Environmental Policy, New Federalism and New Privatism: Policy Conflicts in the Coastal Zone

Public policies developed under the New Federalism of the 1970s and the new privatism of the 1980s have produced a variety of policy problems for states. This is particularly true in the area of environmental policy. This paper looks at environmental policymaking in the coastal zone giving particular attention to the conflicts between the desire to protect renewable resources and the need for economic growth in the coastal zone. These conflicts are illustrated by an examination of comprehensive land use planning in Oregon and the federal government's proposal to develop seabed mining on the Gorda Ridge.     

THE HEARTLANDS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE US STATES

Abstract: Over recent years the American states have re-emerged as centres of policy innovation and reasserted themselves within the federal system. In contrast, at least until Bill Clinton's accession to the presidency, the federal government has lost the initiative. Indeed, Clinton's accession from what in the past would have been regarded as an obscure southern governorship symbolises the shift of the states to the centre stage of American politics. This article considers the reasons for this shift, stressing the generational change among the governors, the new economic and social challenges faced by the states and the increasing withdrawal of the federal government from the state sphere. In terms of the prospects for the future of American federalism, federal government is likely to withdraw further under Clinton, reversing the trend of earlier Democratic presidencies. Indeed, thanks to the efforts of governors like Clinton, state governments are now better equipped than ever before to shoulder new responsibilities. Their tax base has widened, though many states have faced difficult budgetary situations in the early 1990s. The organisation and structure of most state governments have been modernised, if slowly given the obstacles inherent in the separation of powers. The new breed of governor has a more managerial approach than earlier generations, and contemporary governors have sought to centralise their power within the executive branch. As state legislatures have also asserted their influence over the executive branch, gubernatorial influence has usually been enhanced at the expense of other power centres within the executive.     

The Effects of Changes in Federal Aid on State and Local Government Spending

This study suggests federal grants-in-aid had an important influenceon state and local government spending during the 1960s andmost of the 1970s. This positive stimulation also seems to havecontinued during 1982–1985, despite the Reagan administration'sefforts to cut the level of federal aid to states and communities.The stimulative effect of federal aid, however, was showingsigns of diminishing after 1977 and was conspicuously absentfor the 1977–1981 and 1985–1988 periods.     

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.     

THE RELATIVE RESPONSIVENESS OF STATE AND FEDERAL AID TO DISTRESSED CITIES

Both the states and the federal government distribute significant aid to cities. Federal agencies generally offer direct assistance to cities, bypassing the states. Many federal programs operate under the assumption that the federal government is more responsive to urban problems than are state governments. This paper demonstrates that this assumption is probably not true. Federal aid administered through the states has benefitted "distressed" cities more than federal assistance which goes directly to urban areas.     

Bitter Harvest: Intergovernmental Dimensions of the Farm Crisis

The recent and deep recession in American agriculture seriouslyaffected state and local government finances and services in1986. Sharp declines in farm land values began to erode thelocal property tax base in many rural communities, while rapidlyrising property tax delinquencies created more immediate cashflow problems. Many farm states experienced serious budgetaryshortfalls as revenue receipts from state income and sales taxesdeclined or failed to grow at expected rates. Both state andlocal fiscal problems were exacerbated by federal aid reductions,regional economic conditions, and rising service demands. Suchproblems made agricultural policy a major issue in the 1986elections and prompted a proliferation of new policy initiatives,especially by state governments. Some of the policy approachesadopted or being considered raise fundamental questions aboutintergovernmental relations and methods of public service provisionin a rapidly changing policy environment.     

Two Cheers for Paperwork: The Value and Burden of Federal Reporting

In principle, reporting by state and local governments to thefederal government is essential to the design and implementationof national policy. In practice, reporting often engenders resentmentof federal intrusion and is often dismissed as a waste of stateand local resources. Is reporting useless? Does it strengthenthe federal government at the expense of state and local governments?We asked federal, state, local, and site officials about thevalue and burden of five specific reporting systems in elementaryand secondary education. Common assumptions about reportingdid not correspond to respondent reactions. Both value and burdencascade through the intergovernmental system, reaching policymakersin all governments. Although critics seldom discriminate betweentypes of reporting, we found that reporting designed to improvecompliance with federal standards evoked different judgmentsof value and burden than reporting designed for assistance.These results suggest some new approaches to federal policygoverning the collection of information and to the design ofindividual reporting systems.     

The Decline of the Legislative Veto: Federal/State Comparisons and Interactions

Legislative veto systems originated in the 1930s. Their numberincreased steadily until the early 1980s and then declined significantly.The decline of the legislative veto is attributable primarilyto decisions by a number of state supreme courts between 1980and 1984, and by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983. Almost allcourt decisions have held the legislative veto to be an unconstitutionalviolation of the separation of powers. In addition, most proposalsto authorize the legislative veto by state constitutional amendmenthave been rejected by voters. There has also been a decreasein legislators' enthusiasm for the legislative veto, even instates where it has not been declared unconstitutional. Legislatorshave found other ways to control administrative agencies. Inexamining the decline of the legislative veto, one finds thatthe federal government exercised little influence over the states,the states exercised still less influence over the federal government,but the states did significantly influence one another.     

From Coercion to Partnership in Federal Partial Preemption: SMCRA, RCRA, and OSH Act

This article examines the experiences of three important partial-preemptionprograms—the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Actof 1977 (SMCRA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970(OSH Act), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976 (RCRA)—over the last two decades to improve our understandingof how federal-state interactions have shaped the regulatorypartnership. The evidence we gather suggests that the controlof regulatory programs has shifted over time back and forthbetween the federal government and the states. In the initialyears of these programs, what the Congress intended to be aregulatory partnership was, in effect, almost total federalpreemption of state authority. Under the Ronald Reagan administration,the opposite occurred; federal regulation in many cases becamede facto state regulation as federal officials essentially abdicatedtheir oversight responsibility. By the end of the 1980s, thefederal government began again to assert greater control overintergovernmental regulatory programs. The regulatory relationshipthat emerged is one in which the federal government and thestates share responsibility and authority for the implementationof these programs.     

Learning from the States? Federalism and National Health Policy

In its 1993 report, the Winter Commission gave direction to the federal government in the area of health policy and Medicaid: lead, follow, or get out of the way. This article examines how the federal government responded to that advice, specifically asking what has happened in the allocation of responsibility in health policies between 1993 and 2006. In short, unlike the suggestion that there be a better‐defined direction in federal–state policy assignments in health, the ensuing years have resulted in more of the same. The authors examine what has happened, particularly focusing on vertical diffusion—where the states have acted first—and on the role of policy learning in federal decision making. They find little recognition of policy learning in recent federal health laws—even in areas in which state experience was extensive. The federal government is leading in some health policies—but it is leading without learning.     

Spillovers of state policy innovations: New York's hazardous waste regulatory initiatives

States are often seen as policy laboratories where innovations are tried that may later be adopted by other states or the federal government. Engendering such experiments may, however, promote spillovers on other states. We analyze several of New York State's policy initiatives from the 1980s that were intended to influence the selection of waste management technologies by hazardous waste generators. Time series analysis of hazardous waste manifest data reveals that constraints on land disposal of certain wastes and a tax on hazardous waste generation and disposal were associated with shifts to lower-risk technologies for waste management. The policies also constrained imports to in-state land disposal facilities and may have led to increased exports for incineration and recycling, thus shifting some of the risks of hazardous waste to other jurisdictions with less stringent regulations or lower taxes on waste generation and management.     

Supervised Devolution: The Case of Child-Support Enforcement

Supervised devolution in the area of child-support enforcementhas produced a tenuous but politically popular sharing of powerbetween the federal government and the states for more thantwo decades. In this paradigm, policy has proceeded simultaneouslyalong two developmental tracks. Along the first track, the federalgovernment has pushed states toward reform by establishing thelegal framework for the program. Along the second track, thefederal government also has granted the states freedom to experimentwith a variety of new policies, including those that targetan extremely important group: low-income fathers. This freedom,however, is not without its limits. The federal government activelysupervises the states' performance through a combination offinancial incentives, penalties, and funding for demonstrationprojects. When the states have innovated in a particularly noteworthydirection, the federal government has followed through withappropriate rewards. When they have faltered, the states havefaced negative repercussions. Future challenges to this delicatebalance of power include processing interstate cases, adaptingto a changing clientele base, and resolving outstanding cost-sharingissues.     

Regional coordination of federal programs: Has the difficult grown impossible?

As the various categorical programs of federal assistance proliferated during the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. government sought to bring about some degree of coordination among the programs in any given region through a network of regional clearinghouses. Operating with inadequate resources, limited authority, and various other difficulties, the clearinghouses nevertheless chalked up some modest accomplishments. In 1982, as a step in the New Federalism concept of the Reagan administration, the clearinghouse system was drastically shrunk back in scope and decentralized in structure. If the concept of regional coordination among federal programs is to survive, it will have to depend on action at the state and local levels; but such action does not seem promising.     

INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMPACTS ON POLICY VARIATIONS WITHIN STATES: EFFECTS OF LOCAL DISCRETION ON GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Variation in state policy outputs is often a function of the level of inter governmental involvement in policy decisions by the federal government. This study examines comparable impacts of intergovernmental involvement by states on variations of welfare policy outputs within the states. The analysis of the effects of state-level involvement on General Assistance payments indicates that state delegation of policy discretion in this program leads to significantly higher levels of variation of policy effects within states.     

Policy diffusion in subnational governments: State–local relationships in the Brazilian education policy

Intergovernmental relations play a key role in policy diffusion among constituent units. Federal governments have adopted different mechanisms to guarantee minimum standards across the countries, but historical trajectories and widely shared policy ideas are also mentioned as relevant in diffusion processes. This paper focuses on the influence of federalism in policy diffusion at the subnational level in Brazil. The 1988 Constitution consolidated decentralization of the Brazilian education policy but required cooperation between states and municipalities. The lack of a national definition resulted in a great variety of cooperative programmes and coordination arrangements, allowing the identification of similarities and differences among their diffusion processes. This article shows that state governments are the main policy-makers regarding cooperation, which highlights that the role of the federal government does not entirely explain these processes. Nevertheless, policy trajectories and the movement of ideas and people municipalities were keys for policy diffusion.     

Disasters,Catastrophes, and Policy Failure in the Homeland Security Era1

The September 11 attacks triggered federal policy changes designed to influence emergency management in the United States, even though these attacks did not suggest a need for a wholesale restructuring of federal policy in emergency management. Instead, for several reasons, federal policy's emphasis on terrorism and emergency management significantly degraded the nation's ability to address natural disasters. The federal government sought to create a top‐down, command and control model of emergency management that never fully accounted for, positively or normatively, the way local emergency management works in practice. The Obama administration will have to address the questions raised by the reorganization of federal emergency management responsibilities. While the context in which these changes have occurred is unique to the U.S. federal system, there are interesting implications for emergency management in nonfederal systems.     

Do intergovernmental grants create ratchets in state and local taxes?

A large literature on the ‘flypaper effect’ examines how federal grants to states at time period t affect state spending (or taxes) at time period t. We explore the fundamentally different question of how federal grants at time period t affect state tax policy in the future. Federal grants often result in states creating new programs and hiring new employees, and when the federal funding is discontinued, these new state programs must either be discontinued or financed through increases in state own source taxes. Government programs tend to be difficult to cut, as goes Milton Friedman’s famous quote about nothing being as permanent as a temporary government program, suggesting that it is likely that temporary federal grants create permanent (future) ratchets in state taxes. Far from being purely an academic question, this argument is why South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford attempted to turn down federal stimulus monies for his state. We examine both the impact of federal grants on future state budgets and how federal and state grants affect future local government budgets. Our findings confirm that grants indeed result in future state and local tax increases of roughly 40 cents for every dollar in grant money received in prior years.     

STATE ENERGY POLICIES: FEDERAL FUNDS FOR PAPER PROGRAMS

Taking their policy cues from the federal government, the states have done little to effectively deal with energy problems. In fact, their programs could be styled "federal funds for paper programs." inasmuch as the state programs have been written to conform to federal language, but not to attack energy problems in a serious fashion. There is great variation among the states in energy program expenditures, but these are not related to economic or political structures. However, the more urbanized, economically growing, and energy "rich" states spend the most on energy problems.     

THE STATES AND DEREGULATION: THE CASE OF SURFACE MINING

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), passed to correct the abuses of surface mining, assigned key implementation roles to the states. While the federal government originally enforced SMCRA, states could operate the program themselves. Once states decided to run their own program the federal government would oversee them to insure they properly enforce the Act. This research examines the enforcement behavior of states in the 1980s. The results indicate that early in the Reagan administration eastern states enforced the SMCRA less stringently than other states. Eastern states increased their level of enforcement later in the 1980s in response to pressures for increased federal oversight from Congress, interest groups and others.