measure that examines student beliefs and attitudes about critical thinking.

Online communication

The advent and rising popularity of online courses have prompted some to ask if computer-mediated communication promotes, hinders, or has no effect on the amount and quality of critical thinking in a course (relative to face-to-face communication). There is some evidence to suggest a fourth, more nuanced possibility: that online communication may promote some aspects of critical thinking but hinder others. For example, Guiller et al. (2008) found that, relative to face-to-face discourse, online discourse featured more justifications, while face-to-face discourse featured more instances of students expanding on what others had said. The increase in justifications may be due to the asynchronous nature of online discussions, while the increase in expanding comments may be due to the spontaneity of 'real-time' discussion. Newman et al. (1995) showed similar differential effects. They found that while online communications boasted more important statements and linking of ideas, it lacked novelty. The authors suggest that this may be due to difficulties participating in a brainstorming-style activity in an asynchronous environment. Rather, the asynchrony may promote users to put forth "considered, thought out contributions".

Researchers assessing critical thinking in online discussion forums often employ a technique called Content Analysis, where the text of online discourse (or the transcription of face-to-face discourse) is systematically coded for different kinds of statements relating to critical thinking. For example, a statement might be coded as "Discuss ambiguities to clear them up" or "Welcoming outside knowledge" as positive indicators of critical thinking. Conversely, statements reflecting poor critical thinking may be labeled as "Sticking to prejudice or assumptions" or "Squashing attempts to bring in outside knowledge". The frequency of these codes in online communication and face-to-face discourse can be compared to draw conclusions about the quality of critical thinking.

Searching for evidence of critical thinking in discourse has roots in a definition of critical thinking put forth by Kuhn (1991), which emphasizes the social nature of discussion and knowledge construction. There is limited research on the role of social experience in critical thinking development, but there is some evidence to suggest it is an important factor. For example, research has shown that three- to four-year-old children can discern, to some extent, the differential credibility and expertise of individuals. Further evidence for the impact of social experience on the development of critical-thinking skills comes from work that found that 6- to 7-year-olds from China have similar levels of skepticism to 10- and 11-year-olds in the United States. If the development of critical-thinking skills was solely due to maturation, it is unlikely we would see such dramatic differences across cultures.

Home rule in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Charter city)

Home Rule in the United States.

  Home rule, no Dillon's Rule

  Home rule and Dillon's Rule

  Limited home rule, no Dillon's Rule

  Limited home rule, Dillon's Rule

  No home rule, Dillon's Rule

Home rule in the United States relates to the authority of a constituent part of a U.S. state to exercise powers of governance (i.e., whether such powers must be specifically delegated to it by the state—typically by legislative action—or are generally implicitly allowed unless specifically denied by state-level action). Forty of the fifty states apply some form of the principle known as Dillon's Rule, which says that local governments may exercise only powers that the state specifically grants to them, to determine the bounds of a municipal government's legal authority.

In some states, known as home rule states, the state's constitution grants municipalities and/or counties the ability to pass various types of laws to govern themselves (so long as the laws do not conflict with the state and federal constitutions). In other states, known as Dillon's Rule states, only limited authority has been granted to local governments by passage of statutes in the state legislature. In these states, a city or county must obtain permission from the state legislature if it wishes to pass a law or ordinance not specifically permitted under existing state legislation. Most states have a mix; for example, allowing home rule for municipalities with a minimum number of residents.

The National League of Cities identifies 31 Dillon's Rule states, 10 home rule states, 8 states that apply Dillon's Rule only to certain municipalities, and one state (Florida) that applies home rule to everything except taxation. Each state defines for itself what powers it will grant to local governments. Within the local sphere, there are four categories in which the state may allow discretionary authority:

• Structural – power to choose the form of government, charter and enact charter revisions,
• Functional – power to exercise local self government in a broad or limited manner,
• Fiscal – authority to determine revenue sources, set tax rates, borrow funds and other related financial activities,
• Personnel – authority to set employment rules, remuneration rates, employment conditions and collective bargaining.

Many states have different provisions regarding home rule for counties than for municipalities. The National Association of Counties says in 14 states all counties (or county equivalents) operate under Dillon's Rule, while 13 states allow all counties home rule authority and 21 states have a mix of home rule and Dillon's Rule. Connecticut and Rhode Island do not have independent county governments.

Home rule and Dillon's Rule states

The following chart indicates which of the 50 U.S. states are home rule states and which states obey the legal principle of Dillon's Rule for determining local government authority. A state in this chart with "Limited" home rule may grant home rule to particular cities and municipalities individually but has no constitutional provision guaranteeing home rule. A state that is both a home rule state and a Dillon's Rule state applies Dillon's Rule to matters or governmental units not accounted for in the constitutional provision or statute that grants home rule.

Washington, D.C. is a federal city with a limited form of home rule granted by the federal government; see District of Columbia home rule for details.

State	Home rule state?	Dillon's Rule state?	Comments
Alabama	Limited	Yes	Limited home rule granted to cities and towns in Article XII, Sections 220-28 of the Alabama constitution. Counties are not delegated even a general grant of power under Dillon's Rule and must seek "local legislation" from the state legislature.
Alaska	Yes	No
Arizona	Yes	Yes
Arkansas	Limited	Yes
California	Yes	Yes	Cities that have not adopted a charter are organized by state law. Such a city is called a "general law city" (or a "code city"), which will be managed by a five-member city council. As of January 21, 2020, 125 of California's 478 cities were charter cities.
Colorado	Yes	Yes	Home rule provided for municipalities by constitutional amendment in 1902; for counties in 1970 (more limited than for municipalities). 102 home rule municipalities, plus two consolidated city-counties that are home rule, and two home rule counties. All tax increases in Colorado must be voter-approved.
Connecticut	Yes	Yes
Delaware	No	Yes
Florida	Yes	No	Home rule specifically granted in Section 166.021(1) of Florida Statutes.
Georgia	Yes	Yes	Home rule specifically granted in Article IX of Georgia Constitution
Hawaii	Yes	Yes
Idaho	Yes	Yes
Illinois	Yes	Yes
Indiana	Limited	Yes	Dillon's Rule applies only to townships.
Iowa	Yes	No
Kansas	Limited	Yes	Dillon's Rule does not apply to cities or counties.
Kentucky	Limited	Yes
Louisiana	Yes	Yes	Home rule is more limited in charter municipalities established after 1974.
Maine	Yes	Yes
Maryland	Yes	Yes
Massachusetts	Yes	No
Michigan	Yes	Yes	Home rule applies to all cities, some villages, and two counties. Cities may be chartered with home rule status pursuant to the Home Rule City Act. Dillon's rule applies to all townships.
Minnesota	Yes	Yes
Mississippi	No	Yes
Missouri	Yes	Yes
Montana[16]	No	Yes
Nebraska	Limited	Yes	The Nebraska Constitution was amended in 1912 to allow cities with a population of more than 5,000 inhabitants to form a government under home rule. See Article XI, Section 2 Lincoln and Omaha are Nebraska's only home rule cities as of 2020.[17] Grand Island adopted a home rule charter in 1928; it was repealed by the voters on April 2, 1963. The city council subsequently repealed the charter on April 17, 1963, with Ordinance 3990.
Nevada	No[18]	Yes	Home rule legislation SB29 took effect July 2015, and gave more power to county commissioners. However, local government including general improvement districts, special districts, fire districts, and school districts were not affected by this change.[18]
New Hampshire	No	Yes
New Jersey	Yes	No
New Mexico	Yes	Yes
New York	Yes	Yes
North Carolina	Limited	Yes
North Dakota	Yes	Yes
Ohio	Yes	No
Oklahoma	No	Yes
Oregon	Yes	No
Pennsylvania	Yes	Yes
Rhode Island	Yes	Yes
South Carolina	Limited	No
South Dakota	Yes	Yes
Tennessee	Yes	Yes
Texas	Limited	Yes	Cities may adopt home rule once their population exceeds 5,000 and the voters adopt a city charter, the provisions of which cannot be inconsistent with either the Texas Constitution or "the general laws of the state." If the population subsequently falls below 5,000, the charter remains in force and may be amended. Otherwise, cities with populations of 5,000 or less are governed by the general laws only. School districts are generally governed by the general laws; a district may adopt a home rule charter, but no district has chosen to do so. Counties and "special districts" (other special-purpose governmental entities besides cities and school districts) are governed solely by the general laws and prohibited from adopting home rule.
Utah	Limited	No
Vermont	No	Yes
Virginia	No	Yes	All cities, which must have at least 5,000 residents and are independent from counties, and towns, which are not, are required to have a charter, although Dillon's Rule applies. See administrative divisions of Virginia.
Washington	Yes	Yes
West Virginia	Yes	No	Dillon's Rule was effectively abolished in the 1969 Municipal Code, §7, Article 1. Home rule was introduced in a pilot program in 2007 and made permanent in 2019.
Wisconsin	Limited	Yes
Wyoming	No	Yes

Home rule charter cities

In the United States, a home rule city, charter city, or home rule charter city is a city in which the governing system is defined by its own municipal charter document rather than solely by state statute (general law). State law may require general-law cities to have a five-member city council, for example, as in California, but a city organized under a charter may choose a different system, including the "strong mayor" or "city manager" forms of government. These cities may be administered predominantly by residents or through a third-party management structure, because a charter gives a city the flexibility to choose novel types of government structure. Depending on the state, all cities, no cities, or some cities may be charter cities.