The State of American Federalism, 2002–2003: Division Replaces Unity

The national unity formed last year in response to terrorism soon vanished as more typical political infighting returned. Although overshadowed by the buildup to and the conduct of a second war against Iraq, political issues grounded in the nation\u27s federal character contributed to a rise in divisiveness. The mid-term elections of 2002 and redistricting battles in several states drove partisanship to new heights. The continued sluggishness of the nation\u27s economy also exacerbated interparty bickering. Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, yet some of the president\u27s policy initiatives encountered more serious resistance in his own party than from the opposition. Many of the feuds within the majority party rested on state and regional interests typical of federalism politics. State and local governments remained trapped in the third year of a fiscal crisis, and even large reductions in expenditures did not extricate these governments from the financial fix. Despite their pleas, state and local officials were unable to obtain any significant relief from the federal government. Federal-state relations, as a consequence, exhibited more contentiousness than cooperation

American Federalism, State Governments, and Public Policy: Weaving Together Loose Theoretical Threads

Decisions about the provision and delivery of public goods and services take place within the framework established by America\u27s most distinctive political invention-federalism. Author after author reminds students and scholars alike that policy making can be understood only from an intergovernmental perspective. But to use a term such as \u27\u27intergovernmental policy making\u27\u27 thrusts one into two distinctive analytic worlds which, at best, are loosely woven together

Opposition Strategy and Survival in Praetorian Brazil, 1964-1979

Opposition groups in authoritarian political systems are constrained not only by the presence of coercive forces, but also by the indeterminate and uncertain application of repression. This article suggests the use of Albert Hirschman\u27s rational model of dissent as an analytic framework for the study of interest articulation within mixed regimes. After deriving several behavioral attributes associated with dissent, the article then explores the utility of the Hirschman model within the Brazilian context. Several political strategies that allowed opposition forces to survive more than a decade of severe repression by the praetorian regime are examined. Political safety zones that permit opposition forces to avoid or neutralize repressive constraints also are identified. The article concludes with an assessment of the framework\u27s potential for comparative research

The State of American Federalism, 2003-2004: Polarized Politics and Federalist Principles

By Bush\u27s third year in office, the nation was embroiled in three wars overseas and a political war at home. The progress made toward a functioning Iraqi government was eclipsed by violent resistance and by administrative scandals. The 9/11 Commission hearings uncovered “missed opportunities” in intelligence and repudiated the two principal reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Slow job growth, rising prices for energy and health care, and fears over outsourcing dragged the president\u27s approval ratings to new lows. Senator John Kerry emerged from a large group of Democrats to become the party\u27s putative nominee, and both he and the president wasted little time in attacking each other. Government revenues continued to be anemic, but there were signs the worst of the state government fiscal crisis had passed. Washington enacted the first-ever prescription-drug benefit for Medicare recipients and continued to ignore the worsening federal debt. State governments produced innovative as well as controversial policies including importation of medicines in defiance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. California elected a movie star in a gubernatorial recall election. U.S. Supreme Court rulings were less solicitous of state government concerns than in recent years. Intra-party feuding among Republicans who controlled all three branches of the national government led more often to a “divided” government than to a unified majority. With less than six months to the 2004 presidential election, the general public as well as political leaders formed two warring camps, and the principles of federalism were endangered by ideologically driven politics

The State of American Federalism, 2001–2002: Resilience in Response to Crisis

The past year has been one of repeated shocks to government and the larger society. Terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D. C, the burst of the dot.com bubble in the stock market, a wave of corporate scandals, and a slowdown in the economy posed severe problems for officials of all governments in the federal system. The combined effects of the war on terrorism and the economic turmoil forced federal policymakers to create new agencies and to enact new policies. Slate and local governments also responded to the multiple shocks with a variety of initiatives, often independent of Washington. Instead of a move toward centralization that might have been predicted as a consequence of the serious shocks, all elements of the American federal system demonstrated a capacity and energy to marshal resources in a lime of urgency

Devolution of the Small Cities CDBG Program in Mississippi

In 1982 responsibility for HUD\u27s Small Cities Community Development Block Grant program was transferred to state governments as part of President Reagan\u27s New Federalism initiatives. Devolution was designed to (1) implement a new vision of American federalism, (2) shift control over a significant source of financial resources for nonmetropolitan areas, and (3) end the bypassing of state government officials in community development decisionmaking. This article uses the eleven year (1975–1985) history of Small Cities CDBG awards in Mississippi to assess the consequences of the program\u27s devolution. Changes in the pattern of state CDBG awards indicate that the program\u27s devolution produced a policy redirection that channeled CDBG funds to a larger number of the smallest municipalities and permitted more local discretion in project design. As a result, HUD no longer dictated community development policy to small cities. Instead, community development priorities in Mississippi emerged out of an award process that involved interaction among state and local officials

The Middle Tier in American Federalism: State Government Policy Activism During the Bush Presidency

Demarcations and assessments of particular periods of American federalism typically focus attention on national–state relationships, and ignore the independent activities of the 50 states. Labels applied to a period are often based on the federalism stance taken by a president. One can think of Lyndon Johnson\u27s “creative federalism,” Richard Nixon\u27s “new federalism,” and Ronald Reagan\u27s “new, new federalism.” President George W. Bush, unlike some of his recent predecessors, has not proclaimed his own distinct vision of federal relationships, and consequently efforts to describe and assess the character of federalism during his administration must rely on a review of policy actions (or inactions). Because a sole focus on national–state relations ignores the ability of state governments, either singly or in combination, to adopt policies different from those of the federal government, it is also necessary to examine this independent policy activism as part of any assessment of an era in American federalism. This article begins with a discussion of state government response to the centralizing thrust of Bush policy proposals and his reversal of his party\u27s previous stance supportive of states’ rights. To capture more fully the condition of federalism during the Bush presidency, the analysis then moves to an examination of independent policy action by state governments, or what Elazar (1972, 174) termed “federalism without Washington.” The essay concludes with an effort to explain how and why the “middle tier” in American federalism has been so assertive during the George W. Bush presidency

Longitudinal Patterns of Centralization and Development: Testing Theories of Governmental Organization

In attempting to cope with the challenges of modernization, government officials are urged by specialists in development and comparative administration to manipulate the organization of public activity. Prescriptions for altering the public sector usually advocate one of two simple but contradictory options: centralization or decentralization. Adopting one or the other of these administrative arrangements reputedly yields important benefits which have system-wide impact on the course of development.1 Unfortunately, no a priori principle exists to guide the choice between these sharply divergent alternatives. The present study was designed to compare the consequences of these organizational strategies in order to evaluate their utility as developmental courses of public action

Formation of Specialists and the Quality of Services in Public Administration

Editor: Georghe Filip Chapter, New Public Management: A Comparative Examination, authored by Dale Krane, UNO faculty member.https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/facultybooks/1214/thumbnail.jp

The State of American Federalism, 2004: Is Federalism Still a Core Value?

Federalism as a political issue was conspicuously absent from the 2004 presidential contest. Unlike many previous campaigns, neither party’s candidate made much mention of problems besetting states and localities. The war against global terrorism and the changing situation in Iraq shaped the election. Progress was made on homeland security, but intergovernmental wrangling over federal grants continued unabated. Federal-state feuds were common in several policy areas, including education, environmental protection, and health care. State finances received a revenue boost as economic growth picked up, but rising costs for Medicaid, education, employee pensions, and prisons clouded states’ financial forecasts. The U.S. Supreme Court decided several cases with a federalism dimension, and these decisions plus those of the past several years suggest the Court has moved not so much to grant more power to the states but to prune back the power of Congress. Much of what has happened during the first Bush administration must be seen against the larger background of changes in the American political party system. Changes in party organization and policy control, especially during the first Bush administration, reaffirm David Walker’s assessment that over the past quarter century American federalism has become more nationalized