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.     

'To Secure the Blessings of Liberty': Liberty and American Federal Democracy

The founding and subsequent development of the United Stateshave been characterized by a tension between two kinds of liberty,which can be called natural liberty and federal liberty. Naturalliberty refers to the freedom of individuals to do as they pleasewithout being shackled by civil society. Federal liberty refersto the liberty to be a partner in establishing the covenantfounding civil society, and then the liberty to live accordingto the terms of the covenant. Federal liberty has taken twoforms in America: one concerning the relationship between individualsand civil society, and one concerning the relationship betweenthe states and the federal government under the U.S. Constitution.Out of the tension between natural and federal liberty, thereemerged two constitutional traditions: the U.S. constitutionaltradition, which has emphasized individualism and the marketplace,and the state constitutional tradition, which has emphasizedcommunity and commonwealth. Since the end of World War II, however,there has been a shift away from historic syntheses of marketplaceand commonwealth. Increasingly, the states have been deniedtheir constitutional powers to support any particular moralorder other than that of the marketplace, and the federal governmenthas undertaken to establish a new morality of equality for thenation as a whole.     

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.     

Federalism and National Leadership in Nigeria

National leaders in Nigeria, most of whom have come from themilitary, have exhibited various leadership styles. These stylesboth affect and are affected by Nigeria's federal system ofgovernment. Successful leaders appear to exercise a reconciliationstyle coupled with a mobilizational capacity to institute change.Efforts to impose a unitary system on Nigeria have failed, butseveral leaders have strengthened the power of the federal government,in part through the seemingly paradoxical strategy of creatingmore states. The return to civilian government, however, willrequire a new basis of legitimacy for national leadership rootedin constitutionalism and a democratic party system.     

Interstate Relations in Nigeria

Interstate relations in Nigeria have tended to be more competitiveand conflictual than cooperative. There are several reasonsfor this, but the emergence of the federal government as themaster government, which has virtually reduced interstate relationsto how states compete to maximize their shares of the country'sresources, provides the key to any meaningful analysis of theserelations. By focusing on a number of specific issues, thisarticle shows why and how the distortion of the federal frameworkof interstate relations has made center-inspired competition(and cooperation) the prevalent form of relations.     

On the distribution of federal taxes and expenditures,and the new war between the states

As federal government expenditures have grown, there has been an increasing awareness of the distribution of taxes and expenditures across states. States in the Northeast have claimed that sunbelt states have been getting more than their fair share of federal spending, with the sunbelt states denying the charge. A theory of political coalitions is developed to explain why the sunbelt should be unable to receive differentially high expenditures, although the sunbelt may pay less than a proportional amount in taxes because of its relatively low income. An empirical test shows that the data are in agreement with this theory.     

WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Both the federal and state governments have strong constitutional daims and political resources with which to influence the allocation of water resources. Until the 1970s. federal agencies were able to dominate kr setting goals and objectives. However, when the federal government attempted to implement a national water policy in the 1970s, effective opposition was mounted by the states. Both the states and the federal government now exert decisive influence in water policy.     

STATE FINANCE AND TAXING POLICIES

The states have moved through three distinct periods in finance and taxing policies. First, until the 1930s, states dominated over congress in taxing powers. During the Great Depression, many programs were initiated which involved the states in close grant-in-aid arrangements with the federal government. A second period was initiated during the 1960s. when the number of federally-funded grants exploded. States were soon involved in a variety of new responsibilities. This period has now been supplemented by a third, which is characterized by tax reductions and spending limits, often imposed through referenda.     

Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: The Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation

The Bush administration entered office in 2001 pledging to supportactive collaboration with states in environmental protectionand pursued this approach in some early initiatives and appointments.This emphasis was rapidly abandoned, however, in favor of aneffort to recentralize oversight in a manner consistent withhistoric attempts to establish an administrative presidencymodel. In response, states have demonstrated that they are notprepared to take a back seat to the federal government, probingfor areas to pursue innovative opportunities at the same timethat they challenge any instances of federal overreach or disengagementthat they deem problematic. The result has been a steady increasein intergovernmental conflict from the previous decade.     

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.     

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.     

Federalism and regional interest intermediation in Brazilian public policies

Brazil became a highly decentralized country following democratization and the 1988 Constitution. The consequences of decentralization at the federal level are quite clear: the federal government is facing financial constraints and difficulties in building governing coalitions, allowing the Presidents to govern and to implement public policies, especially those concerning fiscal control. At the level of the states, however, the results of decentralization are quite heterogeneous given the country's high degree of regional inequality. The article identifies the cleavages and tensions surrounding federal–state relations, as well as the mutual dependency of the states and the federal government. It argues that the Brazilian experience of political and financial decentralization has contributed to the prospects of democratic consolidation and has forced the federal government to negotiate and compromise with subnational governments the implementation of national policies. On the other hand, the Brazilian experience highlights the constraints of decentralization in countries with deep‐rooted regional disparities. Furthermore, the financial weakness of the federal government which has been brought about by decentralization and by fiscal control brings new tensions to the federal arrangements and to public policies. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THE STATES' ROLE IN HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT*

Under the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal government expanded its involvement in maternal and child health care programs through grants-in-aid to state and local health departments. The Medicaid legislation of 1965 vastly enlarged federal expenditures, and state responsibilities. State performance was frequently criticized, especially in health care cost containment. Recently, the states have initiated several efforts to link cost containment and the quality of health care.     

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 Savings and Loan Debacle and Erosion of the Dual System of Bank Regulation

The crisis in the banking and thrift industries is catalyzinga shift in the traditional system of dual state-federal bankregulation toward the federal government and away from the states.Erosion in this system has been evident for the past decadedue to actions of the Congress, federal regulators, and thejudiciary. The dual system has two sets of flaws. One is regulatorycompetition that encourages weak monitoring of financial institutionsby states. The other is created by the "moral hazard" of thecurrent system of federal deposit insurance. There are two pathsto reform. One is continued erosion of the power of the states.The alternative is to provide incentives that reinforce thedual system of regulation and deter the sources of "moral hazard."     

From Public Support for the Arts to Cultural Policy

Although public funding for the arts had been an element of budget and appropriations business at both the federal and state levels for over a quarter century, the idea that policy justifies and directs these resource allocations has been slow to emerge. This article provides a historiographical discussion of how the issue was framed and of the resistance to the term “cultural policy” through reference to contextual, political, and epistemic factors. It then uses four presidential reports ranging from 1953 to 1997 to track the evolution of political language concerning the policy definition of the arts and culture, the roles and responsibilities of the federal government regarding these, and the emergence of a range of policy issues beyond public funding.     

Incremental Thinking: "Report of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, (June 1955)"

Editor's Note : The budget reductions pushed through Congress by President Reagan have spurred interest in one of the oldest issues in American politics—the proper relationship among the various levels of government in the United States. One of the most important studies of this issue was issued by the Kestnbaum Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1955. The Commission attempted to devise a set of rules for determining which level of government should be responsible for particular activities. When the Commission issued its report, federal grants accounted for less than five percent of the national budget. During the next 25 years, they escalated to more than 17 percent of total outlays. But as a result of recent budget cuts, they are expected to be only about 13 percent in the mid 1980s. Clearly, states and localities will operate in a different fiscal and programmatic environment in the next decade than they did in the preceding two. This excerpt from the report of the Commission continues to be a relevant, though not universally accepted, statement of the principles that should govern intergovernmental finances.     

FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE MINING POLICY

The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 not only established national performance standards and permitting procedures for the coal industry, but also provided for stateprimacy. The principle of state primary is both simple and intuitively appealing: Because states do not have adequate resources to develop effective regulatory programs, the federal government would set up comprehensive procedures and criteria to guide the states in preparing their own plans. The obvious advantage of state primacy is that i t provides for flexibility in implementation.
Ultimately, state primacy is an experiment in cooperative federalism, a sharing of authority and responsibility between the states and the federal government to insure both the general welfare and sensitivity to local conditions. The history of surface mining regulation is instructive because i t points out the pitfalls and promise of cooperative federalism as well as the critical role of the courts in making state primacy work.     

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.