Money and Mandates: The Politics of Intergovernmental Conflict

The federal government's relationship with the states dependsin part on the level of federal aid and the number of federalmandates. Environmental policy, with less federal aid and moremandates, differs from education policy and health policy. Thevolume of intergovernmental litigation is heavier and rhetoricalreferences to intergovernmental partnerships by agency headsare more common in environmental policy. Waivers are more commonin education policy and health policy, but that appears to bea function of congressional policies largely barring environmentalpolicy waivers. Federal judges are more supportive of the federalgovernment's position on environmental protection and educationthan its position on health care. Overall, federal funding andmandates appear to have an impact on state governments, federalbureaucrats, and federal judges.     

The National Interest and the Federal Role in Education

The current discussion of national goals for education createsa predicament for the federal government. Political pressureis mounting for an increased federal role in education, butits ability to play this role is limited both by its own budgetand policy constraints and by the increase in education policyinitiatives of state and local government over the past tenyears. This predicament is not amenable to solution by resortto traditional doctrinal or functional views of federalism.It requires the formulation of a new federal strategy. Amongthe initiatives the federal government might take are raisingpublic discourse about educational performance, sponsoring collaborativeefforts to reduce the incoherence of current educational reformsat the high school level, and increased use of federal categoricalprograms as development projects for new approaches to teachingand learning. These initiatives have the advantage of beingconsistent with current federal budget and policy constraints,drawing upon traditional federal functions, and complementingstate and local reform efforts.     

Federal Dynamics of Changing Governance Arrangements in Education: A Comparative Perspective on Australia,Canada and Germany

Abstract

Education policy is a highly interesting field from the point of view of governance, given the substantial changes that have been made throughout the world to the governance of such policy over the last 30 years or so. Western governments in particular have made significant changes in the governance arrangements of their education policy in order to achieve two fundamental goals: increased efficiency and greater accountability. In this process, the role of governments has changed but not diminished. This paper explores such developments by comparing the trajectories of governance reforms in three federal countries (Australia, Canada and Germany). What emerges is that the role of governments is key to all governance mixes modelled by the reform processes in the three analysed countries, and that there is greater “national” coordination than before, but also significant differences in the strategies adopted and in the content of reform, due to the differing nature of such countries’ federal dynamics.     

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.     

The State of American Federalism, 1996-1997

Federalism enjoyed political and popular salience during theperiod 1996–1997 as the so-called "Devolution Revolution"began to be implemented and analyzed in the United States. Whilethere were a few examples of important Revolutionary efforts,the federal government continued to hold much of the power andsignificance it has achieved over the past sixty years. Evenin the area of welfare policy, where in 1996 there were historicreforms enacted to end the federal entitlement, the federalgovernment maintained a significant presence that made the ideaof devolution of welfare policy responsibility some what questionable.Nevertheless, states continued to lead in policy innovationin areas ranging from education to health, and the U.S. SupremeCourt continued to question the limits of federal power. Thepast year illustrated, once again, the complexity of our federalsystem and how difficult it is to reform federalism—particularlywhen it involves a shift in power and creates the perceptionof winners and losers.     

Exploring Aggregate vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States

Trust is a key component of democratic decision‐making and becomes even more salient in highly technical policy areas, where the public relies heavily on experts for decision making and on the information provided by federal agencies. Research to date has not examined whether the members of the public place different levels of trust in the various agencies that operate within the same policy subsystem, especially in a highly technical subsystem such as that of nuclear energy and waste management. This paper explores public trust in multiple agencies operating within the same subsystem, trust in each agency relative to aggregate trust across agencies that operate within the nuclear waste subsystem, and trust in alternative agencies that have been suggested as possible players in the decision‐making process. We find that trust accorded to different federal agencies within the nuclear waste subsystem varies. The variation in trust is systematically associated with multiple factors, including basic trust in government, perceptions about the risks and benefits of nuclear energy/waste management, party identification, and education. These findings have significant implications for research on public trust in specific government agencies, alternative policy entities, and for policy makers who want to design robust and successful policies and programs in highly technical policy domains.     

The Politics of Coercive Federalism in the Bush Era

During the period of the Bush Presidency, the federal governmentproceeded to centralize and nationalize policy in major areasformerly controlled by states and localities. The extensionof federal goals and standards to such areas as education testing,sales tax collection, emergency management, infrastructure,and elections administration were among the areas of significantmandates and preemptions. The continuation of policy centralizationin areas under a conservative and unified political regime showshow strong and deep the roots are for centralizing policy actionsin our intergovernmental system.     

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.     

Not Centralisation but Decentralised Integration through Australia's National Mental Health Policy

This article challenges dominant perceptions of Commonwealth centralisation in Australia's federal system. While recognising the Commonwealth has entered a range of policy fields not anticipated by federal founders, it argues this does not equate to a generalised unidirectional and hierarchical orchestration of state/territory functions. The crucial case of mental health policy is presented as an alternative scenario in Australia's federal experience. Theoretically key challenges from the multi‐level governance literature are proffered against the centralisation thesis. These include queries about the origins of Commonwealth directives and assumptions of zero‐sum notions of state/territory autonomy. Brief empirical analysis highlights the role of the Commonwealth as a conduit of horizontal and vertical flows of knowledge through the national mental health policy agenda. Given disconnect and diversity between national ambitions and their realisation at state/territory level, it is argued better proceduralisation through bottom‐up peer dialogue and feedback present alternative routes towards decentralised integration.     

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.     

Policy convergence and divergence in Belgium: Education and health care

Due to the far-reaching devolution of policy competences, Belgium allows for a structured comparison of policy convergence or divergence between Flanders and Wallonia. Focusing on the link between the federal state and the development of policy-making in the regions, this article establishes far-reaching policy divergence between the Flemish and French Communities for education policy, and a beginning of divergence in health care. Radical changes in Flemish education policy have redefined the role of the state. In health care, divergence grows in terms of regulating access to the medical professions and defining the output of medical care. The explanation for this policy divergence lies in political factors more than in policy-related features. Political entrepreneurs play a determining role in seizing upon opportunities to trigger and support change.     

Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry

A key theme among seminal contributions to policy studies, including Baumgartner and Jones (1993; 2002) , Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) , and Hall (1989; 1993) , is that "external perturbations" outside of the policy subsystem, characterized by some type of societal upheaval, are critical for explaining the development of profound and durable policy changes which are otherwise prevented by institutional stability. We argue that these assumptions, while useful for assessing many cases of policy change, do not adequately capture historical patterns of forest policy development in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Differences in policy development concerning state and federal regulation of private and public forest lands governing the same problem, region, and population challenge much of the prevailing orthodoxy on policy dynamics. To address this puzzle, we revisit and expand existing taxonomies identifying the levels and processes of change that policies undergo. This exercise reveals the existence of a "thermostatic" institutional setting governing policy development on federal lands that was absent in the institutions governing private lands. This thermostatic institutional arrangement contained durable policy objectives that required policy settings to undergo major change in order to maintain the institution's defining characteristics. Policy scientists need to distinguish such "hard institutions" that necessitate paradigmatic changes in policy settings from those that do not permit them.     

Likely effects of devolution on the redistributive character of policy agendas

This article assesses two competing views of the effects federal devolution may have on the future of health, education and welfare programs in the United States. One school of thought argues that devolution of social policy to the state and local level will have negative consequences for the less affluent. A contrasting view maintains that devolution will spur innovations at the state and local level, which in turn will lead to more effective and efficient social programs. Dileo analyzes presidential and gubernatorial speeches over a period of 5 years to assess the state of U.S. social policy. He concludes that the federal government is generally more supportive of redistributive policies than are the states.     

BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS AND THE DEMISE OF THE COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION

Abstract: In the early 1980s the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission functioned as a relatively independent, self-directed policy arena within the commonwealth bureaucracy. Policy outputs tended to be consistent and coherent over time. During the last three or four years, however, a number of federal departments succeeded in gaining control over aspects of tertiary education policy. This development was due partly to a changed economic environment which encouraged the growth of cross-sectoral programs, and partly to administrative reforms introduced by the Hawke government which fostered increased interdepartmental competition. The outcome was the fragmentation of the tertiary education policy process. The removal of CTEC and the creation of the Department of Employment, Education and Training is an attempt to reimpose a greater degree of coordination and integration upon tertiary education policy procedures.     

Constructions of migrant rights in Canada: is subnational citizenship possible?

Devolutionary trends in immigration and social welfare policy have enabled different levels of government to define membership and confer rights to people residing within the political boundary of a province or municipality in ways that may contradict federal legal status. Drawing upon theories of postnational and deterritorialized citizenship, we examined the legal construction of social rights within federal, provincial, and municipal law in Toronto, Ontario. The study of these different policy arenas focuses on rights related to education, access to safety and police protection, and income assistance. Our analysis suggests that the interplay of intra-governmental laws produces an uneven terrain of social rights for people with precarious status. We argue that while provincial and municipal governments may rhetorically seek to advance the social rights of all people living within their territorial boundaries, program and funding guidelines ensure that national practices of market citizenship and the policing of non-citizen subjects are reproduced at local levels.     

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.     

Territorial Representation and the Opinion–Policy Linkage: Evidence from the European Union

A key feature of federal systems is the representation of subnational units by “territorial representatives” in policymaking at the federal level. How do such arrangements influence the linkage between public opinion and policy outputs? I argue that policymaking under territorial representation should be systematically skewed toward opinion in those states where citizens care about a policy issue and have a uniform view on it. This claim is tested using a novel data set of policy change in the European Union (EU), covering 211 policy issues and 6,506 observations of opinion–policy dyads. Results show that measures weighting opinion across member states by how much national citizens care about an issue are better predictors of policy change than EU‐wide mean opinion. Moreover, congruence between state‐level opinion and EU‐level policy becomes more likely, the more salient and clear‐cut opinion in a member state is. These findings refine our understanding of the opinion–policy linkage under territorial representation.     

The Development of Competitive Industries: The Role of State Government Actors

Despite widespread adoption of Porter's Industrial Cluster Theory as a policy development framework by federal and state governments over the past decade, Australia remains significantly below the OECD average in terms of its industries' economic contributions to real wealth creation ( Brown 2000 ; OECD 1998 ). The major cause cited for this relatively poor performance has been inability of key government officials to implement effective industry policy that simultaneously avoids de facto protectionism and distortion of competition. This article provides an insight into the key policy decisions undertaken by the Tasmanian state government that coincided with development of an internationally successful shipbuilding industry in that state. As such, this article provides a reflection on policy initiatives that may be valuable for government officials elsewhere.     

The effects of state R&D tax credits in stimulating private R&D expenditure: A cross‐state empirical analysis

This is a cross‐state empirical study which examines the effects of state research and development (R&D) tax credits on private R&D expenditure in the states. Other explanatory variables include federal R&D subsidies, public services in higher education and R&D‐targeted programs as well as other control variables. The statistical result shows that the establishment of state R&D credit programs is effective in stimulating more industrial R&D expenditure. In addition, state services in higher education and R&D‐targeted programs also matter in private decision of R&D investment. This policy assessment sends a positive message to state policymakers because it shows the great potential in using R&D policy instruments to promote innovation‐based economic development. © 2005 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management