American Federalism and Intergovernmental Innovation in State-Tribal Relations

Relations between American Indian tribes and state governmentsare poorly understood; they have been inaccurately portrayedas exclusively or increasingly conflictual. This study balancessuch perceptions and identifies constructive patterns of state-tribalrelations that developed between 1970 and 2003. President RichardM. Nixon's 1970 policy of Indian self-determination affirmedIndian tribes' survival; yet it failed, in the context of tribes'extraconstitutional status, to clarify their relationship tostate governments. Since then, entrepreneurial tribal leadershave asserted sovereign governmental status while advocatingpractical and substantive cooperation with state governmentsin place of adversarial and legalistic relations. The partialsuccess of these efforts has produced new intergovernmentalmechanisms and the development of state-tribal relations asan ongoing and increasingly normalized category of intergovernmentalrelations, even amidst conflict over tribal gaming and a shiftingpolitical and legal environment.     

Competing Approaches to the Study of American Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations

The development of theory in the study of American federalismand intergovernmental relations has long been marked by divergentapproaches. This article reviews the literature produced byfive "schools" within the field: (1) dual federalism, (2) cooperativefederalism, (3) pragmatic federalism, (4) noncentralized federalism,and (5) nation-centered federalism. As different as these approachesare, scholarly work in this field has made only sparing useof two other potentially useful approaches: distributive justiceand public choice theory. This article suggests how these alternateapproaches might contribute to reinvigorating a field that appearsto be otherwise at an intellectual impasse.     

The State of American Federalism, 2005: Federalism Resurfaces in the Political Debate

After several years during which federalism was rarely a prominentor explicit issue in political debates, it was in several waysthrust into the public consciousness in 2005. It was not thatthe president or Congress ceased sacrificing state and localinterests to substantive policy goals, as shown by the costlyREAL ID Act, stringent new federal requirements in the TemporaryAid to Needy Families reauthorization, and congressional interventionin the Terri Schiavo case. However, Hurricane Katrina, and particularlythe delayed and ineffective intergovernmental response, generatedsubstantial debate about the appropriate federal role in disasterrelief. In addition, state and local governmental oppositionto the No Child Left Behind Act intensified and generated significantattention during the year, particularly as a result of a Utahstatute asserting the precedence of state over federal law anda Connecticut lawsuit against the act. Meanwhile, state governmentscontinued to address a number of policy problems that federalofficials were unable or unwilling to confront, especially regardingenvironmental, health-care, and labor issues. Finally, althoughthe Supreme Court in 2005 continued its recent (2003–2004)trend of pulling back somewhat from its late-1990s Congress-curbingdecisions, federalism issues figured quite prominently in thesenate confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Robertsand Justice Samuel Alito.     

Managing Federalism Through Metropolitan Human Services Intergovernmental Bodies

This article examines the emerging role of metropolitan intergovernmentalhuman services bodies (IGBs). As a result of changes in federalismduring the past few decades, a growing number of metropolitanareas have found the need to replace their defunct health andwelfare planning councils with new metropolitan groups involvinglocal governments as well as private sector funders. These humanservices bodies, comprised of top level elected and appointeddecision-makers, conduct interjurisdictional planning and policymakingfocused on social problems and also perform other intergovernmentalroles. In dealing with social problems locally, they accessfederal and state programs, match them with local funds andservices, and thus manage federalism from a community perspective.This article focuses on nine of the twenty-five known IGBs.     

American Federalism as American Exceptionalism

Americans paradoxically claim uniqueness for their politicalsystem, yet promote it as a model for others. This is especiallytrue of federalism, the clearest example of American exceptionalism.At its inception, American federalism was produced in an environmentclosely approximating what scholars have since distilled asoptimal conditions for fostering such a system. In other contexts,federalism has not flourished, because those preconditions areseldom approximated. Remarkably, American federalism has adjustedto meet drastically changed social, geographic, and politicalconditions, and the case for its continued adaptiveness andappropriateness remains strong. Although enclaved state differencesin economics and religion are no longer a reality, these andother differences are widespread especially on a regional basis.Even on a statewide basis, cultural mixes keep the country heterogeneous.The U.S. Constitution has been reinterpreted to permit rathermore nationalized control in accordance with this process ofeliminating differences. Indeed, this is to the point wherefederalism could become legally problematic, explaining theRehnquist court's recent decisions.     

The Evolving Matrix of Environmental Federalism and Intergovernmental Relationships

Using Daniel Elazar's metaphor of federalism as a matrix, asexpanded by Robert Agranoff, this article explores how stateand national political and administrative actors continue toredefine environmental federalism. The willingness of statesto sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over concernsthat the agency is not protecting the environment illustratesthe political and legal spotlight under which the matrix evolves.Outside the public purview, EPA and state environmental programadministrators attempted to shore up programs rocked by reducedbudgets and shifting priorities, while also adjusting to a newsystem of federal-state partnerships, the National EnvironmentalPerformance Partnership System.     

Intergovernmental Relations in Canada: The Emergence of Collaborative Federalism

"Executive federalism" or "federal-provincial diplomacy" haslong been considered the defining characteristic of Canadianfederalism, which combines federalism and Westminster-stylecabinet government. However, these processes have come underincreasing stress in recent years from a number of forces thathave affected the nature and conduct of federalism and intergovernmentalrelations in Canada. Executive federalism has not been displaced,but has been increasingly informed by a set of practices thatwe call "collaborative federalism," characterized more by theprinciple of co-determination of broad national policies ratherthan by the more traditional pattern of federal-leadership.     

Imperfect Federalism: The Intergovernmental Partnership for Homeland Security

The terror attacks of September 11, 2001, posed a set of security challenges for the nation's cities that the increasingly decentralized federal system was poorly prepared to meet. Although it was generally agreed that domestic security required a close intergovernmental partnership, strong national leadership and support were lacking in creating and guiding this partnership. To make matters more difficult, political considerations in Congress generally trumped the assessment of security risks in the distribution of federal fiscal aid. This article explores the strains in the intergovernmental homeland security partnership, their causes, and efforts to adapt and reform. Despite some progress toward a more rational public administration of homeland security, the partnership still reflects the deficiencies of imperfect federalism.     

Public Sector Reform, Intergovernmental Relations and the Future of Australian Federalism

Recent developments in the reform of intergovernmental relations have been influenced by contemporary models of public sector reform. Their systematic application to intergovernmental administration, in particular the manner in which jointly funded and managed programs are organised, may have profound and unanticipated effects on the federal system. When viewed in the context of a recent history of collaborative policymaking between political executives, the possibility that new forms of intergovernmental joint policy-making and program management might become the norm poses serious challenges to federal traditions of dual government. Arm's length and collaborative forms of joint decision making are contrasted as ideal types, and then used to analyse two case studies in collaborative intergovernmental decision-making — National Competition Policy and the National Training Agreement. It is concluded that the system-wide implications are profound if they are part of a broader trend, but caution is expressed about the powers of inertia and resistance in traditional forms of federal politics.     

American Federalism on the Horizon

The American federal system took some unpredictable twists andturns during the twentieth century. As a new century—indeed,a new millennium—begins, which trends are likely to continue,which are likely to dissipate? What issues pose the greatestchallenges for the intergovernmental system? This article plotsseveral possible paths along which the federal system couldtravel over the next decade. The fundamental issue in Americanfederalism is a perennial one: How will the balance of powerbetween the federal government and the states change? Otherkey issues facing American federalism are identified and theirlikely impacts examined. The article concludes with an assessmentthat the next decade in American federalism may be surprisinglyrobust.     

Federalism and Community in the American Context

The rise of modern federalism was shaped significantly by desiresto protect smaller, diverse communities against forces of imperialcentralization. The protection of community liberty was seenas a prerequisite for protecting individual liberty as well.As such, a federal polity was seen to be a limited self-governingcommunity of entrenched self-governing constituent communities.The rise of the idea of national community and the ideologyof the cosmopolitan nationstate, however, eroded the legitimacyand authority of local self-government and, thereby, federalism.Constituent communities also came to be seen as oppressive,especially of individual rights. Yet, desires for local self-governmenthave maintained a strong hold on public opinion, and recentextensions of individual rights, particularly voting rights,coupled with policy weaknesses of the national government andmodernization of state governments appear to be renewing possibilitiesfor revitalizing federalism as a self-governing community ofself-governing communities.     

Democracy by Competition: Referenda and Federalism in Switzerland

Competition is not only a prerequisite for the successful workingof economics but also of political coordination systems. Weargue that popular referenda and federalism are the key factorsin maintaining competition in the political arena. Competitiveeconomic or political markets require free entry and exit andthe absence of regulations that prevent suppliers from beingsuccessful with the best product-be it goods or services inthe form of policies-and prevent citizens from choosing freely.     

Australian Public Policy, Federalism, and Intergovernmental Relations: The Federal Factor

Public policy is the overt activity of governing and what governmentshave as their primary purpose. This is so whether the politicalsystem is unitary or federal. There are many more elements thatcomplicate policymaking in a federal system. In particular,constitutional, financial, and political issues intrude becauseof the necessary interdependence of otherwise independent andautonomous national and subnational components. This articleaddresses this complexity of joint action through use of theideas about federalism, the structure of governing institutions,and the processes of policymaking. The extent to which an outcomedepends on the mixture of independence and interdependence isconceptualized as degrees of the federal factor. Linking thisconcept to particular policy arenas may provide a better understandingof federal systems than explanation from centralization or decentralizationor dependence or independence.     

The Council of Australian Governments and Intergovernmental Relations: A Case of Cooperative Federalism

A series of Special Premiers' Conferences begun in 1990, andthe establishment of the Council of Australian Governments in1992, signaled a phase of "cooperative federalism" in Australia.Joint schemes of policy and legislation and new national intergovernmentalbodies were made by a series of formal agreements. The conditionsand circumstances are appraised in a discussion of the natureof intergovernmental coordination and cooperation, and fromthe critical perspective of a model of competitive federalism.It is concluded that the initiatives, largely, did not representa centralizing process, nor did they override strongly articulatedclaims for diversity. This is made clear following an analysisof the processes occurring in the newly established federalinstitutions and from a series of brief case studies. They expressedthe continuing interdependency and underlying autonomy of stateand Commonwealth governments through schemes that promised tobring agreed, joint benefits through federal solutions.     

American Federalism: From Johnson to Bush

Intergovernmental developments for more than twenty-five yearshave produced a nation-centered federalism—strongly sofrom 1964 to 1978, somewhat less so from 1969–1988, anda little more so during the past two years. The reasons forthis fundamental systemic transformation include: (1) the demiseof the earlier, 150-year old, confederative party system andthe rise of a new political system with weak federative parties,but other more powerful political actors; (2) an operationaland local representational renaissance of the states, but alsoa concomitant decline of state and local political influencein Washington; (3) a steadily centralizing Supreme Court, withonly a few pro-state decisions until 1989; and (4) a rapid risein national preemptions and of a "new social regulation" thatwas aimed at state and local governments as much as at the privatesector, even as the states were used to implement them. Theonly real constraint on national activism since 1982 has beenbudget-driven federalism, not planned reform efforts. The currentsystem then requires political, representational, judicial,and constitutional reforms if the centralizing, cooptive, andpermissive features of contemporary federalism are to be corrected.     

Intergovernmental Relations and the Advocacy Coalition Framework: The Operation of Federalism in Denver Water Politics

The relationship between intergovernmental relations and theformulation and implementation of public policies is not wellunderstood by scholars. Borrowing from the advocacy coalitionframework, this study contends that public policies reflectthe strategic choices of federal, state, and local actors operatingwithin policy subsystems. The success of various governmentalpolicy strategies is dependent on the autonomy of each actorand the level of policy fragmentation within the subsystem.These variables are defined, operationalized, and examined withinthe context of intergovernmental relations in Denver water politics.     

Tocqueville on the Good of American Federalism

If Tocqueville emphasizes, at times, the tendency of Americanfederalism toward consolidation and, at other times, its tendencytoward disintegration, this is not because he is confused butbecause he is keenly aware of the difficulty of combining theadvantages of bigness with those of smallness. Americans havesucceeded in producing such a combination, not through a simpleaggregation of institutional mechanisms but through a synthesisthat reaches to the heart of American civilization–a fusionof dynamism with comfort, of the ideology of popular sovereigntywith the practice of responsible self-government, of calculatedself-interest with spontaneous public virtue, and of enlightenmentwith tradition. Because the Enlightenment, the embodiment ofthis synthesis, provides no ground in its pure form for humandignity, Tocqueville seeks to speak on behalf of those institutionsof federalism that root the idealism of citizens in the realexperience of responsible self-government.     

Conservative Perspectives on American Federalism: Introduction

Conservatives were regularly criticized by liberals and othersfor their approach to federalism throughout the twentieth century.This trend began during the Progressive era, when the justicesof the "Lochner Court" were vilified for using national judicialpower to strike down local regulations. Several decades later,conservative opposition to New Deal programs was seen as insensitiveand elitist. Arguments for constitutional limitations on executivepower in the 1930s were attributed to the greed of businessmenand corporations. During the 1950s and 1960s, the conservativedefense of states' rights was explained by other unpleasantmotivations. Opposition to national civil rights laws was, formany, analogous to fondness for Jim Crow and other forms ofracial subjugation. Since the 1980s, conservative members ofthe Rehnquist Court have been denounced from various quartersfor their federalist perspectives. According to the Court'scritics, specious arguments about state sovereignty have beenused to rescind national rights and benefits.