Federalism Revised: The Promise and Challenge of the No Child Left Behind Act

Federalism in education has undergone significant changes since the Winter Commission. During the early 1990s, federal policy makers faced the challenge of organizational fragmentation and policy incoherence in public education. In the last 15 years, the intergovernmental system has evolved from one that is predominantly compliance‐driven to one that is performance based, as suggested by the congressional adoption of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. While the former is often characterized by images of “picket fence” federalism and administrative silos, the latter remains very much a work in progress, with the promise of raising academic proficiency. This paper first examines the paradigm shift and then considers emerging politics in intergovernmental relations. The author explores the ways in which state and local policy makers are altering the rules governing education service provision in response to performance‐based federal expectations.     

Civil Rights,Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal,State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Some theorists argue that cooperative intergovernmental relations are critical to policy implementation in the United States. This assertion is explored in the context of fair housing enforcement by comparing favorable administrative outcomes in fair housing complaints at the federal, state, and local levels from 1989 to 2004. What conclusions can be drawn from this systematic comparison of intergovernmental enforcement in one policy area over an extended period of time? First, cooperative federalism works well in fair housing enforcement. Second, of special significance, state civil rights agencies resolve complaints in favor of complainants nearly as often as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and localities sometimes do so even more frequently.     

Issues of Federalism in Response to Terrorism

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, provoked, among other reactions, considerable commentary about the future of American federalism, particularly predictions of administrative centralization. To assess the potential impact of terrorism on U.S. intergovernmental relations and the ways the federal system should respond, members of the American Political Science Association's Section on Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations were surveyed in late 2001. Generally, these federalism scholars believe the September 11 terrorism will have little effect on intergovernmental relations or on the U.S. Supreme Court's state–friendly jurisprudence, and the surge in public trust and confidence in the federal government will be short–lived. The scholars tend to support a highly federalized response to terrorism, but with intergovernmental cooperation. Partisan differences among the scholars on policy options, however, mirror the party differences in Congress and the resurgence of "politics as usual" less than a year after September 11, 2001.     

Intergovernmental Innovation and the Administrative State in Canada

Canadian federalism has experienced considerable pressure for change and innovation in recent years. There have been calls for more collaborative federalism and demands for public sector reforms consistent with the precepts of New Public Management. This article examines the hypothesis that these pressures might be expected to have resulted in some intergovernmental institutional innovation in the arena of federal–provincial–territorial relations. Using a conceptual distinction between federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental management (IGM) as the basis of analyzing institutional innovation at six levels in the Canadian intergovernmental administrative state, the authors find a differentiated impact with more institutional innovation evident at the micro levels of IGM and innovation more constrained at the macro levels of the administrative state by the traditional institutional infrastructure of executive federalism.     

The influence of federalism on fiscal policy making

Abstract. This article attempts to refine the statement that federal states face difficulties in fiscal policy making because of the territorial division of powers by comparing two federal countries, Canada and Germany. These two countries differ in terms of their type of federalism: Canada displaying a power-separation system and Germany corresponding to a power-sharing type. According to the authors, the territorial factor influences fiscal policy making through the distribution of taxing and spending powers as well as through patterns of intergovernmental relations. The use of fiscal policy instruments and the likely effects on conflict and cooperation in those two countries is discussed with empirical evidence. The authors come to the conclusion that federalism is indeed a constraint on fiscal policy making, but that the two types of power division face different obstacles and deal differently with fiscal problems. In the power-separation system of Canada, the federal government has encompassing competencies to use fiscal policy instruments unilaterally and without restraint, but faces a lack of concerted action with the provinces which reduces its scope of action in fiscal policy making. In the power-sharing system in Germany, concerted action facilitates macroeconomic stabilisation strategies but the compulsory negotiation system distorts the use of fiscal policy instruments by distributive bargaining.     

Pragmatic Federalism: Australian Federalism from Hawke to Howard

The article explores the nature of Australian federalism by examining four major themes in the period from Hawke to Howard. The investigation of these themes – Australian conceptions of federalism; the role of party in shaping federalism; the way problems and politics have influenced policy‐making and thereby federalism; and the nature of federal judicial review – suggests that Australian federalism can most accurately be characterised as pragmatic. It appears as a federalism shaped by pressing problems, specific policy agendas and the prevailing political dynamic, rather than by overarching conceptions of federalism derived from political theory or articulated in party ideology. This pragmatic federalism explains important aspects of Australian federalism, especially the trend towards centralisation of authority.     

Deciding to Provide: Local Decisions on Providing Social Welfare

Fiscal federalism predicts local governments will avoid social welfare expenditures, owing to capital mobility across local jurisdictions. Yet Census of Governments data consistently show that many local governments provide one or more social welfare functions, and moreover many jurisdictions provide these functions without federal or state intergovernmental support. This article finds evidence that, while local expenditures are largely driven by fiscal capacity and federal and state assistance, local decisions on providing social welfare functions and participating in intergovernmental revenues are primarily affected by degree of capital mobility and by local political factors. Consequently, local governments exercise much greater autonomy over social welfare policymaking than fiscal federalism suggests.     

Intergouvernementale Beziehungen und Fiskalpolitik in Bundesstaaten

This article is dedicated to the question if and how federal structures have an influence on decisions in fiscal policy. In order to answer this question four countries are selected as case studies that represent on the one hand a more competitive model (Canada, Belgium) and on the other hand a more cooperative model (Germany, Switzerland). We want to know which effect and disturbing potential federal structures in these countries could have on fiscal policy making and if the distinction of federal types explains variations in decision making. The focus will be on intergovernmental relations in fiscal policy making, i.e. the possibility to act of the federal government in the light of the veto-power of member states and parties. The result is: federal structures have in general, without differences according to the type of federalism, a constraining influence for keynesian demand management. They also have, though in different ways, a potential negative influence on deficit reduction. This negative influence can, however, be neutralised by intended and unintended mechanisms which differ between countries.     

Intergovernmental relations on immigrant integration in multi-level states. A comparative assessment

ABSTRACT

The study of intergovernmental relations (IGR) is a classical research area in scholarship on federalism and territorial politics. However, it has largely ignored the relatively new, and recently decentralized area of immigrant integration. The aim of this Special Issue is twofold. First, it aims to analyse how governments in multi-level states coordinate on immigrant integration. Second, it wishes to explain the dynamics that shape the features of intergovernmental relations. In doing so, we focus on four multi-level states; two of which are federal (Belgium and Canada) and two that are decentralized (Italy and Spain). Whilst we engage with the established literature on intergovernmental relations to formulate hypotheses about the nature and dynamics of intergovernmental relations, we also formulate less explored hypotheses. Our overarching argument is that the scholarship on IGR benefits from in-depth comparative case studies comparing IGR not just across countries, but also across policy areas and over time.     

The National Renewable Energy Target: An Example of Post‐Machiavellian Policy‐Making?

Since the election of the Rudd Government in 2007 intergovernmental relations have been a major feature of the political agenda. A ‘new federalism’ approach introduced a re‐invigorated Council of Australian Governments (COAG) focused on developing national policies that reflect coordinated and cooperative policy‐making processes. The establishment of COAG working groups provided the means for developing policies that reflect new levels of agreement between jurisdictions and a common approach to reform. The development of the 20% Renewable Energy Target has been one of the first initiatives of this new approach to policy‐making. This research analyses the process behind the development of the target and places it within the context of the post‐Machiavellian approach, and looks at the implications for future intergovernmental relations.     

Goal Conflict and Fund Diversion in Federal Grants to the States

Researchers using fiscal choice models have had limited success predicting fund diversion in federal grant programs. The application of a principal-agent framework to questions of fiscal federalism offered a potentially valuable alternative approach, but the traditional model employed by Chubb (1985) neglected potential variability in the degree of goal conflict between principals and agents. This article proposes an expanded framework, which incorporates the possibility of variation in goal conflict between participants in intergovernmental aid programs. The theory suggests that the level of policy congruence between recipient jurisdictions and the national government will determine the amount of grant funding diverted away from targeted policy areas. Findings from analyses of grant programs in two distinct policy areas support the hypothesis that grant effectiveness is partially a function of goal congruence. The relationship between intergovernmental partners is interactive, with the degree of policy agreement determining fund diversion in subnational jurisdictions, as well as the effectiveness of federal oversight activities. The findings have important theoretical implications for understanding both fiscal federalism and principal-agent relationships more generally.     

“Big Questions” about Intergovernmental Relations and Management: Who Will Address Them?

Fiscal, administrative, and political tensions among the partners in the federal system have not eased, and perhaps have grown, since the demise of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1996. Yet no governmental organizational capacity exists to address big intergovernmental questions in an ongoing manner through nonpartisan or bipartisan research, data collection, deliberation, and policy formulation.     

Homeland Security Preparedness: The Rebirth of Regionalism

The homeland security mission has placed many new demands onthe U.S. system of federalism. The successful implementationof homeland security policy requires cooperation among all levelsof government—federal, state, and local. Regionalism offersa powerful tool for encouraging greater intergovernmental cooperationand improved homeland security preparedness. We assess the impactof regionalism on intergovernmental cooperation and the implementationof the homeland security mission in Florida, an early proponentof the regional approach. From a regional perspective, we evaluatehow intergovernmental complexity, the quality and quantity ofintergovernmental networks, and security vulnerabilities contributeto perceived improvements in intergovernmental cooperation andhomeland security preparedness. The results of a 2004 mail surveyof city and county officials suggest that regional organizationalstructures are most effective in promoting intergovernmentalcooperation and preparedness where the intergovernmental landscapeis the most complex and where security vulnerabilities are themost intense.     

Devolutionary Federalism and Elazar's Typology: The Arkansas Response to Reagan's New Federalism

This article examines the relationship between the federal andstate governments with regard to the Reagan administration'sNew Federalism. The underlying concern centers on the financialrelationship among governments portrayed by Elazar's typologyof federal aid. The focus of this investigation is directedtoward the adjustments being made by the states to accommodatethe financial and administrative changes occurring on the nationallevel, as illustrated by the case of Arkansas. The analysiscenters on two questions: 1) Has the New Federalism initiativeachieved Reagan's goals of decentralizing governmental authorityback to the states? 2) Has a major redirection in the federalsystem been achieved by reducing the federal financial obligationin the intergovernmental system? The changes being made in thefederal system, as reflected by the adjustments occurring amongthe states, may signal an important realignment of federalism.     

The State of American Federalism, 2005: Federalism Resurfaces in the Political Debate

After several years during which federalism was rarely a prominentor explicit issue in political debates, it was in several waysthrust into the public consciousness in 2005. It was not thatthe president or Congress ceased sacrificing state and localinterests to substantive policy goals, as shown by the costlyREAL ID Act, stringent new federal requirements in the TemporaryAid to Needy Families reauthorization, and congressional interventionin the Terri Schiavo case. However, Hurricane Katrina, and particularlythe delayed and ineffective intergovernmental response, generatedsubstantial debate about the appropriate federal role in disasterrelief. In addition, state and local governmental oppositionto the No Child Left Behind Act intensified and generated significantattention during the year, particularly as a result of a Utahstatute asserting the precedence of state over federal law anda Connecticut lawsuit against the act. Meanwhile, state governmentscontinued to address a number of policy problems that federalofficials were unable or unwilling to confront, especially regardingenvironmental, health-care, and labor issues. Finally, althoughthe Supreme Court in 2005 continued its recent (2003–2004)trend of pulling back somewhat from its late-1990s Congress-curbingdecisions, federalism issues figured quite prominently in thesenate confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Robertsand Justice Samuel Alito.     

The State of U.S. Federalism, 2000-2001: Continuity in Crisis

Despite the 2000 presidential-election crisis, basic continuityprevailed in American federalism, including survival of theelectoral college and furtherance of the more recent shift offederal policymaking from places to persons during today's eraof coercive or regulatory federalism. The year revealed theenduring salience of political parties and the prominent roleof interest groups in the politics of federalism, as well asthe ways in which the federal system shapes, and is shaped by,policy debates. The U.S. Supreme Court continued its state-friendlydecision-making while Congress continued to preempt state authority,attach new conditions to federal aid, federalize criminal law,and nationalize power even while giving state and local governmentsmore administrative discretion. The year also illustrated thedeclining impact of federal aid on state-local revenues comparedto the increasing fiscal impact of the federal government'ssubstantive, monetary, and fiscal policies.     

From Unitary to Asymmetric Federalism in Germany: Taking Stock after 50 Years

Policymaking in the German federal system is influenced by thedynamic interplay of the institutions of cooperative federalism,of party competition in a parliamentary system, and of distributiveconflicts between governments. This is shown in an analysisof 50 years of German federalism. It is argued that while theinstitutional setting outlived most reform efforts, changingpatterns of party politics and growing distributive conflictsinduced adjustments in intergovernmental relations. Since the1980s, such adjustments have also been stimulated by Europeanpolitics. In unified Germany, intergovernmental cooperationis now burdened with asymmetries between the East and the West,which are also expressed in a more regionalized party system.However, as party political confrontations have diminished,a pragmatic revision of the federal system seems feasible.     

Federal Systems in the Global Economy: Research Issues

The emerging global economy has altered makeup of federal systemsand set the stage for new international institutions. This articleidentifies key research issues that bear upon the connectionbetween federalism and globalism. Five specific research questions are considered. The first concernsthe impact of global economic change on the sovereignty of nationaland subnalional governments. Second, the effect of the globaleconomy on intergovernmental relations is considered. Next,the question of placement of economic policy responsibilitiesin a federal system is posed. Finally, the article asks whetherfederalism eases adaptation to the global economy and protectsdemocratic values.     

Intergovernmental Management: A View from the Bottom

Intergovernmental management is more than just intergovernmental relationships involving the federal government. Though Professor McGuire agrees that the federal government has become more intrusive and opportunistic since the mid-20th century—resulting in less cooperative intergovernmental relations—he argues that collaborative management is much more prevalent than it is depicted in Dr. Conlan's analysis. A bottom-up view suggests that local and regional activity can be both opportunistic and collaborative, and such a perspective must be considered in any discussion of managing federalism.     

The State of American Federalism, 1997 - 1998

Although it was a relatively quiet year for the courts and congressionalaction, 1997–1998 saw several developments that may significantlydefine federalism in the coming years. The 1998 federal budgetis projected to show a surplus, ending decades of deficit financinginWashington, D.C., but also raising questions about the budget'sfiscal impact on federalism and intergovernmental relations.Devolution took a back seat in Washington, D.C., as concernsabout managed care, education, and internet access led to proposalsfor increased federal involvement in state and local affairs.The states continued their implementation of welfare reformand launched other programs in health, environment.