New Federalism and Environmental Policy

This article examines the degree of correspondence between theconceptual underpinnings of President Reagan's New Federalismand the willingness and capacity of states to assume a largershare of environmental responsibilities. The findings indicatethat many of the states have not replaced federal aid reductionswith own-source revenues. Replacements that did occur were limitedto a single year and primarily in the area of hazardous wastemanagement grants. The implications of these findings are that"decentralization and defunding" of federal programs in theenvironmental area may have had an adverse effect on the states'ability to provide solutions to pressing environmental problemsin the first half of the 1980s.     

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management: Environmental Policy, Federalism, and New York

This article examines state efforts to implement the Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Policy Act of 1960 and its 1985 amendments,and the significance of New York v. United States et al. forlow-level waste (LLW) facility siting. Interstate compactingunder the act has been successful for compact regions encompassingpreviously operating disposal facilities, but elsewhere theprocess is in gridlock. The principal cause of siting failuresis the NIMBY phenomenon, which obstructed new facility identificationand siting. Little reason is found for optimism in surmountingNIMBY opposition. The New York decision, which voided a take-titleprovision from the LLW Policy Act while retaining other statesiting incentives, could negatively affect LLW policy implementationby weakening the critical set of policy hammers. The prognosisis more positive for federalism. Although the Court eschewedan opportunity to revisit Garcia in its narrowly tailored decision,it did revive its role as federal umpire in a case involvingthe constitutional division of authority between the federalgovernment and the states.     

The New Federalism Game: Primacy Implementation of Environmental Policy

Federal environmental laws have substantially preempted statepowers over pollution control. Many of these laws contain aunique implementation scheme called "primacy," which offersa state the opportunity to become the primary enforcement agentfor federal policies. Primacy relieves the federal governmentfrom enforcing laws within state boundaries even while it retainsultimate control over the policies involved and sets minimumstandards. By and large, states have chosen to accept primacy.Characteristics of the units involved in the implementationprocess explain much of this success. Deviations from the expectedpatterns reveal how states can manipulate primacy to their ownadvantage. It is possible, however, that game playing by thestates under primacy could undermine the ultimate goals of nationalenvironmental policies.     

Environmental Federalism at Decade's End: New Approaches and Strategies

This article examines several recent trends in environmentalpolicy that may have important effects over the next decadeon federal-state relations and on the nation's environmentalquality. It focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency'sefforts to "reinvent" environmental regulation and to encouragecommunity-based environmental protection as a more effectiveand acceptable approach to environmental policy. We considerthe extent to which these new directions are likely to improverelations between the federal government and states, localities,and the private sector, and to achieve desired levels of environmentalprotection in the United States. The new approaches are highlypromising; yet they also face significant barriers to implementation.Congressional reform of the key statutes could lend much-neededsupport to such efforts.     

The GATT and Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Potential Conflicts and Policy Reforms

The emergence of a worldwide environmental movement in the early 1960s accompanied an international expansion of economic activity and applied technology. The principal medium through which this expansion progressed was trade. In 1947, following World War II, a series of international agreements were negotiated to regularize international relations in finance, monetary policies, and trade. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated without anticipation of an international environmental movement and new policies at the national level that did not reflect, and might be inconsistent with, economic values. Conflict between policies for freedom of trade and environmental protection did not immediately emerge. With the adoption of numerous environmental protection measures in the United States and many other countries after 1969, the incompatibility of some trade and environmental policies became political issues. Trade policies are not confined to economic changes. Policy issues developing around the agreement and environmental protection are complex, and frequently involve technological issues, as in the Mexican tuna controversy discussed in this paper.     

Environmental Protection and the New Federalism: A Longitudinal Analysis of State Perceptions

Surveys of the directors of state air and water quality programsin 1979, 1985, and 1990 are used to assess the directors' (and,indirectly, the states') reactions to the New Federalism ofthe 1980s and related federal efforts to increase the role ofthe states in environmental decisionmaking. Despite frequentclaims that the New Federalism led to significant improvementsin state-federal relations in the environmental arena, the surveydata suggest that these relations have changed little since1979.     

Federalism and Workforce Policy Reform

Workforce development policy encompasses a broad array of federaland state programs designed to foster improved workforce utilization,maintenance, and development. Federalism in U. S. workforcepolicy is examined in terms of the Workforce Investment Actand the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act,laws enacted in 1998 authorizing two of the more important componentsof national workforce policy: job training and work-relatededucation. Coercive federalism in workforce policy began inthe late 1970s and is expected to persist into the future, evenas states serve as "laboratories of democracy." Whether enhanceddiscretion for workforce policy is forthcoming from Washington,states and localities will continue to demonstrate new, andpossibly better, ways of delivering workforce services. Workforcepolicies and programs will also feature an even more prominentrole for market-oriented service delivery. The comprehensivenessof national workforce policy, including broad concerns overefficiency, has yet to be addressed fully.     

Australian Public Policy, Federalism, and Intergovernmental Relations: The Federal Factor

Public policy is the overt activity of governing and what governmentshave as their primary purpose. This is so whether the politicalsystem is unitary or federal. There are many more elements thatcomplicate policymaking in a federal system. In particular,constitutional, financial, and political issues intrude becauseof the necessary interdependence of otherwise independent andautonomous national and subnational components. This articleaddresses this complexity of joint action through use of theideas about federalism, the structure of governing institutions,and the processes of policymaking. The extent to which an outcomedepends on the mixture of independence and interdependence isconceptualized as degrees of the federal factor. Linking thisconcept to particular policy arenas may provide a better understandingof federal systems than explanation from centralization or decentralizationor dependence or independence.     

TEA-21: Transportation Policy, Pork Barrel Politics, and American Federalism

This article examines ISTEA's impact on intergovernmental relationsin transportation policy over the past six years and providesan overview of the political maneuvering that took place duringits reauthorization. ISTEA had a significant, decentralizingimpact on transportation policy, but its 1997–1998 reauthorizationwas driven by electoral concerns that transcended congressionalviews on American federalism. These electoral concerns helpto explain why ISTEA's reauthorization process took so long,why the decentralization in transportation policy that tookplace in 1991 was not broadened by TEA-21, and why it is unlikelythat transportation policy will ever be fully devolved to thestates and localities.     

Federalism, Political Structure, and Public Policy in the United States and Canada

Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called thinking federal by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.     

Conjoint Federalism and Environmental Regulation in the United States

Many of the environmental laws enacted by Congress employ adistinctive blend of national and state authority. In theseconjoint arrangements, state authority is not totally preempted,but it is subordinated to national authority if states wishto participate in environmental regulation. Under normal circumstances,national and state authority are deployed concurrently in pursuitof environmental policy objectives. Conjoint arrangements aremuch more controlling of state action than the stimulative andfacilitative approach to intergovernmental program implementationcommonly associated with cooperative federalism. Despite nationalprimacy, in the bargaining that marks implementation processes,state officials may enjoy considerable influence. Although administrativelycumbersome and criticized from a variety of perspectives, conjointarrangements are not the major reasons for a slow rate of improvementin environmental quality. When the various options are considered,there are reasons to conclude that conjoint arrangements arethe most realistic means for attacking environmental problems,although questions remain about the appropriate balance of nationaland state authority in them.     

Comparative Climate Change Policy and Federalism: An Overview

This commentary provides an overview of the four papers in this issue of Review of Policy Research on the politics of climate change. The papers all address in one way or another aspects of how federal‐type systems are dealing with the collective action and multilevel governance issues of climate change policy. The comparative study of federal systems provides insight into how domestic authority is so often overlapping and divided when dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Federal arrangements offer a rich array of norms, institutions, and practices for tackling these problems. Federal systems grapple continuously with the kinds of issues that are the most intractable in the climate change case, such as overcoming interregional differences of interests and values. A common federal feature is competition among subnational governments and between them and national or federated governments over climate change policy, which has been especially significant in the United States and in Canada in the relative absence of national action––although soberingly, the whole is as yet nowhere near as great as the sum of the parts. More significant, but rarer is the achievement of tighter coordination in federal systems achieved through intergovernmental co‐decision, as seen in the European Community and Australia. This has been accomplished in large part due to a consensus among all intergovernmental parties on the nature of the problem and congruence with the existing international regime, characteristics missing in the North American context.     

Acid Rain Policymaking and Environmental Federalism: Recent Developments, Future Prospects

Acid rain controls are one of the more salient policy issuesfor contemporary environmental federalism. Agenda prominence,however, does not guarantee agreement on the components of aregulatory program. Depending on how many tons of emissionsreduction one wants, when one wants them, and how one permitsemitters to achieve compliance, a control program's costs canvary by billions of dollars annually. This article providesa summary of significant state and national policy initiativesas well as an examination of the barriers and incentives forsuch action.     

Changing Agendas in Australian Indigenous Policy: Federalism,Competing Principles and Generational Dynamics

This paper identifies two periods of punctuated change in the content and style of Australian Indigenous policy in the last fifty years. It also identifies a third period in which attention to Indigenous policy was heightened through the nationalisation of land issues already well‐established on the agendas of sub‐national jurisdictions. The paper relates all three periods to the changing federal institutions of Australian Indigenous policy, with the Commonwealth slowly exploring its post‐1967 role as a national government in Indigenous affairs. In later sections, the paper identifies some more conceptual bases of changing policy agendas, through ideas of the competing principles of equality, choice and guardianship and the generational moral dynamics of Indigenous affairs.     

New Federalism Modified: Jobs and Highways in New York

The Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 (JTPA) and the SurfaceTransportation Assistance Act of 1983 (STAA) were intended inpart to stimulate the American economy out of recession. Eachlaw embodied a different approach to that goal and, hence, poseddifferent implementation challenges to the states. JTPA wasintended to decentralize decisionmakingand administration tothe states, and to in volve the private sector in state andlocal decisionmaking processes. Moreover,the level of federalaid was reduced below that available under its predecessor,the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). STAA wasintended to inject increased federal funds for rebuilding roadsand highways. Its stipulation that states bring their standardsfor truck dimensions and routes into line with new nationalstandards was a centralizing feature of the legislation. Inexamining responses of the states in 1983 to these laws, particularlyNew York, decentralization appeared to be on track in the earlyimplementation of JTPA. The level of involvement of governorsand, to a lesser extent, legislatures was higher than underCETA. The implementation of STAA revealed both decentralizingand centralizing features at work. Participation of the NewYork legislature in deciding how the increased highway fundswere to be spent was much higher than before STAA, but conflictsbetween the national and state governments over the new nationalstandards were resolved in favor of the national government.     

Work Sharing Policy: Power Sharing and Stalemate in American Federalism

Work sharing benefits are partial unemployment benefits, andfederal policy related to them is in an administrative muddle.A lack of leadership by the federal government has stalled stateimplementation. During economic downturns when political voltageis high, policy makers look to work sharing as one way to managejob loss. Conversely, work sharing is often forgotten duringprosperous times. This article describes how federalism sometimesfacilitates state initiation of work sharing policy and at othertimes impedes it. The authors discuss work sharing through sixpolicy phases during a thirty-year era of devolving federalauthority to states for employment services and job training,and they make observations about the stalemate in federal policy.     

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.