Conjoint Federalism and Environmental Regulation in the United States

Many of the environmental laws enacted by Congress employ adistinctive blend of national and state authority. In theseconjoint arrangements, state authority is not totally preempted,but it is subordinated to national authority if states wishto participate in environmental regulation. Under normal circumstances,national and state authority are deployed concurrently in pursuitof environmental policy objectives. Conjoint arrangements aremuch more controlling of state action than the stimulative andfacilitative approach to intergovernmental program implementationcommonly associated with cooperative federalism. Despite nationalprimacy, in the bargaining that marks implementation processes,state officials may enjoy considerable influence. Although administrativelycumbersome and criticized from a variety of perspectives, conjointarrangements are not the major reasons for a slow rate of improvementin environmental quality. When the various options are considered,there are reasons to conclude that conjoint arrangements arethe most realistic means for attacking environmental problems,although questions remain about the appropriate balance of nationaland state authority in them.     

Federalism and Modernization: Canada and the United States

Since World War II, the federal systems in the United Statesand Canada have moved in opposite directions: the U.S. has becomeincreasingly centralized, while the provinces in Canada havegained power at the expense of Ottawa. These divergences canbe explained by such societal factors as economic structures,international commitments, and locations of minority populations;and by institutional factors, such as the number of constituentunits, methods by which provincial authorities are representedin federal legislatures, and especially by the contrast betweenCanada's Westminster-type institutions and the U.S. separationof powers. These differences are illustrated by intergovernmentalfiscal processes, energy policies, and federal-municipal relations.They cannot be accounted for by modernization theories, butrather by economic structures, demographic distributions, andespecially constitutional and institutional arrangements.     

The Rise of Competitive Federalism

This article challenges the prevailing view of increasing political and fiscal centralization in the federal government. Since 1978, the authors argue, the nation has entered a new era of "Competitive Federalism" with federal, state and local governments locked in a competitive struggle for taxpayer resources and support. The new era has emerged largely because of the loss of the tremendous fiscal advantage held by the federal government during its centralization period, 1929 to 1978. Although "deregulated" and free to move into any area of domestic policy, the federal government is constrained by necessary budget pressures and a "reformed" income tax structure. Competitive Federalism has emerged as a new balancing force between Washington, D.C. and the fifty state-local governments and will govern the federal system for the foreseeable future.     

The Institutional Basis of Secessionist Politics: Federalism and Secession in the United States

According to the literature on secession, the most importantdeterminant of secessionist sentiment is a high level of grievanceexperienced by the would-be secessionist group. However, therationale behind using secession (as opposed to another strategy)as a grievance-amelioration strategy remains almost completelyunexplained. This article contends that the institutional settingin which political conflict and grievance are experienced playsa crucial role in whether secession is conceived of as a viableoption. This contention is tested by examining the institutionalenvironment of federalism and the role it played in secessionin the United States in 1860 and 1861. The United States wasuniquely vulnerable to secessionist pressures—as are allfederal states, potentially—because of institutional structuresthat gave constituent states a high level of institutional authorityand capacity; this, in turn, contributed to a discourse of states'rights that included the contested right to secede.     

Constructing Self-Enforcing Federalism in the Early United States and Modern Russia

All federal systems face the two fundamental dilemmas of federalism:too strong a center risks overawing the subnational units; andtoo weak a center risks free-riding that makes the system fallapart. Resolving the two dilemmas is problematic because mitigatingone dilemma exacerbates the other. We develop a model of federalinstitutions that shows the circumstances under which both dilemmascan be solved so that federal institutions are self-enforcing.We apply our approach to modern Russia where we suggest thatwhen the center is too strong, its ability to extract rentsincreases and the benefits for maintaining participation inthe federal bargain disappears. We also suggest strong parallelsbetween Russia and those of the early United States under theArticles of Confederation.     

Does Federalism Weaken Democratic Representation in the United States?

The framers of the U.S. Constitution explicitly designed federalismto enhance representation. Because powers are divided amongmultiple governments, citizens are able to exert pressure onthe elected officials of various governments in an effort toachieve desired outcomes. If one government is not doing whatcitizens prefer, they can seek it from a different government.This assumes that individuals form opinions about the functionsperformed by different governments. Given the complexity offederalism, this may be an unrealistic assumption for many citizens.Original survey data uniquely suited to explore this questionsuggest that citizens do behave in a fashion consistent withthe federalist framework. Moreover, the actual change in theassignment of functional responsibilities across governmentsbehaves as if it responds to public opinion.     

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.     

Federalism, Political Structure, and Public Policy in the United States and Canada

Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called thinking federal by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.     

Mafia-Related Prejudice and the Rise of Italian Americans in the United States

Italian immigrants to the United States and their offspring have long been the target of prejudicial accusations concerning their allegedly prominent role in criminal activities. This article investigates the influence of such an ethnic bias on their political ascent. Although politicians of Italian descent have benefitted from connections to gangsters and racketeers, especially in the Prohibition years, underworld-related charges have for the most part limited their political success because they have undermined voters' trust in candidates of Italian ancestry. The Mafia-connection stereotype gained momentum in the aftermath of the revelations of the Kefauver Committee in the early 1950s. However, it continued to have significant influence on the election campaigns of Italian Americans at least until Geraldine Ferraro's 1992 bid for the US Senate. Despite the progressive assimilation of Italian Americans, the perception of members of this ethnic group as potential criminals has persisted, and still haunts politicians of Italian extraction. Significantly, even Italian-American candidates have recently resorted to the Mafia prejudice to discredit fellow ethnic opponents.     

Anglicizing the United States Constitution: James Bryce's Contribution to Australian Federalism

James Bryce's analysis of American federalism made it possiblefor the Australian founders to reproduce federal institutionson the American model without replicating the republican andempirical ideas that underpinned them in the United States Constitution.Bryce's account in The American Commonwealth (1888) appealedto Australia's founders because it was suited to their needs.Bryce was English, and, like a sensible nineteenth-century Englishman,he argued that U. S. institutions had little to do with intellectualproduct. Instead, they were largely English institutions adaptedto American purposes. Reading Bryce, Australia's founders assumedthat if federal institutions had little to do with abstracttheory, and had simply been adapted to American circumstances,they might also be adapted to Australian circumstances. Thus,Bryce's approach to American federalism allowed Australia'sfounders to substitute their own colonial tradition of parliamentarydemocracy under the Crown for the republican principles of rightsand the separation of powers that underlie the U.S. Constitution.     

Public Opinion on Federalism in Canada, Mexico, and the United States in 2003

This research reports on public opinion surveys on intergovernmentaland federal issues conducted in Canada, Mexico, and the UnitedStates in March and April 2003. In all three countries, respondentsmost often see their federal government as being the least effective,least efficient, and least trustworthy. Respondents from Canadaappear least supportive of their federal government and mostsupportive of their local governments; those from Mexico appearmost supportive of their state governments; respondents fromthe United States appear more "balanced" in their support ofthe various orders of government. Also, far greater regionaldifferences in opinion exist in Canada than in Mexico or theUnited States. Support for more decentralized federalism isfound to be strong in all these federal countries. This researchalso updates long-term trend data for the United States. Comparedwith respondents from previous years, U.S. respondents in 2003showed a measurable uplick in support for the federal government,compared with state and local governments. This support seemsto be a carryover from the terrorist attacks of 11 September2001.     

Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka

A transfer of central governmental authority to regional governmentsis being tried in Sri Lanka in an attempt to resolve ethnicconflict. In November 1987, Sri Lanka established a system ofprovincial councils. This system will allow regional autonomyin the country's nine provinces. It is hoped that this councilsystem will resolve complaints by the nation's largest ethnicminority, the Sri Lanka Tamils. The system falls short of beinga true federal arrangement, however, because it leaves extensivepower in the hands of the president and the national legislature.In addition, the plan is opposed by important groups in thesociety. The more militant Sri Lanka Tamil leaders have opposedthe plan because it transfers too little power to the councils.Also, long-standing fears among the nation's largest ethnicgroup, the Sinhalese, have generated a violent response frommilitant members of this ethnic group. The government and moderateSri Lanka Tamil leaders are now seeking to implement the provincialcouncil system.     

后现代主义身份政治的衰颓与新民粹主义的崛起

20世纪70、80年代,资本主义进入一个相对稳定的发展时期,大规模阶级斗争相对缓和,新自由主义乘势崛起。作为新自由主义主流运动的补充,后现代主义身份政治发展起来。后现代主义身份政治从经济决定论转向文化和意识形态决定论,从大规模集体行动的逻辑转向分散的斗争。美国金融危机以来,大规模社会运动复兴,经济议题回到政治运动的中心,后现代主义身份政治的文化和自我意识革命逐步衰颓,新民粹主义乘势崛起。在聚焦经济议题和强调集体行动方面,新民粹主义和后现代主义身份政治迥然不同,但是从强调族群的文化和身份差异的角度来说,新民粹主义又把后现代主义身份政治发展到了极端。后现代主义身份政治是与金融资本的上升期相适应的,新民粹主义是与金融资本的下降期相适应的,但二者都因不理解金融资本的本性而把民众运动引向了错误的方向。只有社会主义民主运动才能赋予民众运动以正确的方向。     

Federalism and suitable housing for the frail elderly: A comparison of policies in Canada and the United States

Abstract

The frail elderly have special multidimensional housing needs beyond affordability, including shelter that is more adaptive to reduced function and offers supportive services. Suitable housing for this population comprises three policy areas—housing, health care, and social services. In a federal system, development and implementation of policies in these areas involves participation of several levels of government and the nongovernmental sector. This paper uses federalism as a conceptual framework to examine and compare these policy areas in Canada and the United States.

In both countries, general national housing policies—relying heavily on the nongovernmental sector and characterized by joint federal‐provincial programs in Canada and by important local government roles and age‐specific programs in the United States‐have benefited the elderly. The effects of such policies on the frail elderly, however, have been less positive because of the general lack of essential human services and, to a lesser degree, health care that enables them to live outside institutions. This is especially true in the United States, where health care policy is fragmented and is dominated by a private insurance system, partial federal financing of health insurance for the elderly, and tense federal‐state relations in financing health care for the poor. Although Canadian policies and programs operate autonomously and more uniformly within a national health plan, neither country has a universal, comprehensive long‐term care system. Geographically diverse patterns of social services, funded by grants to states and provinces and the nonprofit sector, are common to both countries. However, the United States has inadequately funded age‐specific programs and has relied on a growing commercial service provision. Housing outcomes for frail elders are moving in the right direction in both countries; however, Canada seems to be better positioned, largely because of its health care system. As increased decentralization continues to characterize the three policy areas that affect suitable housing for frail elders, the United States can learn from Canada's negotiated federalism approach to more uniform solutions to merging housing and long‐term care.     

Public Opinion on Federalism and Federal Political Culture in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, 2004

This study reports on public opinion surveys on fiscal value,taxation, trust and confidence in governments, and federal politicalculture conducted in Canada, Mexico, and the United States inJune 2004. Compared to past years, support for the federal governmentremains high in the United States, with support for local governmentsurging substantially in 2004. The local property lax is viewedas the worst U.S. lax, followed secondly but distantly by thefederal income tax. Canadians are less supportive of their federalgovernment, and more supportive of their local governments,than Mexicans and Americans. However, Mexicans show low trustand confidence in all their governments, while Americans reportfairly high trust and confidence in all their governments. Onmeasures of federal political culture, Canadians scored highest,Mexicans scored lowest, and Americans fell in between.     

Rise and Decline of Nations: Sweden

The development of the Swedish political economy is interesting in the perspective of the Mancur Olson theory about the rise and decline of nations. It is shown that the general argument of RADON is not in agreement with facts about the growth of the affluent society in Sweden between 1870 and 1970. The strong growth in the overall economic output took place in a society where a number of distributional coalitions were strongly organized. Also the special argument in RADON about the reversed consequences of broad interest organizations meets with little support. Whatever is meant by an encompassing interest organisation, what was crucial in the Swedish case was the strong position of party government and the broad participatory nature of the political process. Directly contradicting the RADON argument is the fact that the structure of distributional coalitions has in general become even more encompassing since 1970. yet the economic situation of Sweden has deteriorated considerably. The predicament of party government mest be emphasized, as the period since 1970 has witnessed a decline in the capacity of political leadership to govern the country.