Reading Synthesis

Reading Synthesis

Paper details:

Your title page will be on a separate page and contain the following information:
Reading Synthesis Template (or an appropriately descriptive alternative)

Section 1: Article Summaries
1. Reference entry for article 1 (use APA style)
A. Direct quote that identifies the research question/thesis statement (use proper in-text citation). You may not quote from the article
abstract. The quote will be found in the introduction to the article.
B. Provide a 50 word summary of the information provided in the introduction to justify asking the research question/thesis statement. Do
not quote the information you rely on to identify the research question/thesis statement. The only direct quote will be the actual research
question/thesis statement. Parts 1A and 1B will be presented in a single paragraph.
C. Description of the methodology employed to answer the research question or thesis statement. Your description should identify the
primary variables or concepts of interest. The description should be no more than 35 words. Section C constitutes a single paragraph.
D. Summarize the two most important findings of the research or the two most important points that support the thesis statement. Your
summary should be no more than 50 words. Section D will be a single paragraph.

2. Reference entry for article 2 (use APA style)
A. Direct quote that identifies the research question/thesis statement (use proper in-text citation). You may not quote from the article
abstract. The quote will be found in the introduction to the article.
B. Provide a 50 word summary of the information provided in the introduction to justify asking the research question/thesis statement. Do
not quote the information you rely on to identify the research question/thesis statement. The only direct quote will be the actual research
question/thesis statement. Parts 2A and 2B will be presented in a single paragraph.
C. Description of the methodology employed to answer the research question or thesis statement. Your description should identify the
primary variables or concepts of interest. The description should be no more than 35 words. Section C constitutes a single paragraph.
D. Summarize the two most important findings of the research or the two most important points that support the thesis statement. Your
summary should be no more than 50 words. Section D will be a single paragraph.

The reference entries will serve as the only headings for section 1 of the paper. Following each reference entry will be your summary and analysis as outlined in points A-D. Do not refer to these sections by their respective letter. Start a new paragraph for each point. The first sentence in each
paragraph will serve as the topic sentence for the paragraph. Do not start a new page for the second article review. The second review may start immediately after point 1D ends.

Section 2: Synthesis (Use this or an appropriate alternative as a heading for this segment of your paper.)
Use the synthesis section to show how the two articles help us better understand a current event, or something else (perhaps from your job or organization) that you find interesting or relevant. The important point is that you clearly identify and describe in your synthesis the “something” that you are explaining using the main ideas from each article. Your synthesis should not rely on direct quotes. However, you should use in-text citations to appropriately reference the evidence you use from the articles to support your synthesis. Your synthesis should not exceed 200 words.

Additional Comments:
1. You will not find the format for this paper in the APA Publication Manual. This paper is an example of the type of writing you will be asked to do in the MPA program. Most of the time instructors will require your paper follow the APA format. Sometimes the assignment will follow a hybrid format like the one described here. When you encounter a hybrid model, follow the format described in the template. Follow the APA guidelines when the template does not provide you specific guidance.
2. The reading synthesis is single spaced.
3. You do not need a reference section unless you are citing sources that were not assigned.

Master Lecture Notes for Public Administration Slide 1: Bureaucracy A popular conception of the bureaucracy is a vast army of mindless employees who rigidly enforce rules regardless there relevance or appropriateness given the situation. The human element is one very important part of the bureaucracy. To only focus on the people who make up the administrative state would be to see only the tip of the ice berg that shows. As our definition indicates, the bureaucracy is more than red tape. It also includes organizational structure, laws that give agencies the authority to act, the exercise of discretionary power, processes and procedures used to execute delegated authority (red tape), politics, job design, performance management, budgeting, and the list goes on. Why do we need a bureaucracy? Any collective effort, private or public, requires structure. There has to be some kind of organizational structure that allows the group to achieve a desired goal or mission. The question then is not why do we need a bureaucracy, but what kind of structure are we going to use. The structure that is used to guide our efforts will fundamentally effect our ability to achieve our desired state. The structure we choose will represent the tradeoffs we accept. Do we want efficiency or flexibility? Is organizational coordination more important than individual liberty? Are we more interested in innovation or do we prefer the consistency reflected in a standard operating procedure? Should we react quickly or deliberately? Americans have long had a love/hate relationship with the administrative state. It is not hard to find a person who has had a negative experiences at the local department of motor vehicles. The perceived inefficiency of the post office have almost become a metaphor for the failure of government in any situation. Yet, when Americans are asked about their personal interactions with government, they tend to rate the experience positively. We are very appreciative to the teachers who takes time to help our children, to the public works employees who keep the parks clean, and the police officers and firefighters who keep our communities safe. It is through administrative agencies that the work of government is most directly felt by citizens. Administrative agencies pose some serious challenges to our system of government. Our democratic traditions aims for a government that is open, responsive, representative, and transparent. Administrative agencies can struggle with each of these democratic principles. Encouraging citizen participation in the policy process is time consuming and expensive. The need to meet legal deadlines or stakeholder expectations might cause the agency to adopt procedures that restricts public input into the policy process. Being responsive to the needs of citizens can be problematic when there is no apparent consensus within the public on what it wants. A representative bureaucracy means the agency reflects the demographic characteristics of the population it serves. Historically women and minorities have been underrepresented in administrative agencies. As for transparency, citizens have to know what is going on if they are participate in the governing process. Withholding information or making decisions out of view of the public makes it exceedingly difficult for citizens to meaningfully participate or hold government accountable. American government is held accountable to the citizenry through frequent elections. Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years, presidents every four years, and senators every
six years. Elections give citizens a chance to evaluate the performance of government and make changes they deem necessary. Unfortunately, public administrators are not elected depriving citizens the right to remove those whose work does not meet expectations. Insulating public administrators from public scrutiny can also encourage agencies to adopt policies and procedures that are not compatible with democratic principles. Agencies divorced from citizen oversight can become rather arbitrary and capricious in the application of administrative power. We would be hard pressed to find a person who hopes a bureaucrat is wasting tax dollars. We can all agree that we want a government that is efficient with e scarce resources entrusted to it. The problem is that efficiency is not the only thing we expect of our government. We want our government to enhance our lives, preserve our liberty, and protect our property. Is preserving liberty more important than enhancing life? What happens when protecting property is not necessarily an efficient use of resources? Unlike in the for-profit sector where profit maximization is the accepted standard for measuring managerial performance, there is no such standard in the public sector. To the contrary, the competing public values that Americans cherish means public administrators have to make tradeoffs and sometimes sacrifice a value like efficiency in order to preserve a value like liberty. Slide 2: Differing Perspectives Note: Generally, public administration is referred to as an academic discipline that studies how government carries out its daily functions. We can also define public administration as the use of legal authority to implement public decisions. Public administration in the second definition encompasses the public bureaucracy and its related organizational structures and processes. I will often use the term public administration and bureaucracy interchangeably. I. Traditional A. Goal is to maximize efficiency: get the most output from a unit of input. B. Division of labor: this allows employees to specialize so that productivity can be maximized. C. Hierarchy: a division of labor necessarily implies that coordination will be major concern. Organizations achieve coordination via a vertical supervisory structure. D. Formalistic structure: to reduce conflict between the levels of management, formal lines of communication are established. E. Merit: all employees are selected via merit or performance based measures so that the organization can get the correct person into the correct job. (a) employees are viewed as impersonal, interchangeable parts (b) clients are viewed as personalized inputs (c) doing so allows the organization to focus less on values, opinions, and feelings and more on efficiency and effectiveness II. New Public Management A. Emphasis should be on results instead of processes or systems B. Public administration should adopt market-like mechanisms to help achieve goals. (a) Profit motive would translate into competition for resources (b) Benchmarking and Reengineering techniques (c) Speed and flexibility
(d) Customer focus driven C. Purpose of government is to ensure that goods are provided, not necessarily provide the those products. D. Government should be deregulated giving line managers and staff more discretion to make decisions that impact their sphere of influence. E. Employees should be empowered to find creative new ways to do their job. F. Organizations must be flexible, entrepreneurial, and problem solving instead of rule bound, tradition bound, and process-oriented.
III. Political: Result of the New Deal and WWII A. Emphasis should be on equity instead of efficiency B. Bureaucrats should be involved in the policy making process C. Administrative state should be accountable to the electorate through citizen participation. D. Pluralism is the model for organizational structure. The goal is to have as many groups as possible involved in administration. E. Focus is on group involvement rather than any specific individual. F. Factual knowledge is developed through consensus or coalition building. G. Budgeting is based on incrementalism and the political process. IV. Legal Approach: evolved over time through the interaction of three specific forces: 1. Administrative Law: laws and regulation that govern the administrative state 2. Judicialization: administrative decisions are increasingly made through adjudication in court like hearings. 3. “Street-level” Administrators: because the administrative state was becoming more intrusive through such things as health inspections, building inspections, safety inspections, etc, privacy became an issue and people were accorded Fourth Amendment protections from the administrative state. 4. The result is an emphasis on procedural due process rights, substantive due process rights, and equity concerns. Slide 3: Describing the national administrative state Executive Departments: The executive branch is divided into departments, each headed by a secretary and a wide array of deputies, assistant secretaries, and undersecretaries. The heads of these departments constitute the president’s cabinet. Within the departments are bureaus and agencies. These smaller subunits carry out specific policy functions as specified by law. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is part of the Department of Labor. Independent agencies: Sometimes the congress determines it would like an agency to have some independence from partisan politics and political control. The Federal Reserve Board was created outside the direct control of presidents for good reason. The country would not be well served to have presidents manipulating monetary policy for short term electoral gains. Similarly, the country’s security is better protected when the agency charged with gathering intelligence (CIA) can do so free from having to advance the political agenda of any given president.
Independent regulatory agency: Some agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Environmental Protection Agency are mandated by congress to regulate specific activities or behaviors within the private sector. Government Corporations: Amtrak and the US Postal Service are examples of a government corporation. Congress has turned to the corporate structure in an attempt to capture the operational efficiencies enjoyed by private sector companies. The government corporation can charge a fee for its services. It operates within the private economy competing with other entities in the same industrial sector. Through direct competition a government entity will forced to be more efficient and responsive to market needs. Slide 4: Functions of the Bureaucracy Administrative agencies are not directly referenced in the US Constitution. You will remember from week 2 that Article 1 of the Constitution describes the legislative branch, Article 2 describes the executive branch, and Article 3 describes the judicial branch. The silence of the Constitution on the fourth branch of government, the administrative agencies, creates some ambiguity on just how administrative agencies should be made to fit into the constitutional framework. What we do know is the framers took for granted that administrative agencies would be part of the machinery of government. Alexander Hamilton, a strong proponent of national power and executive authority, wrote in Federalist 68 “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration” (1788). Just how administrative agencies would be used to create good government remains a contentious and politically salient issue today. Administrative agencies enjoy broad discretionary authority in the American governance system. Congress often lacks the capacity (time and expertise) and political will to address the most pressing problems facing society. Many of society’s most pressing problems can be classified as wicked problems. Put simply, wicked problems are impossible to solve because they are so interconnected and interdependent with other societal problems that how we define them depends on circumstances that evolve and change as rapidly as the political environment. Terrorism could be considered a wicked problem. What exactly is the cause of terrorism? Because nobody knows for sure it is impossible to know what policy response is appropriate. Whether a wicked problem or a lessor social problem, Congress is often not up to the task of solving the them. Let us use pollution as an example. Nobody wants to breath dirty air. Yet, how to define “dirty” is an incredibly important and controversial issue. The definition of clean air will affect everything from individual health to corporate profitability. As an elected representative, the issue is a loser. Nobody how you vote you are sure to alienate some constituency. What is the solution? Write legislation that is vague and leave it to the agency to define. Now the representative can go on record voting for clean air without alienating anyone. Plus, defining pollution standards requires the kind of technical expertise only an expert has and the agency employs. It is politically more expedient to punt the problem to the agency. When asking an agency to solve the problem the Congress often gives the agency rulemaking authority. Rulemaking is a quasi-legislative function that allows the agency to write rules that have the force of law
on those covered by the rule. The formal process for writing rules is outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. Generally, agencies have to publish the rule, give the public a chance to respond, make necessary changes based on public input, and then publish the final rule. In 2014 almost 3,500 final administrative rules were published in the Federal Register (Carey, 2015). This number far exceeded the productivity of the 2013-2014 Congress which passed approximately 140 laws (Desilver,2014). Adjudication is a quasi-judicial function that determines whether a person violated an administrative rule. Formal adjudicative hearings are similar to court proceedings where informal adjudicative hearings resemble a negotiation or conference. Adjudicative decisions apply only to the person found violating the rule. A decision of an administrative proceeding can be appealed to the court. Normally, the court will only review if the agency applied the law correctly and not the procedures it used to adjudicate the matter. This distinction limits the authority courses can exercise over agencies. Investigation represents the law enforcement or executive power of the agency. Agencies enforce their rules through inspections, tests, permits, licenses, and subpoenas. Agencies have tried to develop more collaborative methods of enforcement where they work with targeted parties to gain voluntary compliance with the rule. The Fourth amendment ban on search and seizures may apply depending on the circumstances. Co-optation is always a concern when using the administrative machinery to achieve a policy goal. Co-optation refers to when the industry being regulated gains excessive influence over the agency. Some people have accused the Federal Aviation Administration of being too cozy with the airline industry (NPR, 2008). Iron triangles are another method for co-opting the agency to the advantage of the industry being regulated. A iron triangle consists of the industry, the agency, and the congressional committee overseeing the agency and industry. The agency, committee, and industry develop mutually reinforcing and beneficial relationships. The industry gives the committee electoral support and the committee gives the industry favorable legislation. The committee gives the agency budgetary resources and the agency gives the committee policy alternatives and favorable enforcement actions. The interest group gives the agency support by lobbying congress on the agency’s behalf while the agency gives the interest group favorable treatment in rulemaking, adjudication, and enforcement. Carey, M.P. (2015). Counting Regulations: An overview of rulemaking, types of federal regulations, and pages in the federal register. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved at Desilver, D. (2014). Congress continues its streak of passing few significant laws. Pew Research Center. Retrieved at Hamilton, A. (1788, March 4). Federalist 68: The mode of electing the president from the New York Packet. Retrieved from National Public Radio. (2008). FAA too cozy with airlines. Retrieved at
Slide 6: Oversight Executive oversight – The president has two major tools for controlling administrative agencies at his disposal. The president has appointment power. The ability to appoint the leadership of agencies allows the president to set the agenda within the agency so that it conforms to his policy priorities. President Reagan was not a fan of environmental regulation. His first EPA director shared his disdain for environmental regulation and worked to limit the EPA’s enforcement and rulemaking activities. On the opposite end of the spectrum, President Obama’s Attorney Generals have actively used the power of the US Department of Justice to reform local policing. For more information read: Reagan and Environment: To Many, a Stalemate: Forced Reforms, Mixed Results: Budgets: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is used by presidents to control the rulemaking activities of agencies. Before an agency can pursue new legislative authority it must first seek approval from OMB ensuring the authority is consistent with the president’s agenda. OMB also reviews regulatory proposals to make sure the new rules will advance the president’s policy priorities. Finally, the president determines the agency’s budget which gives him significant influence on how the agency carries out its mission. Agency initiatives that are not consistent with the president’s agenda may lose funding. Congressional oversight Budgets: The president may get to propose the budget but it is ultimately Congress that decides what gets funded and how much funding will be allocated. Advise and Consent: The president’s appointment power is checked by the Senate’s power to confirm. A nominee the Senate finds unfit will not be approved. Investigation: Congress has the power to investigate anything within its legal authority. The Congress can compel executive branch personnel to testify on a topic. Offending Congress is not something an agency does without considering the consequences. Given the ability of Congress to legislate and appropriate, agencies tend not to want to actively offend Congress. Legislation: Congress can pass new laws or re-write old laws to achieve its policy purpose. If Congress does not want an agency to engage in a particular purpose it can explicitly exclude the agency from spending money on that activity. Judicial oversight Judicial review: The court can review an agency’s decision to see if it interpreted the law correctly, applied it correctly, or exceeded its authority. Constitutional protections: The Court has imposed certain requirements on agency hearings so they conform to constitutional principles. For example, due process must be afforded to the accused and administrative decisions must be based on the totality of the evidence.
Slide 7: Controlling the Beast There are three fairly blunt tools government can use to Deregulation: Reduce or eliminate government regulatory control over the industry. Prior to 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board regulated routes and prices in the airline industry. Deregulation of the industry began in 1978 and was concluded with the closing of the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1984. More recently, the banking industry has been deregulated. One of the contributing factors to the Great Depression of the 1930s was excessive speculation by banks in the stock market. The Glass-Steagall Act regulated how much underwriting of securities a commercial bank could do. The regulation of the banking industry ended with the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. Devolution: Moving operational responsibility of a program from one level of government to the next lower level of government. For example, in 1996 President Clinton signed a law that ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) which was an entitlement program that provided cash benefits to needy families who met certain requirements. AFDC was replaced with a program that gave states more flexibility as to how welfare benefits would be distributed. The national government maintains certain minimum standards for the program. States receive block grants (federal funds) to develop and administer programs of their choosing but still meet federal minimum standards.
Privatization: Transferring government provision of a program or service to firms in the private sector. Many cities have privatize garbage collection by hiring for-profit firms to provide the service. The privatization of public K-12 education is another example. Charter schools and voucher schools are examples of privatization. Termination: The government ends the program. NASA ended the shuttle program in 2011. Ending programs is extremely difficult. Read about defense programs terminated at Slide 8: Bureaucracy and Federalism/IGR Federalism is the allocation of power between the national government and the states. The framers of the Constitution believe federalism would play two important roles in American governance. First, federalism is another version of the separation of powers doctrine. Decentralizing power to the states would make it more difficult for a faction to dominate the policy process. Hand-in-hand with the separation of powers is the doctrine of checks and balances. Federalism creates a double check on our political institutions. The states act as a check on the power of the national government while the national government serves as a check on the states. Promoting political unity and union was a second important role federalism was expected to play. The framers believed that the state governments would serve as the primary defenders of our life, liberty, and property. They also believed Americans had a stronger affinity to state government than the national government. Finally, it was the state governments that had the governing capacity and machinery of government necessary to meet at least the domestic policy needs of the citizens they served. Allowing states to develop and implement policies that served the unique needs of the citizens of the respective state produced political stability. Entrusting national defense and the regulation of interstate commerce to a national government would guarantee national security while creating a
vibrant economy that promoted domestic tranquility. It is worth noting that Native American tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations are not part of the federal system. As our definition of federalism has evolved and the capacity of local and tribal governments has improved, local and tribal governments can affect federalism through intergovernmental relationships. The national government has created direct relationships with local and tribal governments sometimes to the chagrin of state governments. Gaming, law enforcement, and environmental protection are three policy domains where we see occasional conflict between the different units of government. The theory of federalism does not always yield the intended results. Federalism is the source of some inherent tension within the political system. Trying to decide what is a truly national issue and one that is the jurisdiction of the state is always present. We can think of No Child Left Behind and the Affordable Care Act as two recent examples of conflict between states and the national government over which level of government should control the policy domain. How we define federalism is incredibly important because the definition determines the allocation of power. There are two models for evaluating how federalism has changed over they years. The first model examines how our evolving view of the Constitution changes how we allocate power in the federal system. The second model examines how societal forces through history has changed our understanding of federalism.
Constitutional Developments I. 1787-1861: State-centered Federalism – power of congress was viewed as limited and well-defined.
A. Article 1, Section 8: Express Powers – those specifically listed in the Constitution B. Article 1, Section 8: Implied Powers (Necessary and Proper clause) Congress can do what is needed to carry out its express powers which were identified by the US Supreme Court in McCullough v. Maryland C. Tenth Amendment: Those powers not delegated to the national government remain with the states. These powers are known as the residual powers and are the basis of the state’s rights movement.
State-centered federalism interpreted the power of Congress in Article I, Section 8 very narrowly and the Tenth amendment quite broadly. The result is state governments retained considerable political influence over domestic politics with the national government playing a weak secondary role. The passive role played by the national government in domestic politics meant there was not much need for a strong and active administrative state staffed by professionally trained and technically competent public administrators.
II. 1861 – 2000: Nation-centered Federalism: The power of Congress is viewed as expansive. More importantly, states do not have the power to define the powers of the federal government. The Tenth amendment does not give the states a trump card over national policy.
A. Article 6 – “Supremacy Clause” establishes the Constitution and Federal law as the supreme law of the land B. Article 1, Section 8: Commerce clause becomes a source for expanding the power of the national government to regulate domestic policy issues.
C. 1880s, Court is more willing to give a liberal interpretation to the necessary and proper clause giving Congress more flexibility to intervene in issues that were once considered the exclusive domain of the states. The Civil War made it very clear to anyone paying attention that the national government had the resources to be a source of transformative power in society. The North’s ability to harness its economic might to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion was just a foreshadowing of the resources it could bring to bear on seemingly intractable social issues (i.e. poverty, crime, racial discrimination, pollution) in the 20th century. The Industrial Revolution transformed the United States into an economic powerhouse and eventually a world power. With the Industrial Revolution came new social problems that the laissez-faire economic markets created and could not solve. The legalization of the national income tax in 1913 gave the national government a steady source of revenue that could be used to accomplish national goals. The Great Depression of the 1930s transformed the national government into a policy powerhouse the country had not seen since the Civil War. Armed with money and power, the national government was well on its way to becoming a more active player in the domestic policy environment. Some critics would contend it has become the dominant player at the expense of the states. Regardless, staffing the expanding administrative state of the 20th century made it apparent that there was an immediate need for professionally trained and technically competent administrators. As the national government became more involved in domestic, the power of national administrative agencies correspondingly increased. Historical Developments This method for studying federalism examines social, political, economic, and technological change to develop a typology that allows us to classify the different types of federalism. It is important to keep in mind the time frame and title for the typology vary by researcher. What I think is important is to remember that how federalism is understood and applied is a product of its time. Keep in mind the choices we make today determine the options we have available tomorrow. Each time period becomes a function of what happened previously making it possible for the current definition of federalism to gradually and almost seamlessly fade into the next definition. Pinpointing the exact time a transition occurred is usually not possible.
1. Dual Federalism (1787-1932) – The hallmark of dual federalism is its strong structural element that allows for the sharp demarcation of functional responsibilities between the national and state governments. Refer back to the Federalist/Anti-federalist debate we discussed in week one and we can see that in the political rhetoric of the time the framers did try to minimize fears of those who opposed the Constitution by highlighting that states would remain a potent force in the new governing system and retain control over almost all domestic public policy. The amount of national aid to the states during this time period is relatively small. If you think about the great public works projects of the day (i.e. canal building and railroad construction), most of it was accomplished with revenue raised by state/local governments or through state/local public-private partnerships.
I think what is interesting about this time period is the inherent tension that was part of the system from the very beginning. The authors of the Federalists may have done their best to minimize the threat a strong national government posed to the states but it did not take long after the ratification of the
Constitution to make it clear those threats were very real. In Gibbons v Ogden (1824) the US Supreme Court gave the commerce clause a very expansive reading noting the power, “like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution” (Gibbons v Ogden 1824), According to Chief Justice Marshall if the people do not like the definition they are free to elect a congress that does not exercise its full power under the constitution. Interestingly, while the Court was quite willing to tip the balance of power in favor of the national government the congress was not. It failed to follow up on its new found power and was quite willing to defer to the states at least until the Civil War broke out.
Two events that occurred almost simultaneously in the 1860s spelled the end of the original incarnation of dual federalism. With the outbreak of the Civil War the nation got its first taste of what an organized and willing national government could accomplish. The Lincoln administration’s use of paper money, income taxes, and bond markets made financing the hugely expensive war possible. Producing all the goods and services necessary to win the war yielded improvements in mass production and industrial organization. Getting the supplies and men to where they were needed when they were needed yielded huge payoffs in terms of improved transportation and communication infrastructures. The Civil War was a foreshadowing of what the American national government was capable of when it marshaled all its constitutional (and extra-constitutional) powers.
The second even was the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the Industrial Revolution most manufacturing was done as the local level in shops employing a very small number of people. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution mass production changed not only how business was organized and operated, but also it transformed the economy and society. People were no longer tied to local neighborhood shops or farms. The United States experiences both a migration and immigration into its large cities as people seek jobs in the growing industrial firms. These firms allow economic power that rivaled that of government to be concentrated in the hands of a few private investors. The concentration economic power allowed the firms to dominate entire markets undermining the competitiveness of the capitalist economic system. With people moving into the city population densities soared creating health and social problems including unsanitary conditions, crime, and pollution (animal, human, and industrial). Local governments were overwhelmed by the demand for services and the need to improve living conditions. State governments strained to try and control the economic and social power of monopolistic corporations. America was transforming itself from a local to national economy and trying to cope with all the growing pains that went with it.
2. Cooperative Federalism (1933-1963): By the early 1900s it was becoming abundantly clear that something was very wrong. Competing fundamental democratic values like liberty, equality, democracy, and justice were coming into conflict resulting in increasing political tension. Liberty allowed any person the right to use private property for personal gain as that person saw fit. Too often the large monopolistic corporations of the period used their power to corrupt the legislative and judicial processes making it almost impossible for small individuals to obtain justice. Time and again workplace safety rules, minimum wage laws, or laws regulating fair trade practices were stalled, gutted, or killed by powerful economic interests. Political equality means very little if the citizen is unable to effectively exercise his/her rights in the democratic process.
In order to bring balance back to the economic and political systems a series of reforms took hold. America’s first regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. This was followed by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1898, the Federal Trade Act in 1914, the Food and Drug Administration in 1915, and the Federal Reserve in 1919. I would not call these initiatives by Congress as a repudiation of dual federalism per se. I think they can be viewed as a new understanding of how the relationship between states, the national government, and the private sector should be structured.
As the legislatures worked to implement reforms the US Supreme Court struggled to maintain dual federalism. It was the Great Depression that brought the competing views to a head. As President Franklin Roosevelt worked to get the United States out of the Great Depression through active government involvement in the economy (i.e. New Deal), the US Supreme Court would have none of it striking down one law after another. It was not until Roosevelt’s Court packing scheme in 1937 did the Court give in and accept a definition of the commerce clause that looked an almost like the one Chief Justice Marshall articulated in Gibbons v Ogden. The Industrial Revolution had finally done what Marshall could not. It gave the congress seemingly unlimited police power over domestic policy through the commerce clause.
New found congressional power should not be construed to mean the national government immediately moved to marginalize the states. To the contrary, the relationship between the states and the national government was quite cordial probably due to the fact that the states were virtually bankrupt. With almost 25% unemployment and no money almost everybody in power, government and business, was concerned about the potential collapse of the American political system along with the capitalist economic system. Necessity certainly helped states and the national government overcome any jealousies they might have harbored over who had sovereignty over a particular policy issue.
Indeed, what we find during this period is cooperation and a conscientious effort to respect state autonomy and discretion. State governments were given the choice of whether they would participate in national programs such as unemployment insurance or work recovery programs. National aid was conditioned to help states meet individual state priories. At the end of the day though national government aid to the states soared during the Great Depression changing how we viewed the relationship between the national and state governments.
3. Centralized (coercive) Federalism (1964-1969): Of course, the Great Depression was not the only thing going on in the mid-20th century. World War II and its aftermath had a profound effect on American understanding of federalism. It would help usher in a period of national government preeminence that is being actively debated in the current controversy over raising the debt ceiling.
I think what happens is Americans become complacent about the role of government during the period of cooperative federalism. The ability of the national government to help individual citizens get through the Great Depression is viewed by many as a good and wise use of government power. We move from the Great Depression into a war of survival against Nazism and Japanese totalitarianism. The enemies are strong and the threat they pose is very real. Americans by and large came together and sacrificed to defeat the menace. Rationing and wage and price controls during this time were viewed as necessary and the patriotic thing to do. Our view of federalism needed to reflect this priority.
After WWII a new threat emerged. Instead of demobilizing like in previous wars, the communist threat as represented by Stalinist Russia forced the United States to commit to a strong national defense. Members of both parties were remarkably unified on their commitment to containing Soviet aggression. Defense budgets grew and the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about helped keep resourced under national government control.
America experienced an economic boom after WWII. However, not everybody benefited from the economic growth. Racial discrimination exposed the injustice of the American political, social, and economic system. Women renewed their push for equal rights. Native Americans reasserted their claim to sovereignty over ancestral lands. The effects of poverty embarrassed a nation that had so much and yet had so many who were going hungry or living without shelter.
Minority groups were not the only ones pressing for reform. Late in 1969 the Cuyahoga River (Ohio History Central 2011) burst into flames. The river was so polluted it spontaneously combusted becoming a potent symbol for what was wrong with the environment. The event galvanized support for a national response to environmental pollution.
The events immediately following WWII and through the 1960s began to be viewed as national problems than local or state issues. Government programs reflected this view as laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, the anti-poverty programs associated with Johnson’s War on Poverty, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act all were designed to promote a national agenda and achieve national goals. Grants-in-aid programs used a “carrot and stick” approach to win state cooperation. States were given money to carry out the programs but the money came with national mandates that limited state discretionary authority.
4. New Federalism and its offspring (1970-present): In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson decisively beat Senator Barry Goldwater for the presidency. While Goldwater lost the election the modern conservative movement was born. The new conservative movement tended to adopt the principles of dual federalism. Once again American politics became increasingly fixated on how to assign power to the national and state governments.
President Richard Nixon ushered in the New Federalism era with a domestic policy that attempted to devolve power back to the states. I am not sure Nixon believed state control was philosophically appropriate. I do believe Mr. Nixon saw devolution as a way to weaken the power base of the eastern liberal establishment he so despised. The Democratically controlled congress was not about to abandon its social agenda. However, it was willing to go along with Nixon’s request to use block grants to fund many of the programs. By definition the block grants allowed states more discretion in the administration of national programs. President Nixon’s policy toward Native Americans also was less Washington-centric calling for Native American sovereignty that was to be respected and enforced through national government policy.
Nixon’s fall from power did not end the efforts to decentralize political power back to the states. Deregulation of the airline industry was accomplished under the Carter administration. The trend continued under subsequent presidents as the banking, finance, trucking, and communications industries were eventually de-regulated. Under President Clinton welfare reform ended the Aid to Family with Dependent Children entitlement program and replaced it with the state-centric welfare to work policies popularized by Republican Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin.
If the national government was intent on devolving policy to the states, state and local governments were equally committed to privatizing as much a politically possible. For profit schools in Philadelphia and Los Angeles along with choice schools in Wisconsin and Ohio were clarion calls that public delivery of K-12 education was no longer a foregone conclusion. Welfare to work programs in Wisconsin were bid out to be administered by the lowest bidder – public or private. Local governments moved to privatize as much as they could including sanitation services.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 ushered in an interesting era of state/national relations. After the attacks it was very apparent that an effective War on Terror would require the cooperation of state and local governments. The Bush administration moved to secure the borders using state resources subsidized through national grants-in-aid programs. States were not quite so willing to go along. For example, the REAL ID act attempted to make state driver’s licenses more secure so they might be used as a de facto national ID card. The goal was to make it more difficult for terrorists to infiltrate the US. State governments resisted the increased costs to comply with the act. To date the law has not been fully implemented due to state resistance.
What will federalism look like on President Obama? The growing Tea Party movement seems to represent a repudiation of the George W. Bush brand of federalism and a return to the dual federalism philosophy espoused in the Federalist papers as informed by the anti-federalist opposition. Ironically, President Obama’s use of program grants to encourage state innovation in public education policy seems more congruent with dual federalism principles than did President Bush’s federalism philosophy. I would not say Mr. Obama believes in dual federalism or is trying to move the country in that direction. I would argue he does accept the historical definition of cooperative federalism.
Regardless, I think federalism from 1970- present reflects the growing globalization of the world economy. The free flow of economic resources across borders has forced local governments to be more competitive. To achieve competiveness it is necessary to obtain economies of scale. This increasingly can be done only through regional cooperation or national direction both of which undermine a strict dual federalist philosophy.
As a countervailing force to global pressures is privatization. The shedding of government services to the private and nonprofit sectors continues. What it does not mean is a return to dual federalism. A smaller government can still practice centralized or coercive federalism. Intergovernmental Relations (IGR)
There are approximately 87,000 units of government operating in the US including states, local governments, and special districts. How these governments interact with each other represents the field of IGR. This includes locating their appropriate role in the governance system, the responsibility and accountability they assume, and the degree of influence they exert within the system. What is usually ignored is how tribal governments fit into American IGR. We will be examining that question later in the term. As we will see tribal governments pose significant challenges for American IGR. Despite the challenges American IGR is a vibrant and evolving system that is continually reinventing itself to meet the current needs of citizens.
A. Basic Characteristics of IGR There are three characteristics of IGR that I would like to highlight. The first is mission. This can best be understood in the context of public policy. IGR is primarily concerned with policy coordination. The intent of every policy is to achieve a desired outcome. How those outcomes are achieved and the role each unit of government plays in achieving the outcome has to be negotiated between the various governmental actors. Because governmental roles are not often clearly defined and policy outcomes hard to quantify, the exercise of political power in pursuit of a policy goal is frequently part of the process. It is impossible to understand the policy process without appreciating how the different levels of government affect it.
A second characteristic of IGR is its institutional structure. Federalism creates a horizontal relationship between the sovereign states most clearly based on the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1. The clearest manifestation of this equal relationship is the membership composition of the US Senate where each state gets two votes regardless of size. Even though it may seem hard to believe, states and the national government are also on the same horizontal plane. The Constitution allocates some powers exclusively to the national government (Article I, Section 8) and reserves other powers to the states (Tenth amendment). Because states and the national government enjoy specific constitutional protections they theoretically share co-equal status in the governance system.
The relationship between governments can also be vertical in nature. The Supremacy clause of Article VI ultimately places states in a lesser role in those policy areas where the national government exercises its power in accordance with constitutional mandates. Local governments, especially those that do not enjoy home rule status, are often subservient to state government. Many states limit local authority over tax rates and mandate the provision of certain services. As the national government has assumed a more central role in the governance system, it too is mandating local and state governments carry out certain policy initiatives. Environmental regulation is an example. The national government sets air and water quality standards but it is largely up to the states to enforce the regulations.
An important point to keep in mind about the institutional component is how it shapes decision making. Institutions can be thought of as formal structures that place limits on how decisions are made. For example, because states have formal legal recognition in the Constitution, the national government simply cannot ignore the states when implementing and administering public policy. As such the flexibility and options available to public administrators are constrained by these formal and legally enforceable rules.
A third characteristic of IGR is the human element. Intergovernmental relations is all about how different units of government go about carrying out their respective roles. Since institutions cannot act, only people can do that, we will focus our attention on how public administrators operate in this complex, interconnected, and interdependent system. Of interest to us will be the attitude, beliefs, and values of public administrators, how they go about achieving their goals through both formal and informal mechanisms, and how they maintain relationships over time.
B. Models of IGR
The models described in this section will share characteristics similar to those discussed in the federalism section.
1. Coordinate-Authority Model
Authority between the states and the national government is clearly delineated. Local governments are part of a unitary system. According to Dillon’s Rule, local governments are little more than creatures of the state exercising only that power expressly granted them by the state. When conflict arises between the states and national government it is the court that has to resolve the dispute. I think it is fair to say the court has historically tried to adopt a dual federalism, coordinate-authority model to guide it s decision making. This was certainly evident in its National League of Cities v Usery (1976) ruling. In this case the court made a gallant effort to delineate what authority belonged to the national government and what authority belonged to the states. Interestingly and maybe not surprisingly, the court abandoned the effort in Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transportation Authority (1985).
There are a couple of major criticisms of the mode. First, it (along with dual federalism) does not represent the interconnected and interdependent relationships that are a very real part of the intergovernmental system. Second, power flows in multiple directions within the system and not just from nation to state or state to local. We know states influence national policy, local governments can influence national policy, and local governments influence state policy. Unlike the closed system implied by the model, modern IGR and modern federalism is more open and organic allowing for multiple points of influence depending on the policy issue. I would admit that the theoretical resonance of the model remains a potent force in American politics. The recent Tea Party movement and demands by local governments for more policy making authority are current examples of the dual federalist mentality.
2. Inclusive-Authority Model State and local governments have become little more than agents of the national government. Unlike in the coordinate model where either the state or the national government could take the lead in governing, in the inclusive model the national government is the dominant actor. A major characteristic of the inclusive model is the use of grants-in-aid. The national government, with more resources and administrative capacity, uses financial resources to coax states and local governments to carry out the national policy agenda.
One weakness of this model is its failure to explain policy activity at the state and local level. State governments have increased their administrative capacity in recent years. Not only has state and local government employment grown faster relative to the national government, but states and local governments are developing the policy expertise to effectively address complex policy problems. Whether it is gay marriage, immigration reform, or welfare reform, the states have been at the vanguard of policy innovation. In each case it seems state action is forcing the national government to act.
3. Overlapping-Authority Model
If we view the Inclusive-Authority and Coordinate Authority modes as the extremes on a continuum, then the Overlapping Authority model is in the middle. Each unit of government retains exclusive jurisdiction over certain policy issues. At the same time each unit of government works closely with one or all units of government when the problems are jointly shared.
The advantage of this model is in its accurate depiction of the relative power of each unit of government. Because no one unit of government has sufficient power to address all policy problems, cooperation is necessary. Unlike in the Inclusive Authority model which predicted national government actors could impose their will on state and local actors, in the overlapping model actors at each level of government must bargain and negotiate to achieve their respective policy goals. What the model does not tell us is when government actors will cooperate on a policy issue or when they will choose to compete with each other.
Sources Baybeck, B. and Lowry, W. (2000). Federalism outcomes and ideological preferences: the u.s. supreme court and preemption cases. Publius. 30(3): 73-97. O’Toole, L, Jr. (2000). American intergovernmental relations. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Wright, D. (1988). Understanding intergovernmental relations. Belmont, Cal.: Brooks/Cole