Chapter Three: Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations  Federalism  Intergovernmental relations (IGR)  Expansion of financial assistance  Increased intergovernmental aid  Homeland security  Diminished federal fiscal support The Nature of Federalism  Constitutional division of governmental power  Political arrangement  Important fiscal/administrative dimension The Nature of Federalism: Historical Perspective  McCulloch v. Maryland  Slavery issue  Confirms federal authority  Overlapping government authority emerges  Agricultural programs, state highway system, Vocational Education Act Intergovernmental Relations: The Action Side of Federalism  Consequences often unpredictable  Individual actions/attitudes determine relations between units of government  Continuous series of informal contacts and exchanges of information  No Child Left Behind Act  Homeland security, transportation, pollution control, agriculture Intergovernmental Relations: The Action Side of Federalism  Decisions fragmented not comprehensive  No single national policy  Hundreds of governmental agencies at all levels act independently  Responsibilities shared (state and federal)  Involves nonprofit and private sectors Dual Versus Cooperative Federalism The Courts and Intergovernmental Relations  Role of courts increasing  Rehnquist Court favored state authority over national or citizen rights  New York v. United States  United States v. Lopez  Alden v. Maine  United States v. Morrison The Courts and Intergovernmental Relations  Other issues  Preemptions  Eminent domain  After 2002, Court did not invalidate federal congressional authority Contemporary Intergovernmental Relations: Rise of Complexity  FDR administration brings huge leap in national government activity  Highway programs, urban renewal  Government social welfare replaces private  Eisenhower administration: HEW  1960s IGR takes new forms Contemporary Intergovernmental Relations: Rise of Complexity  Today concerns emerge over control  Growing service delivery roles of nonprofits and private sector  Conflicts:  Functional alliances dominate  Elected officials vs. specialists  Centralization vs. decentralization Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations  Fiscal federalism  Scope rapidly increased since 1961  National government has more fiscal resources  State/local governments provide more public services  Fiscal mismatch Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations  Grants-in-aid fund domestic policy programs and social objectives  Advantages:  Focused policy action  National support for minority policies  Coordinated response to national issues  Externalities Historical Trends of Federal Grants-in-Aid, 1960-2011 Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations  Categorical grants  Formula grants specified by legislation  Project grants shaped by administrators  Complex system  Few grants account for majority of spending  National vs. state expenditures varies widely Rise and Fall of Federal Assistance 1960-2010 Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal year 2010, Analytical Perspectives (Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 2009). Table 8.3, p. 131; U.S. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 2007), Table 421. Retrieved at: http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/smb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf. Categorical Grants and Administrative Complexity  Grant reliance → interdependence, political bargaining, administrative complexity  Gubernatorial prerogatives  Single state agency requirements  Highway Act, Vocational Education Act  Vertical functional autocracies Picket-Fence Federalism Source: Adapted from Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, 3rd ed., by Deil S. Wright. Copyright © 1988, 1982, 1978 by Wadsworth, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, Calif. 93950. Categorical Grants: Growing Dissatisfaction  Inequality of services  Program priorities and management  Procedural difficulties  Conflicts: state/local officials, bureaucrats, national officials, agencies  Partisan conflicts  Grant coordination issues Grant Reform: Multiple Efforts, More Complexity  Reform efforts reduce national influence  Fiscal reform: general revenue sharing and block grants  Impact:  Policy concerns decline for urban minorities  Funding conditions loosen Administrative Reform  Increase in citizen participation  Better coordination among programs  Better information and training  “New Federalism” approach  Increased state and local activism Obama Administration and Contemporary Federalism  Took office with mandate for change, but:  More money for state/local governments  Efforts to control state budgets, policies, admin.  Expanded project grants  Blurred, entangled division of responsibilities  Increased national influence  Desire to reduce disparities  Accountability with measured results Obama Administration and Contemporary Federalism  National versus state control debate continues  Obama administration moves toward centralization  Divided government dilutes national authority  Growing political pressure for less government Activity in Contemporary Federalism  Cities/states face worsening economies  As tax revenues fall, requests for assistance rise  Harder for local economies to recover  Increase in local activism in policy areas  States as “laboratories” of government Prospects and Issues in IGR: A Look Ahead  Regulatory federalism increases  Crosscutting rules  Program-based rules  Mandates: unfunded and state-based  Devolution Intergovernmental Relations and Public Administration  Subsystem politics  Strength of multilevel bureaucracies  Fiscal constraints  Control over grants and funding  Rise in intergovernmental regulatory issues and role of courts  Degree of centralization
Purchase answer to see full attachment