Intergov transfers happen all the time as an intrinsic feature of life in a federal system---that devastates NEG link uq

Political boundaries are still necessary because they provide expectations about levels of governance. They also provide a basis upon which inter-communal relationships may be premised. However, often what happens within those political boundaries become matters of global concern. Federal states provide opportunities for the exercise of minority rights providing those rights are not, in turn, employed to abuse the inherent rights of others Federalism in an era of devolution may very well be a reflection of the tendency towards both the delivery of government services at the most proximate level (e.g., the European concept of subsidiarity) 68 and, the trend towards smaller government - the New Public Management. In some instances this has been termed "asymmetrical federalism" (Tarlton, 1965; Watts, 1996, 57). The difficulty with the asymmetrical concept has been in the suggestion that there is a basic conflict between "an assumption of equality" in federal states and what is perceived, often, to be special privilege for one or more units. Yet, as Spain has demonstrated, special status for clearly identifiable and unique communities within a federal or federalising state in no manner leads to disintegration; Switzerland, of course, may also be [*597] cited in support of the concept of asymmetry. Clearly, component units of federal states normally are not equal either in terms of population or economic wealth and, it usually follows, that within federal states some form of fiscal redistribution of wealth occurs as acknowledgement of that diversity. In Canada some believe that we can redefine federal relationships as partnerships - if this is plausible, then there is some hope for complex federal relationships. 69 If engagement of the component unit governments in that redistributive process is a form of devolution, then I suppose we are in a bit of a devolution era. 70