2. Meaning, differences and Significance of IGR
• IGR is one of the principles that distinguish federal systems from the non federal
ones.
• It refers to the various ways by which institutions of government work with each
other and with others across jurisdictional boundaries with particular emphasis on
financial, policy and political issues.
• It is mechanism communication and collaboration among orders of government in
federal countries
• It can also be defined as a forum for bargaining between the states and the federal
government on matters of common concern and interest
• It is also mechanism to balance between autonomy and integration that is aimed
at enhancing shared rule without undermining self rule
• IGR is not confined to the legal / constitutionally stated relationships of levels of
government. Instead, it is more of the transcendence of constitutionally
recognized patterns of governmental interactions so as to include varieties of
relations.
3. ….. difference and significance
• Dual federalism- lacked meaningful institutions and mechanisms of IGRs
• Cooperative Federalism advanced IGR basically as a remedy for social problems since
federal, state and local governments basically serve the same people and generally share
the same goal
• Despite variations in the degree of cooperation, intergovernmental cooperation has
become a requirement in all federal systems
• Cooperative federalism operates from the promise that a relationship between levels of
government is grounded on the principle of equality and spirit of partnership.
4. Cont.….
• IGR can be called cooperative when the system is based on:
• 1) political culture of cooperation, mutual respect and trust;
• 2) non-hierarchical relation of the equals; and
• 3) some scope for each unit for policy innovation and experimentation on its
domains
• Evolution of IGR in cooperative federalism shows three types interlocking relation
eg. Germany, voluntary collaboration such as Switzerland, arm’s lengthy
coordination such as Canada and USA
5. Cont.…
• There are a number of common reasons underpinning intergovernmental cooperation
• a) improvement of information base for better decision making and reconciliation of
policy differences;
• b) Coordination of policies in areas where jurisdiction is shared or complementary;
• c) Achievement of national objectives;
• d) Coordinated public sector provisions;
• e) support for accommodation of differences in terms of reduction of fiscal disparity,
improvement of policy capacity etc;
• f) avoidance of complexity and rigidity to ensure flexibility and adaptation; and
• g) management of collisions and conflicts without necessarily eliminating competition
6. 9.2. Dimensions of IGR
• IGR has vertical as well as horizontal dimensions
• Vertically, IGR deals with relations between the federal government and the states on
issues of common interest. Depending on the substantive basis for interaction, it may
involve some or all of the constituent units with the federal government.
• Vertical IGR - along legislative and executive level, along sectorial line between levels of
government among different executive bodies such as federal ministries and regional
bureaus; along party line such as relation between federal, regional and local parties
• Horizontal IGR is between regional states, local governments, parties, urban-rural relations;
and depending on their constitutional status municipal intergovernmental forums could
also be included.
• Horizontal IGR, among other things, provide opportunities for securing consensus or help
develop common understanding among actors representing the governments before facing
the federal government on specific policy issue. Hence horizontal IGR has an impact on
vertical IGR
• At the same time it is also an avenue for sharing and learning experiences or for dealing
with specific issues among all or some of the constituent units.
7. 9.3. Institutions and Processes of IGR in Federations: Formal and
Informal
• Some IGR mechanisms tend to be formal or rule based while others perform based on
informal or conventions/ practices based.
• The formal IGR stands for the written agreements between governments, and all norms,
rules and regulations codified in constitutions or laws. Formal mechanisms or
intergovernmental agreements are less frequent but everlasting one
• An informal Institution of IGR refers to unwritten agreements among officials and
professionals.
• The concept of “informal” IGR can be described not as the absence of institutions that
are involved in the conduct of IGRs rather as the absence of an explicit constitutional
obligation to conduct IGRs.
• Informality adduces the value of IGR in terms of flexibility and adaptation.
• Informality comprises the day-to-day contacts between ministers, officials, or legislators
at different government levels. These contacts may be by letter, by telephone or face-to
face, directed at exchanging views and information, sustaining relationships and
implementing programs.
8. Cont.….
• Formal and informal IGR “can be usefully understood as a matter of degree since
effective collaboration for federal governance needs both forms of cooperation. Either
formal or informal does not separately make things happen.
• When the formal institutions guide administrative relations among governing units,
informality helps to create functional coordination of service delivery activities with the
complementing, accommodating, substituting or competing roles.
• The complementary and accommodating roles of informal institutions coexist with
effective formal institutions to produce convergent and divergent outcomes, respectively.
• In contrast, the substitutive and competing roles of informality prevail where there are
ineffective formal institutions. The substitutive role aims to attain convergent goal with
that of the ineffective formal institution but the competing ones serve divergent ends to
ineffective formal institution.
9. 9.4. IGR in Ethiopia
• The principle that is meant to guide IGR is provided under article 50(8) of the
Constitution:
• ‘The States shall respect the powers of the Federal Government. The Federal
Government shall likewise respect the powers of the States’. This makes equality and
mutual respect between the two orders of government the foundation of IGR (Steytler,
2019, p. 164).
• According to the Constitution, boundary disputes must be resolved through negotiations
(article 48(1)).
• However, the Constitution is silent on institutions and instruments of IGR. And attempts
to establish formal institution of IGR is not come into fruition until 2021 (
PROCLAMATION NO.1231 /2021)
• What kind of IGR mechanisms were there earlier to 2021?
• What kind of IGR mechanisms are envisioned in Proclamation no. 1231/2021?
10. Legislative IGR
• In a number of federations, the second chamber serves as a site of legislative IGR.
• In the case of Ethiopia, the second chamber (HOF) has no legislative power or plays
limited role in the legislative process. This is one of the factor that hinders the HOF
for being effective intergovernmental forum
• Secondly, the HOF is not composed of representatives of states though to date the
state legislature that selects the representatives of ethnic communities. As a result,
most of the representatives act as de facto representatives of state governments.
• However, the representation system in the HOF does not make it good IGR
institution.
11. Cont.…
• However, the Hof is not totally excluded from serving as an arena of IGR since it has the
ultimate, and unusual power of constitutional interpretation
• HOF also has the power of ordering, approving and regulating federal interventions in
the affairs of state governments (FDRE Constitution, Article 62/9)).
• More importantly, : it is ‘responsible for developing a formula based on which revenue
allocations are made every year’ (FDRE Constitution, Article 62(6)).
• In sum, the power assigned to the HOF by the Constitution make it a forum for IGR. This
is owing to the fact that members act as de facto representatives of state governments.
While it might not be an effective IGR forum, given its unequal representation and its
limited involvement in federal legislative processes, those few powers that it does
exercise position it as forum of intergovernmental negotiations on key issues, including
finance.
12. Cont.…
• The recently enacted IGR Proclamation no. 1231/2021 seeks to facilitate legislative IGR
by providing for the establishment of a speakers’ forum in the form of the National
Legislatives’ Relations Forum. The forum brings together speakers of the HoPR, state
councils and the councils of the two cities under federal administration—Dire Dawa and
Addis Ababa—as well as the speakers of the second chambers of the states of Harari and
SNNP.
• The forum is expected to coordinate the exercise of legislative competences especially in
areas of concurrent power. Convening annually, members used the forum to exchange
ideas and experiences. The meetings were hosted by the speaker of the HoPR or the
speaker of one of the state councils.
• Moreover, the different standing committees of the HoPR interacted with their
counterparts at state level. For instance, the HoPR currently has nine standing
committees. Each of these interacts with its counterpart at state level. However, the
interactions are infrequent and ad hoc.
13. Executive IGR
• Bureau of Regional Affairs (in Amharic, Ye-Kill Gudayoch Zerf ) is established in the early
1990s under the prime minister office served as a liaison between the federal executive
and the leadership of the state governments. However, in actuality, they served as
instruments of central control over state governments.
• In the early 2000, the Office of Regional Affairs was replaced by Ministry of Federal and
Pastoralists Affairs. It was meant to serve as the main coordinator of executive IGR.
However, its roles were mainly limited to the four emerging regions (Afar, Benishangu-
Gumuz, Gambela and Somali)
• There are also numerous intergovernmental interactions were taking place informally,
including sectoral meetings involving federal and state governments
• The site that served as the most effective executive IGR forum was, however, the party
structure. Despite the federal arrangement, the ruling party, which, until recently,
exclusively controlled the federal and all state governments, adhered to the principle of
‘democratic centralism’.
• As a result, decisions of the party’s national leadership were implemented at all levels,
including at state and local levels. Decisions were channelled from the centre to the states
and local officials through the party structure.
14. Cont.…
• IGR Proclamation No. 1231/2021 now mandates the establishment of a formal IGR forum
for top-level executives.
• The National Executives Relations’ Forum includes the federal Prime Minister, the
presidents of the nine state governments and the mayors of the two cities that are
accountable to the federal government. In addition, the membership includes federal
ministries of finance, peace, as well as women, children and youth; the attorney-general
and the head of the national planning commission are also members of the executive IGR
forum (Article 9).
• Executive IGR is meant to serve as forum of consultation for formulating nationwide
policies and tackling challenges in the execution of policies and laws that have
nationwide impact (article 10).
• The Proclamation also provides for the establishment of the National Sectoral Executives
Relations’ Forum, a sectoral forum that brings together federal and state executives to
deal with matters of mutual concern.
• In sectoral IGR, the heads of the relevant federal ministry meet with their state
counterparts (Article 13).
• The Proclamation envisages the establishment of as many sectoral IGR forums as there
are sectoral offices and bureaus.
15. Judicial Relation Forum
• The Proclamation also establishes National Judicial Relation’s Forum, which brings together
the presidents of federal and state supreme courts (Article 11).
• The Proclamation provides that state and federal organs in the justice sector, which may
include state attorney-generals, could be invited to the meetings of this forum.
• Matters relating to concurrent judicial competences of the states and the federal
government are the focus of this forum.
16. Cont.…
• There is also a forum that cannot be defined exclusively as either a legislative or
executive intergovernmental forum such as the HOF and the Regional States Relations’
Forum include the speakers of the HoF, speakers of the states, state presidents, the
mayors of Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa and representatives of the federal ministries of
finance, customs and peace (Article 16).
• The purpose of the forum is to deal with intergovernmental fiscal transfers, the
accommodation of intra-state minorities, and inter-communal conflicts (Article 17).
• The IGR Proclamation also mandates the establishment of a horizontal forum that brings
together the constituent units of the federation without including the federal
government.
• The Regional States Relations’ Forum includes state presidents and mayors of the two
federal cities and provides the opportunity for them to discuss common issues and
experiences.
