Reflections on the Spirit and Work of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

What did the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) accomplish before it was disbanded in 1996? Were its accomplishments sufficiently valuable to justify reestablishing the organization? This article reviews the commission’s origins, history, and accomplishments, and addresses future intergovernmental needs. The ACIR’s accomplishments were substantial, but are largely unavailable today. Lessons learned from the ACIR suggest the need to (1) recreate a network of intergovernmental advocates within the legislative and executive branches of the federal government; (2) restart the information flows and high‐level federal, state, and local policy dialogues that withered after the ACIR’s demise; (3) strengthen boundary‐crossing institutions capable of addressing metropolitan and multistate problems; and (4) develop new opportunities to achieve public policy outcomes that can be attained only by the cumulative efforts of federal, state, and local governments working together—often with private parties as well.     

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1996: The End of an Era

On 30 September 1996 the U.S. Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations (ACIR) closed its doors, ending thirty-seven yearsof advocacy for federalism and intergovernmental relations.A majority of members in the Congress felt that A CIR had becomeirrelevant to the issues facing them and agreed that littlewould be lost by terminating the commission. The Clinton administration,although supportive until near the end, withdrew its'supportout of displeasure with the commission's handling of the unfundedfederal mandates issue. The national associations representingstate and local governments were ambivalent. ACIR was no longerlooked to for solutions to the nation's intergovernmental relationsproblems. With the exit of ACIR, the federal government's lastresource for addressing broad intergovernmental issues—beyondthe confines of individual programs—is gone.     

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: Unique Artifact of a Bygone Era

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) befitted an era marked by low party polarization, bipartisanship, and cooperative federalism. Although the ACIR’s work was valuable, the growth of federal power, rise of party polarization, and the decline of bipartisanship, along with many other political, governmental, and social changes during its 37‐year life (1959–96), marginalized the ACIR to the point of political vulnerability. These historic changes make it unlikely that the ACIR will be resurrected in a comparable or partial form.     

An ACIR Perspective on Intergovernmental Institutional Development

This article traces the creation and demise of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) and assesses the prospects for restoring an ACIR‐like capability to the federal system. Recent initiatives by the National Academy of Public Administration, the Big 7 state and local government official associations, and Congress are summarized, and the facilitating and inhibiting factors associated with intergovernmental institutional development are examined. At least three ingredients in the formula that gave birth to the ACIR in 1959 will need to be present more than 50 years later: (1) support from congressional champions, the president, and public interest groups; (2) visibility and urgency of intergovernmental fiscal and management issues and the need for a permanent intergovernmental presence to address them; and (3) “homework and spadework” to enlist potential conservative and liberal interest group and think tank backers.     

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.     

Beyond the Blame Game: Political Strategies for State Funding Reform

There is growing concern that intergovernmental financial relations in the Australian federation are becoming increasingly acrimonious and dysfunctional. This paper argues that it is necessary to analyse State funding as a whole, including the critical relationship between State‐level taxation and its reform and the broader Commonwealth Grants Commission regime, if we are to establish a system of State funding which is financially sustainable, promotes economic efficiency and is broadly congruent with established norms of Australian federalism. Above all, based on international experience, we argue Commonwealth leadership is required to achieve this goal. We conclude with a case study concerning resource taxation which demonstrates how the Commonwealth could provide leadership using a ‘bundled’ approach to policy reform. It is argued that such an approach has the potential to alleviate wider intergovernmental conflicts which currently afflict Australian federalism.     

ISTEA and the Role of MPOs in the New Transportation Environment: A Midterm Assessment

This article undertakes a modest midterm assessment of MetropolitanPlanning Organizations (MPOs) under the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The focus is on the role ofthe MPO, emphasizing its intergovernmental context. Two major sources of primary data are used: (])a national surveyof MPOs, completed in March 1994, and (2) an ACIR study of eighteenMPOs in twelve U.S. regions. The article addresses decentralization of transportation policyto regional MPOs, local policymaking and decision authority,intergovernmental issues under ISTEA, and what lies ahead forMPOs. The article concludes that ISTEA has brought a great dealof change to MPOs. The data suggest that ISTEA is having somesuccess: decentralization is taking place; more stakeholdersare getting involved; public involvement programs are becomingmore common; and greater attention is being given to air quality,intermodal issues, long-range planning, and intergovernmentalcoordination. However, most MPOs are encountering difficulties in implementingISTEA. They do not know how to do many of the new tasks assignedto them, and the intergovernmental links that ISTEA dependson are not yet forged solidly.     

Administration and Governance in a Compound Republic: Martha Derthick’s Contributions to the Study of American Federalism

Martha Derthick is among the most influential scholars of American federalism, administrative behavior, and domestic policy making. Her work over a half century has pioneered the study of policy implementation, administrative and political relationships in federal grant programs, intergovernmental policy making, as well as the evolution of the federal system. This essay reviews her major intellectual contributions to the fields of federalism, public administration, and intergovernmental relations.     

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.     

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.     

The Current Status and Roles of State Advisory Commissions on Intergovernmental Relations in the U.S. Federal System

During the 1970s and 1980s, a number of states created entities commonly called advisory commissions on intergovernmental relations (ACIRs). Although as many as half the states at one time or another supported an ACIR, only about 10 do so today. Relying on face‐to‐face and telephone interviews, e‐mail correspondence, website analysis, and mailed surveys of directors and other staff members of active and terminated ACIRs, this study reports on the organization and structure, staffing and finances, and activities and performance characteristics of the state ACIRs still viable today. The study attempts to identify factors that seem most related to successful performance of these agencies, as well as to the termination of the agencies. In conclusion, it speculates on the continued role of state ACIRs.     

Federalism in Nigeria's New Democratic Polity

In the aftermath of military rule, Nigeria's new civilian, democraticfederal system is highly centralized while also being fragmentedsubnationally. There is much pressure to reconstitute the federalsystem, devolve powers, provide for a more equitable distributionof natural-resource revenues and other revenues, and use statesto advance ethno-religious identities. Although federalism islikely to survive in Nigeria, political leaders need to developa culture of intergovernmental consultation and cooperationin order to solve the federation's problems more peacefullyand expeditiously.     

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.     

Australian Federalism: A Prospective Assessment

On 1 January 2001, Australia celebrated the centenary of itsfederal Constitution. Throughout its history, the Australianfederal system has proved both resilient and flexible, servingthe Commonwealth through the trials of depression, total war,imperial decline, and economic reconstruction. The constitutionalsystem has been developed through interpretation by the HighCourt and popular input via referendums, as well as by the ongoingprocess of intergovernmental relations. There has been an overallexpansion of Commonwealth powers with the politics of nation-building,but the states remain significantly powerful although financiallydependent on the Commonwealth. Given the institutional and popularsuccess of Australian federalism, the challenges facing theCommonwealth in the new century are not expected to be domesticor constitutional, but strategic and economic: principally,how a smallish middle power should meet the difficulties ofglobalization and security from a position of relative isolationadjacent to Asia in the southern Pacific.     

How federalism influences welfare spending: Belgium federalism reform through the perspective of the synthetic control method

The question of whether and how federalism influences a country's welfare state has been a longstanding concern of political scientists. However, no agreement exists on exactly how, and under what conditions, federal structures impact the welfare state. This article examines this controversy. It concludes theoretically that the specific constellation of federal structures and distribution of powers need to be considered when theorising the effects of federalism on the welfare state. Using the case of Belgium and applying the synthetic control method, it is shown in the article that without the federalism reform of 1993, the country would have had further decreases in social spending rather than a consolidation of this spending in the years after 1993. In the case of Belgium, the combination of increased subnational spending autonomy in a still national financing system provided ideal conditions for a positive federalism effect on social spending to occur.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.