The Lesson from the Modern American Federalism: A Challenge to Effective Public Policy Performance

Open access

Abstract

Contemporary U.S. federalism particularly since the late1960s has evolved over the course of pluralism alternating exercisable governmental powers between the federal and state governments. The complexity of the power relationship has been observed in a variety of policies during the past quarter-century as has the discussion of whether or not contemporary U.S. federalism has developed in a way that increase effective public policy performance. Focusing mainly on the period of the past 50 years of U.S. federalism history, this article suggests that federalism dynamics have not exercised either constant liberal or conservative influence on public policy performance. Instead, this article suggests that the clear functional responsibility between the federal government and state and local governments have characterized contemporary U.S. federalism-more federal responsibility for redistribution and more state and local responsibility for development, which in turn increased public policy performance. This feature has been quite substantial since 1970s. As a result, this article suggests that despite the increased complexity of the U.S. federal system, it has evolved in such an appropriate way that would increase the efficiency of federal system by dividing a clear intergovernmental responsibility on major policy platforms.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Baumgartner Frank R. and Jones Bryan D. 1993 Agendas and Instability in American Politics University of Chicago Press Chicago.

  • Beer Samuel H. 1973 ‘The modernization of American Federalism’ Publius III(2): 49-95.

  • Bohte John and Meier Kenneth J. 2000 ‘The Marble Cake: Introducing Federalism to the Government Growth Equation’ Publius XXX(3): 35-46.

  • Brace Paul 1993 State Government and Economic Performance The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore MD.

  • Brace Paul and Mucciaroni Gary 1990 ‘The American States and the Shifting Locus of Positive Economic Intervention’ Policy Studies Review X(1): 151-173.

  • Clovis Samuel Jr 2006 ‘Federalism Homeland Security and National Preparedness: A Study in the Development of Public Policy’ Homeland Security Affairs II(3): 1-24.

  • Conlan Timothy J. 2017 ‘The Changing Politics of American Federalism’ State and Local Government Review XLIX(3): 170-183.

  • Conlan Timothy J. and Dinan John 2007 ‘Federalism the Bush administration and the transformation of American conservatism’ Publius XXXVII: 279-303.

  • Dinan John 2006 ‘The State of American Federalism 2005: Federalism Resurfaces in the Political Debate’ Publius XXXVI(3): 327-374.

  • Dinan John 2008 ‘The state of American Federalism 2007-2008: Resurgent state influence in the national policy process and continued state policy innovation’ Publius XXXVIII(3): 381-415.

  • Eisinger Peter 1989 The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State University of Wisconsin Press Madison.

  • Eissa Nada and Hoynes Hilary 2011 ‘Redistribution and Tax Expenditures: The Earned Income Tax Credit’ National Tax Journal LXIV(2): 689-730.

  • Ellison Brian A. 1998 ‘Intergovernmental Relations and the Advocacy Coalition Framework: The Operation of Federalism in Denver Water Politics’ Publius XXVIII(4): 35-54.

  • Frey Bruno S. 2006 ‘How to deal with Terrorism’ The Economists’ Voice III(7): 1-4.

  • Friedman Leon 2000 ‘Supreme Court Federalism Decisions’ Touro Law Review XVI(2): 243-264.

  • Fry Earl H. 1998 The Expanding Role of State and Local Governments in U.S. Foreign Affairs Council on

  • Foreign Relations Press New York. Gamage David and Shanske Darien 2016 ‘The Federal Government’s Power to Restrict State Taxation’ State Tax Notes August. 15: 547-553.

  • Grodzins Morton 2007 ‘The Federal System’ in O’Toole Laurence J. (ed) American Intergovernmental Relations: Foundations Perspectives and Issues CQ Press Washington D.C. 54-63.

  • Harr J. Scott Hess Karen M. Orthmann Christine H. and Kingsbury Jonathon 2018 Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System (7th ed.) Cengage Learning Boston.

  • Kantor Paul 2010 ‘City futures: Politics Economic Crisis and the American Model of Urban Development’ Urban Research & Practice III(1): 1-11.

  • Kettl Donald F. 2003 ‘Contingent Coordination: Practical and Theoretical Puzzles for Homeland Security’ The American Review of Public Administration XXXIII(3): 253-277.

  • Kincaid John 2008 ‘Contemporary U.S. Federalism: Coercive Change with Cooperative Continuity’ REAF VI: 10-36.

  • Kingdon John W. 1984 Agendas Alternatives and Public Policy Little/Brown Boston.

  • Kline John M. ‘Continuing controversies over state and local foreign policy sanctions in the United States’ Publius XXIX(2): 111-134.

  • Krane Dale and Koening Heidi 2005 ‘State of American Federalism 2004: Is Federalism still a core value?’ Publius XXXV(1): 1-40.

  • Lindblom Charles E. 1959 ‘The science of muddling through’ Public Administration Review XIX(2): 79-88.

  • Lipsky Michael 2010 Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service The Russel Sage Foundation New York.

  • Lynn Laurence E. Jr. Heinrich Carolyn J. and Hill Carolyn J. 2000 ‘Studying Governance and Public Management: Challenges and Prospects’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory X(2): 233-262.

  • MaGuinn Patrick 2005 ‘The National Schoolmarm: No Child Left Behind and the New Educational Federalism’ Publius XXXV(1): 41-68.

  • Nathan Richard P. 2008 ‘Updating Theories of American Federalism’ in Conlan Timothy J. and Posner Paul L. (eds) Intergovernmental Management for the Twenty-First Century Brookings Institution Press Washington D.C.

  • Pagano Michael A. 2007 ‘In the eye of the beholder: The Dynamics of Federalism in National and Supranational Party Systems’ in Pagano Michael A. and Leonardi Robert. (eds) The Dynamics of Federalism in National and Supranational Political Systems Palgrave MacMillan New York 1-18.

  • Peterson Paul 1995 The Price of Federalism Brookings Institution Washington D.C.

  • Reynolds Glenn H. and Denning Brannon P. 2012 ‘National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: Five Takes’ Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly XL(4): 807-832.

  • Roberts Nancy C. (ed) 2008 The Age of Direct Citizen Participation Routledge New York.

  • Rockoff Hugh 1999 ‘World War II and the Growth of the U.S. Federal Government’ Japan and the World Economy XI: 245-262.

  • Rodden Jonathan 2004 ‘Comparative Federalism and Decentralization: On Meaning and Measurement’ Comparative Politics XXXVI(4): 481-500.

  • Sabatier Paul and Weible Christopher 2007 ‘The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications’ in Sabatier Paul (ed) Theories of the Policy Process Westview Press Boulder CO 189-220.

  • Schlesinger Arthur M. 1999 The Cycles of American History Houghton Mifflin New York.

  • Shah Anwar 2007 ‘Introduction: Principles of Fiscal Federalism’ in Shah Anwar (ed) The Practice of Fiscal Federalism: Comparative Perspectives McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal 3-42.

  • Stephens G. Ross and Wikstrom Nelson 2009 American Intergovernmental Relations: A Fragmented Federal Polity Oxford University Press New York. United States Department of Labor 2016 Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standard Act available at https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/wh1282.pdf.

  • Van Alstyne William 1987 ‘Federalism Congress the States and the Tenth Amendment: Adrift in the Cellophane Sea’ Duke Law Journal Vol. 1987(5): 769-799.

  • Walker David B. 2000 The Rebirth of Federalism Chatham House Publishers Chatham NJ.

  • Wibbels Erik 2006 ‘Madison in Baghdad? Decentralization and Federalism in Comparative Politics’ Annual Review of Political Science IX: 165-188.

  • Wright Deil. 1988. Understanding Intergovernmental Relations Brooks/Cole Monterey CA.

  • Zimmerman Joseph F. 2008 Contemporary American Federalism State University of New York Press Albany NY.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.04

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.105
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.03

Target audience: researchers, academics, practitioners interested in the field of political, economic and legal issues in federal states, regional organizations, and international organizations at global level
Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 929 728 67
PDF Downloads 707 522 28