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.     

Dead or Alive? The Federalism Revolution and Its Meaning for Public Administration

Federalism jurisprudence shapes the powers that public administrators have to achieve policy priorities. Federalism, however, is neither static nor simplistic as a concept, and a proper understanding of the environment in which public administrators work rests on a careful analysis of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The authors review claims that a 2005 decision, Gonzales v. Raich, terminated a federalism revolution that had been ushered in a decade earlier. Does Raich in fact mark the end of the Supreme Court's federalism doctrine? Analysis of this question clarifies whether the past and current Court has articulated any direction touching on administrators' powers at both the national and state levels. The authors argue that before the federalism revolution is declared dead or alive, public administration can better understand the realities of the Supreme Court's doctrinal boundaries by examining a more detailed analysis of jurisprudence for what is says about the foundations of federalism such as the commerce clause, Fourteenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Eleventh Amendment, spending clause, and statutory interpretation issues.     

Changing your political mind: The impact of a metaphor on citizens’ representations and preferences for federalism

Federalism is often presented through metaphors, but little is known about the impact of such metaphors. Two experiments were conducted in Belgium presenting federalism as Tetris – with control and treatment groups – in order to grasp the influence of this metaphor. The first experiment reveals that being exposed to text with the Tetris metaphor influences respondents’ representations of federalism towards a more institutional representation and towards more regional autonomy. The second experiment confirms the importance of the text, and more specifically of the metaphor, if political knowledge is taken into account. Respondents with a lower level of political knowledge are those who are influenced by the metaphor, whereas respondents with a higher level are not. Therefore, framing the future of Belgian federalism using the metaphor of Tetris does matter: it affects both individuals’ representations of the federalization process and, consequently, their preferences vis-à-vis the institutional future of the country.     

Federalism and Decentralization: Ownership Rights and the Superiority of Federalism

The benefits and costs usually ascribed to federalism are benefitsand costs of decentralization; they are, therefore, presentin unitary states that are in fact all decentralized. The benefitsand costs specific to federalism pertain to ownership rightsin constitutional powers. Federalism is superior to confederalismand unitarianism because the ownership rights peculiar to thatsystem of government are such that they ensure the perduranceof competition when one or more competitors are unsuccessful.They do so because under federalism, powers cannot be repossessedunilaterally. Ownership rights have to be enforced; as a consequence,there are also costs that are specific to federalism.     

Water and Federalism in the 1990s

Federalism has always been an issue in water management. Thephasing out of grants for the construction of sewage treatmentplants, the reduction of the federal contribution for constructionof water development projects, the decrease in federal expendituresfor basic water data collection, and the lack of federal fundsfor state dam-safety programs have all had an impact on watermanagement and intergovernmental relations. This article summarizescontemporary issues in intergovernmental relations and waterpolicy. First, the relationship between water, environmentalprotection, and federalism is examined. Then, the shifting financialresponsibility for water pollution control from the federalto state and local governments is reviewed.     

The State of American Federalism, 1994-1995

Federalism, as a concept and as a reality, received assistancefrom a variety of sources during 1994–1995. Opinion pollsrevealed a public strongly supportive of shifts in the balanceof power between federal and state governments. The new Republican-controlledCongress, bent on devolving authority to the states, busieditself with an ambitious legislative agenda. The DemocraticPresident pursued his principles of federalism and intergovernmentalrelations by supporting the unfunded mandates bill and by increasingthe use of the administrative waiver. The U.S. Supreme Courtbolstered federalism with its rulings in cases such as Lopez,a state challenge to the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.The new mood in Washington, D.C. was complemented by state leadersanxious to take on the challenges of a rebalanced federal system     

Federalism in Africa: Origins,Operation and (In)Significance

Abstract

Recent years have seen major advances in the comparative study of federalism and a growing literature on decentralization in Africa, but there has been surprisingly little systematic comparison of African federalism. This article explains several commonalities in the origins and operation of Africa's three main federal states: Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa. Each country used ‘holding-together’ federalism in order to accommodate ethnic pluralism. Each country—especially Ethiopia and South Africa—also experienced several key centripetal forces: dominant governing parties, top-down state administration and high degrees of fiscal centralism. Federalism mattered in offering accommodative decentralization, but in its operation subnational governments have limited autonomy because of these interlocking centralizing features. This African variant of federalism can have certain salutary features, even as it precludes the possibility of many of the theorized advantages of federalism that are predicated on real subnational autonomy.     

The State of U.S. Federalism, 1999-2000

Federalism has rarely been a key national campaign issue, andthe presidential campaign of 2000 was no exception. Althoughthe candidates talked of a key state-local issue—education—itwas in the context of the popular concern over the quality ofschools, rather than federalism issues of governmental responsibilityfor education. However, one aspect of federalism was evidentin the presidential campaign. The first president of the newmillennium may get a chance to name at least one U.S. SupremeCourt justice. Given the slim 5–4 majorities on most federalismcases, the appointment or appointments could be pivotal. Meanwhile,in the Congress and state Capitols, technology and globalizationissues forced a rethinking of traditional intergovernmentalfiscal and regulatory functions.     

Devolution of the Small Cities CDBG Program in Mississippi

In 1982 responsibility for HUD's Small Cities Community DevelopmentBlock Grant program was transferred to state governments aspart of President Reagan's New Federalism initiatives. Devolutionwas designed to (1) implement a new vision of American federalism,(2) shift control over a significant source of financial resourcesfor nonmetropolitan areas, and (3) end the bypassing of stategovernment officials in community development decisionmaking.This article uses the eleven year (1975–1985) historyof Small Cities CDBG awards in Mississippi to assess the consequencesof the program's devolution. Changes in the pattern of stateCDBG awards indicate that the program's devolution produceda policy redirection that channeled CDBG funds to a larger numberof the smallest municipalities and permitted more local discretionin project design. As a result, HUD no longer dictated communitydevelopment policy to small cities. Instead, community developmentpriorities in Mississippi emerged out of an award process thatinvolved interaction among state and local officials.     

Federalism and Consociational Regimes

Federalism and consociationalism are useful means of understandingpolitical systems. Federalism and consociationalism are bothbased on compound majoritarianism rather than simple majoritarianism,and both represent modern attempts to accommodate democraticcomplexity and pluralism, but the two systems are not quitesymmetrical, and territorial organization is not the only characteristicthat differentiates them. Instead, it can be said that federalismrelates to the form of a polity, while consociationalism relatesto the character of a regime. To the extent that federalismmay also function as the character of a regime, then federalismand consociationalism may be more symmetrical. One of the ambiguitiesof federalism is that it is often both form and regime. Consociationalism,however, relates only to regime.     

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT VIEWED FROM SYDNEY

This conference on "Public Administration in Co-operative Federalism", fittingly convened by the Royal Institute of Public Administration, is a most timely one. It is tangible evidence that co-operative federalism is not only possible but, in many areas, positively flourishes, and it provides an opportunity for those of us with state or federal responsibilities in public administration to state our problems fairly and frankly and seek ways of extending co-operation to secure future prosperity for Australia.     

The Meaning of Federalism in The Federalist: A Critical Examiniation of the Diamond Theses

Language poses a serious problem in political discourse whenterms like federalism come to mean anything, everything, andnothing. An issue of some importance is how "confederation"was conceptualized in The Federalist, how that conceptualizationwas subject to critical analysis, especially in Federalist 15and 16, and how the resolution of that critique contributedto the conceptualization of a federal system of governance.This essay was written in response to a re-reading of MartinDiamon's essay on "The Federalist's View of Federalism." Theposition taken is that the theory of constitutional choice usedto articulate the arguments in The Federalist provides the appropriatelogic for construing the meaning of federalism despite the ambiguitiesof language contained in The Federalist.     

Thirty Years of Changing Federal, State, and Local Relationships in Employment and Training Programs

There have been three major training programs in the UnitedStates in the past thirty years: the Manpower Development andTraining Act (MDTA)from 1962 to 1973, the Comprehensive Employmentand Training Act (CETA)from 1973 to 1982, and the Job TrainingPartnership Act (JTPA)from 1982 to the present. MDTA was a categoricalprogram, with service providers funded directly by the federalgovernment. CETA was a hybrid block grant program that gavelocal units of government substantial autonomy in administeringthe basic training component, but CETA also includedcategoricalprogramsfor specific target groups and for public service employment.Over time, CETA was increasingly regulated. JTPA is regulatedmore by the states and the private sector, and in 1992 amendmentstargeted the program more sharply and restricted activitiesthat could be undertaken. Federalism in employment and trainingprograms has followed a course similar to other areas, withcooperative federalism ending in 1978 being replaced by coercivefederalism. In recent years, stales have started a number ofinnovative programs.     

The Immediate Challenge Regarding COAG Reform

Federalism presented an attractive model for young Australia. Preserving the autonomy of colonies through the retention of state governments and the establishment of a bicameral Commonwealth parliament with a 'states' house' helped to counter the suspicion of central government. But as a system of government, federalism requires coordination and cooperation between the layers of government. In the history of Australia's federation there are examples that show times of strong cooperation and coordination between the states and the Commonwealth. However more and more, our federation does not enjoy cooperation or coordination on issues of vital importance to all Australians. I believe it is time to look at the way our system of federalism works. We require a mechanism to facilitate coordination and cooperation between the layers of government.     

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.     

Bremst der Föderalismus den Leviathan? Bundesstaat und Sozialstaat im internationalen Vergleich, 1880–2005

This paper examines the impact of federal state structures on welfare state development in the six classic OECD federations since the 1880s. Starting from the widely acknowledged assumption in comparative public policy research that depicts federalism as an impediment to the expansion of the Leviathan, we demonstrate that federalism has facilitated as well as impeded social policy development. Development is contingent on several time-dependent factors, including the degree of democratization, the type of federalism, the stage of welfare state development and early distribution of social policy responsibility. Federalism also has had an impact on patterns of benefit provision, and we identify a variety of bypass strategies by which the six federations were able to overcome their built-in constitutional rigidities. These institutional changes had a lasting structural impact on the emerging patterns of social security. Overall, federalism has contributed to a status quo bias in social policy, not only because it delayed the early consolidation of national social programs but also, more recently, because it has protected the welfare state against retrenchment.     

What is the Future of the Federation?

Federalism has proved enduring in Australia, despite predictions of its imminent demise. Yet new challenges of internationalism and social movements are cutting across old political boundaries and eroding the sovereign nation state. This article, which draws on ideas developed at length in my recent book A Federal Republic: Australia's Constitutional System of Government (Cambridge University Press, 1995), argues that the characteristics of federalism may prove surprisingly compatible with social and international trends.     

Indian Federalism and Democracy: The Growing Salience of Diversity-claims Over Equality-claims in Comparative and Indian Perspective

This article introduces a conceptual distinction between diversity-claims and equality-claims in order to reflect critically on the relation between federalism and democracy in India, which is not adequately problematized and somewhat neglected. Federalism and democracy suggest two different problematics, but in India democracy has often played second fiddle to the claims of diversity. As a result, India's success as a federation has not been paralleled by its record as a democracy in terms of its equality functions. Since the article engages with the issue of accommodation of diversity in the wake of federation-building, and the relation between federalism and democracy, critical references are made to the relevant theoretical literature in order to point out federalism's new problematic and its pitfalls. With the Indian case as a major illustration, it is shown here that the institutional arrangements and governing practices have overwhelmingly been given priority to meet the claims of diversity to the relative neglect of equality-claims.     

Improving Federalism: Drivers of Change,Repair Options and Reform Scenarios

The Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA) and the Institute of Public Administration Australia (IPAA) hosted a ‘Policy Roundtable on Federalism’ on the 17–18 May 2007 at the University of Canberra. Around 50 attended the roundtable comprising politicians, Commonwealth and state public servants, and academics. The roundtable was provided with a number of background papers including the Hollander‐Patapan article and another produced by staff of the Commonwealth Grants Commission entitled ‘Trends in Commonwealth‐State Financial Relations: a Grants Commission Perspective’. The roundtable focused not only on issues and challenges but, more practically, on options and how to make federalism work better.