Theory of Sovereignty

In the initial theories put out by Ibn Khaldun,Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes and developed by John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, state sovereignty was presented as absolute and indivisible.

The problem of how the question is framed is that you ask us what we prefer instead of wondering what is best. Besides, it is not given that what works for a small country will for a big one and what works for a rich nation will for a poor one.

It seems to me that federalist countries have a slight hedge over the centralizing ones. The US, Switzerland, Germany are models to be followed on the economic and political level, and sometimes on the social one. Moreover the federalist system seems to be gathering momentum as countries such as Spain, Italy and the UK are gradually moving toward it.

Federalism seems more fit for democracy, the power is closer from the people and the state is potentially larger. But it comes at a price and some may wonder whereas it is worth it.

First of all, it is way more expensive (the political class present at one more level is thus bigger and more expensive).
Secondly, one may want to be as far away from the power as possible, in other words it is more likely that a smaller polity will try to micromanage your business than a big one.
Finally, federalism creates barriers in what could be otherwise a single chunk. I'm in the US now, if somebody can explain me why my New York driving license does not work in California, I'd be grateful.

So I'd say federalism, yes but be careful not to make it too federal for its own good.

Originally posted by Maharbbal ...I'm in the US now, if somebody can explain me why my New York driving license does no. work in California, I'd be grateful.

I suppose it would depend on which particular state you are talking about.