In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

131 8 REFORM IN FEDERALISM AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS If there are truly unique aspects in the American political system, it may well be said that they lie imbedded in the ways and means of American federalism. Indeed, the creation of a viable and lasting federal system of government is probably the most unique American contribution to the political art. Throughout the history of human society, the problem of reconciling the virtues of local control with the need for centralized powers has troubled politicians and philosophers. . . . American federalism has been able to combine strength at the center with local control and reasonably uniform national progress with opportunities for local diversity. Herein lies the system’s greatness. Unfortunately the values of federalism, like all values, are difficult to measure. Daniel J. Elazar, The American Partnership IT IS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL TO FIND A DISCUSSION OF FEDERALISM AND intergovernmental relations (IGR) included as one of the topics in the management reform portfolio. But the debate over these issues illustrates a number of the elements that are found in other reform issues and discussed in this book. Many of the scholars who focus on federalism and IGR tend to downplay the management aspects of federalism and intergovernmental relations and, instead, emphasize such topics as fiscal patterns, structure of government, and constitutional requirements and legal limitations.1 While all of these topics clearly influence management behaviors and expectations, efforts to change existing patterns have been included only on the periphery of the management reform agenda. Indeed, discussion about federalism is most often posed in normative terms that emphasize politics and policy. The addition of the concept of IGR—and intergovernmental management— does create a bridge to the management literature as it emphasizes description and management concerns. This chapter reviews a number of initiatives since the 1950s that sought to change the way that the United States conceptualized the role of the federal government in the intergovernmental system. During this period, states have become more direct players in the federal system as they became the implementers of national policy and had authority to exert varying levels of discretion over the national requirements.2 The US structure of federalism, combined with the national structure of shared powers between executive, legislative, and judicial institutions, provides a unique setting for the United 132 Chapter 8 States. This chapter discusses the mechanisms that have been devised both as stand-alone strategies and included in broader efforts such as the National Performance Review. It gives attention to the roles of both the White House (especially OMB) and Congress in this area and the techniques that have been used to deal with issues involving conflict between levels of government. An Area of Constant Debate Few concepts involving federal management are clear, as has been illustrated in earlier chapters. But the debate over federalism and IGR is, perhaps, the least clear of all. It is conducted using different vocabularies and disciplines and directly confronts divisive issues such as those involving race that have emerged from the US Civil War experience. Economists and public choice advocates join constitutional scholars to frame the discussion and are not particularly interested in the details of management systems and behaviors beyond the transfer of money or formal legal requirements. And because ideological differences are close to the surface in discussions about the US federal system (dealing with race and states’ rights as well as the appropriate role of the public sector writ large), many of the scholars in the field have been attracted to analyses that focus on the system as a single entity. As a result, the academic literature exhibits a tendency to look at the system as a whole and to characterize approaches in a government-wide and broad-brush fashion. And both analysts and policymakers have been attracted to efficiency arguments and clarity about sorting out the roles of the multiple jurisdictional levels. In that sense, the federalism reform efforts mirror a number of the other initiatives already described in this book. For example, efforts to sort out the appropriate roles of the levels of government are analogous to the differentiation between the public and private sectors. Like that debate, that approach doesn’t get very far. Rhetoric abounds and efforts to determine what is the proper role of each level of government rarely result in the kind of action envisioned by their proponents. This occurs largely because of the fragmented nature of the US system, which limits the ability of reform...

Share