Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers

This paper offers practical insights for public managers as they work within interorganizational networks. It is based on the author's empirical study of 14 networks involving federal, state, and local government managers working with nongovernmental organizations. The findings suggest that networks are hardly crowding out the role of public agencies; though they are limited in their decision scope, they can add collaborative public value when approaching nettlesome policy and program problems.     

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.     

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.     

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL POLICY

This article is an examination of failures in implementing intergovernmental programs. The programs were failures in the sense that actions to implement programs were delayed far beyond the expected dates of completion. Two such failures in cities implementing two different programs (wastewater management and Section 8 housing programs) are contrasted with one instance of success (in Section 8 housing). If a Sharkansky's discussion of political and policy routines is found to be a useful explanation of the different results. When local government routines must be broken to comply with the goals and objectives of federal programs, local actors will do all they can to resist the federal program. This finding demonstrates the importance of varying local political environments in explaining varying patterns of implementation of federal programs.     

Public Opinion and Federalism, 1986

At a time when Americans are assessing their Constitution, thequestion of how the public views the federal system is important.This article examines questions relating to federalism and intergovernmentalrelations from public opinion polls in an effort to understandpublic attitudes. Different polling organizations asked differentquestions at different times, producing conflicting and oftenincomplete data. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that Americansrecognize the intergovernmental nature of their system and believethat all their governments should share in the provision andfinancing of public programs and policies. Moreover, they wereselective in their choice of which government should bear theprincipal responsibility for certain functions. Although theywanted a more vigorous federal government and believed thatit gave them more for the dollar, Americans expressed strongsupport for the states. Their attitudes evidence support forthe federal arrangement, a preference for shared authority,and a climate conducive to cooperation.     

CANADA'S INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS SPECIALISTS*

Abstract: Over the last decade the federal government and each of the ten provincial governments in Canada have put in place in their administrations significant numbers of intergovernmental relations specialists. These specialists are public servants up to departmental head level who work solely on intergovernmental business. They are located in separate departments or as separate units within central agencies, and are responsible for the coordination of relations with other governments and of intergovernmental activities within their own government. Coming at a time of increasing intergovernmental tension within the Canadian federation, these specialists have been subject to a great deal of criticism. The critics have charged that the specialists have exacerbated and even produced intergovernmental conflict. Lately, some scholars have come to their defence, emphasizing the positive functions that the specialists perform, and arguing that their influence has, in any case, been exaggerated. Australia has its own relatively small number of intergovernmental relations specialists at both the federal and state levels. And it is possible that in the future additional positions will be created. The variety of the Canadian experience means that there are a number of models from which each Australian government, of whatever size, can learn.     

The Medicaid Mandates of the 1980s: An Intergovernmental Perspective

Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, has undergone significant changes in the last fifteen years. Many of those changes relate to the intergovernmental nature of the program. Medicaid is jointly operated, with the federal and state governments sharing program costs. Despite a set of program guidelines dictated by the federal government, states have traditionally had substantial latitude in Medicaid decisions. However, a series of developments in the 1980s led to increasing constraints on state Medicaid discretion, including federal mandates to expand Medicaid coverage. This article examines the inception and effectiveness of the Medicaid mandates from the perspective of interstate equity of health care services for poor families.     

Federal Intervention in the Municipal Bond Market: The Effectiveness of the Build America Bond Program and Its Implications on Federal and Subnational Budgeting

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) included several new federal programs intended ostensibly to “unfreeze” the credit markets as a result of the global financial crisis. One such program, the Build America Bond (BAB) program, aimed to lower the borrowing costs for state and local governments by increasing their access to capital and providing a more generous federal subsidy than the traditional indirect tax exemption subsidy. BABs are taxable bonds sold by subnational governments, which carry a 35 percent direct federal payment subsidy to the borrower. In creating this program, the federal government hoped that the large direct federal subsidy along with greater potential investor interest in taxable securities would result in lower borrowing costs for state and local governments vis‐à‐vis traditional tax‐exempt bonds. This research study examines the relative effectiveness of the BAB program and details the various quantitative and qualitative implications on federal and subnational budgeting by moving from an indirect to a direct federal subsidy approach in facilitating state and local government capital raising.     

Effects of Federal Tax Reform on Local Finances

The federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 promised to be fair, simple,and revenue neutral to the federal treasury. Tax reform, however,was not revenue neutral with respect to all state and localtreasuries. Indeed, tax reform entailed a restructuring of thebalance of power in federal-state-local relations. In particular,new restrictions on the tax-exempt bond authority of state andlocal governments are requiring significant shifts in traditionallocal debt policy. Furthermore, the Supreme Courts recent decision,South Carolina v. Baker, raises additional concerns about thestatus of state and local tax-exempt bond issues. The natureof future relations between the federal government and localgovernments is likely to be molded more by the federal tax codeand by erosion in state authority over fiscal matters than byfederal grant-in-aid programs of the kind that have characterizedthe past quarter century of intergovernmental relations.     

Intergovernmental Structure and Fiscal Management Strategies: A Crossnational Analysis

Does intergovernmental structure have a systematic effect on the impacts of local governments' fiscal policy responses? Using empirical data from more than 800 local governments in five countries, the article concludes that intergovernmental structure is associated with the impact attributed to various fiscal management strategies. Such strategies have generally had greater impact in local governments in federal systems than those in unitary state systems. There are similarities between federal and unitary local governments regarding the fiscal management strategies that have least impact, and both types stress the importance of productivity gains via technology. But the differences in relative importance and level of impact are more striking than the similarities. In particular, fiscal management strategies involving the relations of the local government with other governments, such as obtaining intergovernmental revenue and shifting service provision to other governments, have greater impact in significantly more federal systems than in unitary state systems. These federal local governments also experience greater impacts from increasing user charges and raising local taxes. In contrast, local governments in unitary state systems place greater reliance on the more politically expeditious strategy of across–the–board expenditure reductions and on reductions of capital spending. These findings suggest that local governments in more decentralized systems have greater flexibility to manipulate relations with other governments in order to enhance their own fiscal situation. The data also suggest that the government's level of fiscal stress is not systematically associated with the level of impact from most fiscal management strategies, especially in the unitary state systems.     

Uneven local implementation of federal policy after disaster: Policy conflict and goal ambiguity

As climate change continues to increase both the frequency and intensity of environmental hazards and disasters, the need for a cohesive national mitigation policy grows. As the environmental federalism scholarship indicates, the inherent tension in federal, state, and local policy implementation highlights that despite a national need, environmental quality is a local public good. To complicate matters, there is disagreement about the optimal level of decision-making regarding the adoption and implementation of environmental policy. This study addresses this gap by considering the role of policy ambiguity and conflict in policy implementation. The analysis relies on primary qualitative data collected from open-ended interviews with 22 local government officials in 12 municipalities following Hurricane Harvey. Through the lens of policy ambiguity and conflict, we find confirmatory support for the idea that policies with less ambiguous goals are more likely to be implemented. Furthermore, we find that policy conflict arises when local governments perceive there is little for the community to gain by implementing the federal program. Thus, the level of protection afforded to citizens varies greatly between communities and is influenced heavily by politics. This research supports the Ambiguity-Conflict Model of policy implementation, an oft-cited but rarely tested theoretical framework for assessing the intergovernmental politics of policy implementation. It also demonstrates the barriers to local implementation of federal environmental policy in a nested system of government.     

City Managers View Intergovernmental Relations

This report presents the findings of a national survey of citymanagers concerning intergovernmental relations. Key aspectsof intergovernmental relations covered in the survey are theadministration of the grant system, effects of federal grantson local government decisionmaking, types of federal aid, imagesof federal administrators, intergovernmental service agreements,comparison of state and federal government, and city managerinvolvement in intergovernmental relations.     

ASSESSING INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

One of the primary incentives to state governments to participate in the national coastal zone management program is the legal requirement that federal resources use activities as well as federal projects and federally permitted activities that affect state ocean and coastal areas must be consistent with federally-approved state coastal programs. The "consistency provisions" are among the most innovative attempts to insure intergovernmental coordination in resource management. In assessing the implementation of the consistency provisions, we find that this legal requirement has led to the development of a variety of formal and informal collaborative mechanisms for intergovernmental coordination in ocean and coastal management. While these mechanisms have led to the resolution of the vast majority of federal-state conflicts in coastal areas some important federal-state conflicts have not been resolved. This has more to do with the character of these particular conflicts than the general effectiveness of the mechanisms for collaboration that have been established.     

Institutionalized Evaluation and Intergovernmental Relations: The Case of Coastal Zone Management

The enactment of national environmental management programswas prompted, in large part, by the perceived failure of stateand local government officials to deal adequately with pollutioncontrol and resource management problems. Paradoxically, theimplementation of several important environmental managementprograms relies heavily on these same state and local officials.Congress has sought to resolve this paradox by requiring federalevaluation of state and local environmental planning and managementactivities. Many of these evaluations are little more than routinefiscal audits. However one agency, the Office of Coastal ZoneManagement, has sought to develop a systematic evaluation processfocusing on all aspects of state coastal zone programs. Theseevaluative efforts have led to intergovernmental tensions, mostnotably with regard to the purposes and methods of evaluation,the appropriate roles of federal and state officials, and theresources available for evaluation. In spite of these tensions,there is broad agreement about the value of the evaluation processand its potential applicability in other contexts.     

Differences Between State and Federal Public Forest Management: The Importance of Rules

In United States federalism, public policy responsibilitiesbelong to multiple jurisdictions. This article compares statewith federal public forest management. Data come from four cases,each comprising two forests sharing similar physical characteristicsbut under the authority of different governments. Systematiccomparisons suggest that officials in the national forest agencyface greater statutory, regulatory, and planning constraintsthan do state agency officials. These constraints require morepublic input and higher levels of environmental protection.Outcomes reflect these differences: federal officials provideless limber, at lower net profit, than do state officials, andthey transfer less revenue to local governments. Concurrently,federal officials make greater environmental protection efforts.     

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.     

Incentivizing self‐regulation: Federal vs. state‐level voluntary programs in US climate change policies

How does program sponsorship influence the design of voluntary programs? Why and how do voluntary programs on climate change sponsored by the state and federal governments in the United States vary in their institutional design? Scholars emphasize the signaling role of voluntary programs to outside stakeholders, and the excludable benefits that induce firms to take on non‐trivial costs of joining voluntary programs. Scholars have noted several types of benefits, particularly reputational benefits programs provide, but have not systematically studied why different programs emphasize different types of benefits. We suggest that excludable benefits are likely to take different forms depending on the institutional context in which program sponsors function. We hypothesize that federal programs are likely to emphasize less tangible reputational benefits while state programs are likely to emphasize more tangible benefits, such as access to technical knowledge and capital. Statistical analyses show the odds of a voluntary program emphasizing tangible benefits increases by several folds when the program is sponsored by the state as opposed to federal government.     

Green Clubs and Voluntary Governance: ISO 14001 and Firms' Regulatory Compliance

Voluntary programs have become widespread tools for governments and nongovernmental actors looking to improve industry's environmental and regulatory performance. Voluntary programs can be conceptualized as club goods that provide nonrival but potentially excludable benefits to members. For firms, the value of joining a green club over taking the same actions unilaterally is to appropriate the club's positive brand reputation. Our analysis of about 3,700 U.S. facilities indicates that joining ISO 14001, an important nongovernmental voluntary program, improves facilities' compliance with government regulations. We conjecture that ISO 14001 is effective because its broad positive standing with external audiences provides a reputational benefit that helps induce facilities to take costly progressive environmental action they would not take unilaterally .     

Public Opinion on Federalism in the United States and Canada in 2002: The Aftermath of Terrorism

This research reports on a public-opinion survey on intergovernmentaland border issues in Canada and the United States conductedin mid-April 2002. In the United States, there was an upsurgein public support for the federal government in 2002 over 2001,and a slight decline in public evaluations of state and localgovernments. Increased support for the federal government wasespecially notable among whites, Republicans, and respondentswith post-undergraduate education-groups that previously registeredlow support for the federal government. Canadians reported lesssatisfaction with all governments in their federal system, lowersupport for their federal government, and much more regionaland partisan division over intergovernmental issues. On internationalborder issues, Americans and Canadians generally agreed thata common border-security policy would be a good idea, thoughCanadians were slightly more likely than Americans to preferease of cross-border trade over improved border security.     

Mandates and Management Challenges in the Trenches: An Intergovernmental Perspective on Homeland Security

Scholars and practitioners agree that homeland security policy implementation is contingent on a strong system of intergovernmental relations. The responsibilities associated with the homeland security mission, often mandated, cut across federal, state, and local boundaries. Local-level stakeholders are especially important players in the implementation process. This article presents a local perspective on the way intergovernmental relations have changed—and the reasons for those changes—since 9/11. Results of a survey of county and city officials in Florida provide evidence that intergovernmental cooperation has improved as a result of federal and state mandates. These results are refined by an analysis of the effects of specific local characteristics and the quality and quantity of vertical and horizontal networks on intergovernmental cooperation and local preparedness. Homeland security appears to be a policy area in which mandated cooperation and coordination—in a time and place of urgency—have actually strengthened the intergovernmental system.