Paradiplomacy and international relations of subnational entities and governments have lead states/provinces and cities to develop their own strategies to connect beyond their own national state. In this sense, and in some cases, we may see a truly local foreign policy (LFP) in action. In most of the cases, those LFP add value to national foreign policy with positive results to the whole nation state. What could be the counterarguments against the formulation and implementation o a local foreign policy by a local government?
There are many positive aspects of local government's determination of its own foreign policy. As a result, the most efficient and effective decisions towards the outside are seen by those who are managed from there and decisions are made upon it. However, there are arguments against it. The nation-state structure has to be much more inclusive than local governments because it shows a central government. It also has to deal with many problems that local governments do not have to deal with. For example, while local governments are mostly trying to maximize their economies and cultures, the central government must also undertake such difficult tasks as national security, social services, international economic competition, and bilateral or multilateral negotiations with other states. While local governments are trying to maximize the faults of those in their location, the central government has to take care of the benefits of everyone. While the local government wants to maximize the appropriations and investments that will come to its location, the central government tries to distribute them in a balanced way. However, the useful work of local governments and the work of the central government are not conflicting policies but complementary policies.
Dear Mehmet, thank you very much for your kind and substantive answer! Very appreciated!
Counter-arguments to a Local Foreign Policy by sub-state actors? It should be broadly in harmony with the country's policy. It fills out gaps, and advances a local identity. We see this in the modest foreign aid programs that the German Lander run in foreign countries. Example: Bremen in Pune, India, which has resulted in special German-India connections in that city. It is hard to imagine a value-add if such LFP defies the national policy. The tail cannot wag the dog!
Dear Prof. Kishan S Rana, thank you very much for your willing and time to answer! Very much appreciated! I agree with you, the key point is harmony, but it is not so easy to reach in practice! Good to know about India-Germany experience! Best regards!
Dear Paul, thank you very much for you careful answer. I agree with you at a certain point. I sustain that In some cases, international acts, paradiplomacy, cooperation or any type of international relations of subnational governments may constitute, or based on, a local foreign policy, if we consider that the expression is not a monopoly of the central government but rather a way to project needs and interests of a public entity in the international arena.
Gilberto and Paul, we have a vivid Indian example that illustrates Paul's point about risk and responsible actions.
Andhra Pradesh, led by a 'modern' leader, Chandrababu Naidu (he was Chief Minister of an undivided Andhra Pradesh for one term, before voters turfed him out) launchd ambitious development projects in the post-division AP state (the other half became Telangana). One of his tasks was to build a new capital for the new entity -- Hyderabad went to Telangana. He launched ambitious plans, and Singapore (thanks to his past reputation) did something unique -- it appointed a special emissary for AP state.
In the Oct 2019 elections, Naidu lost a new CM emerged, and one of his first actions was to stop the capital project. [See: https://www.livemint.com/politics/news/is-jagan-mohan-reddy-slowly-undoing-chandrababu-s-legacy-in-andhra-pradesh-11570368034117.html ]
I doubt if Singapore will again attempt such sub-state diplomacy in India.
Kishan
Dear Amb.S.Rana, thank you very much for your new comment. Those examples are very important to illustrate the challenges of this issue!
Local government's foreign policies can be successful where local governments have autonomy. if formulated in line with the national foreign policy, they can really be successful and achieve their intended objective
Thanks, Aheebwa. That was the essence of the German example mentioned in my response of 3 Dec.
We have not so far mentioned in this conversation the most common example of local actions in foreign affairs -- 'sister city' relations. When these are active, they build citizen-level links between friendly countries, and contribute to the country brand. Example: There is perhaps no town in France and Germany that does not have such links in the other country, via a process that commenced in the 1950s. This involves football teams, school student exchanges, and all manner of other mutual actions. The goal was to transform the image of past hostility and war, and it has been remarkably successful. After the end of Cold War that has been extended to other countries, again with the aim of transforming history-derived mutual images.
I do not know if such comprehensive actions have been emulated in other parts of the world where past narratives of hostility need transformation.
Kishan
Interesting points. As best as I know, local govts in developing countries have limited powers, and are seldom active players in diplomacy. One example that supports Maximillian: City mayors in India -- Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, all have 1-year terms and almost zero powers. But they are equated with the mayors of LA or other great cities in 'sister-city arrangements' -- they make a nice trip abroad, say pleasant things and deliver nothing. That has brought our sister-city deals in disrepute.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India