FEDERALISM, POLICY, AND INNOVATION IN CORRECTIONS

State governments have historically dominated corrections policy, with little federal intervention. But over the past two decades, the trend has been toward "nationalizing" corrections policy, with less interstate variation and more federal standards, through the Safe Streets Act and other legislation. As federal funding declines, it may be expected that there will be a hiatus in state corrections reform, though national standards may survive if the federal courts continue to require state correctional systems to comply with federal laws previously implemented.     

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING POLICY AND FEDERALISM

There are widespread misperceptions about the way in which American federalism has worked in the past and is working now. One is the belief that since the 1930s, the federal government has engaged in many new activities. Another misperception is that liberals support centralization and conservatives, decentralization. Actually, most Americans tend to be pragmatic. The vitality of this American pragmatism is seen in state economic development policies. States have provided leadership in initiating new economic development programs in such areas as foreign trade and enterprise zones. Four major patterns in American federalism characterize the emergence and development of most of these programs: responsiveness, elitism, pluralism, and experimentation. Implications for employment and training policy are examined.     

NEW FEDERALISM, OLD REMEDIES, AND CORRECTIONS POLICYMAKING

Corrections litigation is changing, but new case law does not authorize a wholesale cutback of prisoner constitutional rights. Supreme Court cases urge a return to traditional compensatory damages as the remedy for unconstitutional acts and conditions. Monitoring of state correctional performance by federal courts is disfavored. The author believes that basic rights of prisoners will remain protected, but that systematic planning and exemplary programs will erode. Under the money damages model, legal reform should thus urge waiver of the state sovereign immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment.     

THE PUBLIC SERVICES AND CO-OPERATTVE FEDERALISM

A paper of this type clearly calls for some definition of terms. Although "The Public Services" are usually seen to comprise the State Public Services and the Australian Public Service, in reality of course, government institutionalized services to the public go beyond these seven agencies. All the statutory authorities—Commissions, Corporations, Boards and Trusts—are part of public administration; so also are local government bodies. There are in the various public services some agencies which form part of the public service proper (i.e. a Department defined as such under one or other of the Public Service Acts) whereas in others they have the independence of a corporate entity. In South Australia for instance the whole state water supply and sewerage services are provided by one public service department, the Engineering and Water Supply Department. In the other states those services are provided by more than one agency and these range from government departments and local governing bodies to statutory authorities. A similar division of responsibility exists in the road construction area where some states perform their highway undertakings through the agency of a statutory authority, while others prefer the tighter Ministerial control of a government department.     

STUDYING FEDERALISM: PERSPECTIVES AND PROSPECTS

Governing Federations: Constitution, Politics Resources , edited by MICHAEL WOOD, CHRISXIPHER WILLIAMS, CAMPBELL SHARMAN (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger in association with the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration, 1989, 281 pp).
Federalism in Canada t Australia: Historical Perspectives 192088 , edited by BRUCE W. HODGINS, JOHN J. EDDY, SHELAGH D. GRANT, JAMES STRUTHERS (Peterborough: Frost Centre for Canadian Heritage and Development Studies, Trent University, 1989, 511 PP).
Australian Federalism , edited by BRIAN GALLIGAN (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1989, 278 pp).     

FEDERALISM IS ALIVE AND SURPRISINGLY HEALTHY

Reading the comparative analysis of federations as different, constitutionally and culturally, as Canada, the USA, Australia, India and Nigeria, to mention only a few, is to agree with the title of this review. The words are taken from the Introduction to Bakvis and Chandler and this review argues that use of the word "surprisingly" is misplaced. Much of the writing critical of federalism has been labouring under a misunderstanding of its dynamic nature and its underlying strengths.     

THE RISE AND DEMISE OF COERCIVE FEDERALISM*

Abstract: The question of how a fiscal balance might be maintained between the Commonwealth and the States exercised the minds of the framers of the Constitution before 1901 and has been of concern ever since. Centralization of financial power in the Commonwealth has resulted from decisions of the High Court of Australia especially the two Uniform Tax Cases which in 1942 established, and in 1957 reinforced, the Commonwealth's hegemony in the revenue field. This hegemony enabled the Commonwealth to influence, if not dictate, State policy initiatives by the making of conditional grants for a wide range of specific purposes under Section 96 of the Constitution. The practice of making specific purpose grants as an element in what has been called “coercive federalism” was adopted in varying degree by the Commonwealth during the years between 1943 and 1975. The “new federalism” policies of the present government have as their objective the reversal of this practice and in its place the restoration of State automomy in the expenditure of a pre-determined share of income tax revenues. Some of the problems entailed in the withdrawal of specific purpose grants are outlined, and the paper also suggests an institutional mechanism to maintain a proper fiscal balance between Commonwealth and States as part of the “new federalism”.