Abstract
The accommodation of diversity is one of the greatest challenges that modern societies must face. In addition, today, many federal systems encounter a loss of solidarity and an upsurge of interregional disparities. These have exacerbated dormant tensions and intergovernmental conflicts that, in certain cases, could even give rise to secessionist movements. Multilevel government (either in federal or regional form) plays a key role in managing diversity and reducing the risk of secession. This has led to decentralization being presented by some scholars as the antidote for secessionist/nationalist movements. However, contrasting views also spice up the debate. Moreover, history has not proven any one of these theories. Although conflicts and secessionism arise from multiple factors, traditionally, the literature on diversity accommodation has predominantly focused on differences from ethnonational, cultural, linguistic, or religious diversity and not on the economic driver for autonomy or national recognition. The study of fiscal instruments and financial relations (i.e., fiscal federalism) has, for the most part, been left aside, even though the latter has a critical role in this respect. Although the financial dimension is a vital component of any system of shared government, as the lack of resources to finance constitutionally assigned competences would render these inoperable, reducing autonomy to an empty vessel, the nexus between diversity accommodation and fiscal federalism remains to a large extent understudied. In addition, the financial dimension is almost never mentioned in the literature on diversity accommodation. Along the same line, fiscal federalism has been analyzed from other angles, paying attention to matters such as the allocation of financial resources and the powers thereof, as well as the functioning of financial relations among different levels of government, but without drawing much interest from the literature on nationalism and minority accommodation and to the contribution the first could give to the latter (and vice versa) in terms of research advancements.