Federalism Notes

Federalism as a Setting for Politics and Policy Implementation

Federalism's relevance: Understanding power dynamics in American government, participants aim to leverage the federal system for their policy goals, seeking allies and receptive governments.
Policy goals and federalism: Discussions about federalism often mask underlying policy views, becoming independent arguments as people advocate for policy primacy at different government levels.
Reform calls: Stem from the tension between optimism about government's ability to shape the future and skepticism about the appropriate scope of public sector activities.
Complexity of the U.S. System:
- Creates dilemmas, requiring policymakers to make trade-offs among conflicting goals.
- Creative policy solutions may not translate to different contexts.
- Large size can foster economies of scale and competition, but may also diffuse the ability of interests to dominate.
- Multiplicity of governments may cause confusion and ineffective resource distribution.

Flexibility vs. Uniformity

The fundamental dilemma: Balancing subunit flexibility (responding to different policy views) and uniformity (avoiding inequalities in services and rights).
Partial preemption: Can address the dilemma by providing minimum support levels while allowing states to do more with their resources, but it reduces flexibility and brings regulations.
Geographic and cultural diversity: A geographically and culturally diverse country benefits from sub-government flexibility, while a homogeneous country gains less.
Mobility and interdependence: Uniformity gains appeal as society grows increasingly mobile and interdependent, with people affected by decisions of jurisdictions where they do not reside.
Digital age demands: Access to information and resources in other parts of the country has expanded in the digital age, increasing demands for uniformity.

Innovations Do Not Always Translate or Travel

Federalism and policy innovation: Federalism creates jurisdictions that can simultaneously test policy approaches, but the multiplicity of decision centers slows adoption of innovations.
Role of higher government: Inducements from higher government levels can speed up innovation diffusion, but may also create inflexibility.

Liberty or Unresponsiveness

Diversity and multiple decision centers in a large federal system:
- Limits the ability of any one group to exploit others.
- Provides bases for opposition if any one government fails to respect citizens' rights.
Potential for policy deadlock: Divergent groups may be unable to agree on a policy, with decision centers adopting conflicting programs.
Autonomy trade-offs: Reducing autonomy may reduce obstruction, but also limit a government's ability to protect citizens' rights.

Interjurisdictional Competition

Potential benefits: Interjurisdictional competition can stimulate innovation, efficiency, and responsiveness to public demands.
Voter comparisons: Voters compare costs and benefits with other jurisdictions.
Threats to officials: Losing jobs, investment, and affluent citizens may be more compelling than losing poor residents.
Potential for exclusion: Poor people may be effectively excluded from living in many localities.
Policy-making bias: Interjurisdictional competition may support policymaking bias against low-income groups.
Assigning income redistribution programs to the national government: Can partially resolve this dilemma.

The Problem of Size

Trade-off: Federal systems must choose between units large enough to marshal sufficient resources and units small enough to be amenable to citizen influence.
Small units: Easier for citizens to access and control, but lack resources.
Large units: Better resourced, but less accessible to smaller interest groups.

The Problem of Administration

Effects of federalism: Spreads administrative burden and reduces risk of overwhelming any one unit, but can also create coordination problems, duplication of effort, and a proliferation of regulations.
Trade-offs: Actions to improve performance in some respects may worsen performance in others. Policy makers should consider tradeoffs and consequences of action and inaction.

Managing Tradeoffs

Influence of change: Social, economic, technological, and political changes may alter the optimal tradeoffs of these dilemmas.
Impact of technology: The growth of computing and communication technologies require attention to new needs and redefined problems.
Midwest counties e-government:
- Lowatcharin and Menifield (2015) found minimal information on the websites of Midwest counties.
- Statistically, e-government access for citizens seemed to be more a function of education and population density.
Tradeoffs based on political beliefs and judgements: Emphasizing equality enhances the appeal of uniformity, while emphasizing individualism may increase the appeal of flexibility.
Beware of proposals: Permanent settlements are often poorly suited to impermanent conditions.

Where Should Power Rest?

Public officials' dilemma: Addressing controversial policy issues risks antagonizing voters and campaign contributors.
Subnational governments: Often want national action without giving up autonomy.
National grant system: May be too complex for smaller jurisdictions to comprehend, with the fault often placed on the national system.
Consolidation of small local governments: A possible solution, but it often provokes controversy and powerful opposition.

Restraint or Action?

Calls for self-restraint: National officials may claim that people expect them to address policy problems.
Strengthening state and local governments: Would reduce the need for citizens to petition the national government for assistance.
Fragmented government: Area wide problems will typically require state and/or national intervention.
Reduced national role: Many who clamor for a reduced national role would not support an expanded state and local role.
Strengthening state and local capacity: State and local officials might do well to devote more energy to enhancing state and local capacity.
State and local coordination: State and local officials must be willing to make controversial decisions and coordinate their activities with those of other states and localities.

Complexity of the Federal System

Difference between "complex" and "too complex": Judgments about whether the system is too complex cannot be made without reference to what people want or expect the system to do.
Altering the scope of conflict: Proposals to reduce national authority are proposals to alter the scope of conflict.
Opposition to excluding a level of government: Any proposals to exclude a level of government from a policy will encounter opposition.
Separation between levels of government: Are almost invariably proposals to reduce the influence of larger constituencies.
Appleby's discussion differentiating government from the business or nonprofit sectors: Because, in part, of its "breadth of scope, impact, and consideration" (2004, p. 34).
Separation of power: Conflicts with the interdependence of programs, but also the multiple levels of effects that many policies have.

Efforts to separate functions by level also encounter the problem discussed in Chapter 4.

Determining which level should handle each program: A number of key constitutional provisions are very vague.
Strict separation of levels of government: Severely weakens the redundancy feature that helps to protect citizen's rights and prevent unresponsiveness.

Future Prospects

Continued use of the system: People in and out of government will continue to use the system to pursue their policy goals.
Proposals to streamline the system: Can be expected to fail with regularity unless they increase the system's ability to pursue policy goals.
Changes based on individual policy needs: Often emerge gradually.
Camouflage in the language of federalism: Advocates and opponents of a policy will talk about theories of federalism when they are really talking about policies.
Evolving means of communication: Referendums and advisory measures occur with greater frequency at the state level.
Ely (2015, p. 99), in commenting upon advisory measures used in California, suggests that these opportunities for public participation, while not legally binding, offer "a highly visible venue to communicate public sentiment to other governments . . . [and] provide voters a sense of control."
Newer and older ideas: Proposals will be presented in ways to make old ideas look newer and new ideas look older.
Efforts by local governments: Local governments will continue to try and work together to reduce fragmentation, and most of the efforts to fail.
Grant inflexibility: State and local officials will continue to complain about national grant inflexibility and regulations.