Search

Abstract OLD STANDARDS AND NEW PRACTICES OF GOVERNING: FEDERALISM AND RIGHTS PARADIGMS AND THE RISK-MANAGEMENT REGIME This paper will address the questions: Is American politics undergoing changes in its constitution and practice? If so, what is the nature of the new constitutional structure and administrative practices for governing America? How has the judiciary reacted to the new constitution and administrative practices? The thesis of the paper is that the Supreme Court?s current federalism and rights interpretive paradigms developed for the Progressive and New Deal ways of governing the American regime. These paradigms addressed the problems of the proper allocation of governmental police power and individuals? rights when federal and state governmental exercise powers primarily use regulation to suppress social and economic misbehavior. However, as reconstituted by the New Right, more and more frequently federal and state governments have sought to manage future behavior of populations and contain sociopolitical risks through policies such as warning labels, public notification of the risks posed by released offenders, the surveillance and detention of ?risky? persons, and the devolution of governmental functions to the private sector. Using U. S. Supreme Court opinions, the paper will argue that though the justices clings to traditional modes of constitutional federalism and rights discourse, they have granted legitimacy to changes in governing that forward the reconstitution of the American regime as a risk prevention and risk management regime in which governing is shared with corporations and risk-bearing individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is part of a larger project considering the impact that the doctrine of state sovereign immunity has for all involved, both states and those who are denied relief. What happens when courts no longer provide an avenue for relief against the government? In this paper, I explore the implications of sovereign immunity by examining the consequences of six recent Supreme Court cases. The cases involve issues ranging from gambling to disabilities law and provide a sense of the varying types of responses. I find that when sovereign immunity is invoked in cases against groups or individuals with resources and political capital, the plaintiffs resort to alternate political means to achieve their ends, often at the cost of the states. Sovereign immunity is an effective defense for states only against those who lack resources or political capital- precisely those groups most in need of access to the courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Rehnquist Court’s federalism decisions have sparked contentious debates over the proper role of the Court in policing the boundaries between the federal government and state and local governments. In an attempt to better explain the current federalism revival in the Court, this paper examines the different scholarly debates among academic lawyers and political scientists. The first part of this paper reviews the main normative jurisprudential debate, ‘judicial safeguards’ versus ‘political safeguards,’ over the proper role of the Court in federalism matters within the legal academy. The second part of the paper then examines the more historical-empirical ‘political regimes’ approach for understanding Supreme Court decisions within political science. Although we argue that the political regimes theoretical framework provides the best overall explanation of the Rehnquist Court’s foray into federalism, the third part of the paper explores the connections between the political regime explanation of the Court’s federalism and the major jurisprudential theories. We argue that the Court’s recent federalism jurisprudence reflects both consensus and divisions within the current political regime - consensus that federalism is an important value, but divisions over how best to protect that value. The final part of the paper then shows how the normative divide in the legal academy reflects important divisions in the political regime. Thus, this paper highlights what special insights political scientists bring to the subject, but also demonstrates how the two approaches can be usefully combined to provide a more robust understanding of the Court’s role in the American political system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops a computational model to expand the theory of veto players into the realm of presidential regimes. We bridge two strands in the study of comparative institutions: the work on veto players in parliamentary systems and the analysis of executive-legislative relations under presidentialism. In the first part of the paper we introduce the basic concepts and outline the setup for the analysis. Section two explores the relationship between the legislative powers of the president and the configuration of veto players in presidential regimes. Section three discusses how the number of legislative parties and their internal cohesion affect policy stability. In the fourth section, we develop a computational model to estimate the simultaneous impact of these factors in a conventional two-dimensional policy space. The results suggest that constitutional decree authority is a key factor explaining policy stability in presidential regimes, and that the impact of most institutional variables is conditional on the policy position of the key players. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: This paper is part of a larger project on agenda setting in the American federal system and the development of the federal education agenda since 1965. Two questions motivate this paper, one theoretical and the other empirical. First, how does federalism affect the federal agenda? And second, what explains the development of federal involvement in K-12 education policy since the passage in 1965 of the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act? The paper links concepts from the literatures on agenda setting and federalism to develop a theory that explains how policy entrepreneurs across levels of government interact and affect one another's agendas. The analysis presented here examines how in the United States, a nation historically wedded to local control of education, the federal government has significantly expanded its role in the nation's schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Upon taking the oath of office in January 2001, President George W. Bush pledged to strongly promote faith-based initiatives, a set of proposals that would allow the federal government to more directly fund and otherwise promote the social service work of intensely and overtly religious organizations. Much of that promotion has taken place in the administrative arena of the executive branch. However, President Bush and members of his administration have sought to promote faith-based initiatives in the judicial and legislative branches as well. This paper focuses on one branch of the legislature, the House of Representatives, and its consideration in early and mid-2001 of H.R. 7, the legislative vehicle that included, among other items, major portions of the President’s faith-based initiative. The paper is largely a narrative of the House legislative journey of H.R. 7, and ends with an assessment of the policy and political implications of its path. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our paper offers a possible, partial explanation for the continued operation and ultimate survival of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and direct federal support for the arts in the 1990s: political institutionalization. The thesis of our paper is that during the 1990s an "advocacy coalition" (see Sabatier, 1993) consisting of the NEA and the state art agencies (SAASs) emerged from the institutional environment of American cooperative federalism (e.g., Elazar, 1964) and "marble-cake" intergovernmental relations (e.g., Grodzins, 1993). The advocacy coalition of the NEA and the SAAs formed around a deeply shared and embedded belief in the appropriateness of federal support for the arts in the U.S. and the necessity of the federal-state partnership in its provision. Drawing on Meyer's General Institutional Model for organizational analysis (Meyer, 1994) and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith's Advocacy Coalition Framework for policy analysis (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993), we develop the Institutionalized Political Organization (IPO) model to demonstrate how the emergence of the NEA-SAA advocacy coalition had the primary consequence of institutionalizing federal support for the arts in the U.S. Thus, our proposed paper suggests that the political institutionalization of federal support for the arts in the U.S. provided a resilient and stable political environment that shielded the NEA from congressional threats and enabled American arts policy to continue to operate in and ultimately survive the 1990s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seeing a dim possibility of ESEA reauthorization in the near future, the Obama Administration invited state applications for waivers in meeting the original No Child Left Behind goals of attaining 100% student proficiency by 2014. Waiver applications were also required to meet the federal assurances on state and local education reform. By June 2014, about 80% of all states received federal approval on their NCLB/ESEA waivers. As the ESEA flexibility waiver has been in placed in many states for 2-3 years, this paper aims at understanding the state implementation of ESEA flexibility waiver requests. First, we discuss the ESEA waiver in the context of the Obama Administration's education reform agenda. We argue that ESEA flexibility waiver, as a policy design, aligns with the administration's efforts to incentivize state agencies to meet federal expectations on systemic improvement, including the implementation of evaluation systems on teachers and principals and a differentiated approach to support low performing schools. Second, the paper highlights the 18 key elements that the federal government requires states to demonstrate progress in exchange for ESEA flexibility. We then examine the extent to which these federal expectations are met by the state, using data from the U.S. Department of Education's state-by-state reports on "ESEA Flexibility Part B Monitoring Report" for a sample of 16 states. In addition to the overall patterns, our sample of 16 states offers an opportunity to consider interstate variation in their waiver implementation. In particular, we are interested in the extent to which state governance (divided versus unified) and academic performance may have affected the degree of waiver implementation. The concluding section provides several observations on the policy and politics of ESEA flexibility waiver. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A conference paper about bargaining and governance in multiparty presidential regimes is presented. It develops a formal model of bargaining and exchange in multiparty presidential regimes that considers political transfers, monetary transfers, and policy concessions. It examines the exchange mechanisms in presidential regimes by discussing the two-party case of the U.S. as a point of comparison and Brazil as an exemplar of the multiparty situation.

This paper tests whether the state-centered model of political involvement, as developed in research on citizens'experiences with key federal government programs, applies to city governments' efforts to empower neighborhood-based participation. Drawing upon survey data for 29 cities from Putnam's Social Capital Benchmark Survey in 2000, U.S. Census data and content analysis of each of the 29 cities' newspapers for 1999, the paper tests for the impacts of both empowerment and reactionary mobilization, while controlling for key demographic predictors, city size, and institutional arrangements of city government. The key results show that (a) rates of neighborhood association involvement are higher in cities with larger black populations and that (b) higher levels of neighborhood empowerment by city governments' have the perverse effect of depressing rates of neighborhood association involvement. An interpretation of this result as a manifestation of free-rider logic is introduced. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the relationship between the federal government and the state and local governments in the time period 2001 - 2005 using the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina as endpoints. The paper shows that some of the poor fedreal response to Hurricane Katrina could have been predicted by information in the ICMA Homeland Security Survey conducted in spring 2005. The paper concludes with a series of propositions about the current state of federalism in the field of homeland security police. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has historically provided grant-in-aid funding to states and municipalities for the benefit of America's poorest neighborhoods. This paper evaluates the effect of policy making at the federal level from the perspective of local grant administrators who are responsible for implementing the policies and programs. The paper presents results of a national survey of grant entitlement cities in 19 U.S. states to identify local grant recipients' perceptions regarding 1)federal-local relations, 2) local program implementation, and 3) performance measurements required by HUD. Results illustrate that there are cooperative characteristics in the federal-local grant relationship. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses two important questions about the nature of psychological value trade-offs. First, I examine the impact of perceptions of threat on the American public?s support of civil liberties. Unlike other studies, I explore support for civil liberties both as abstract principles and in the context of national security. Second, this study analyzes the role of trade-offs between civil liberties and national security in shaping public policy preferences. To examine these issues empirically, I use data from two national public opinion surveys conducted in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack. I find that, while perceptions of national and personal threat were associated with an increased willingness to trade off civil liberties for greater national security, they had no impact on abstract notions of civil liberties. Moreover, perceptions of threat were weak predictors of the public?s preferences for increased defense spending, anti-terrorism packages, and more restrictive immigration policies. Once a trade-off between values of civil liberties and national security was introduced, the impact of perceptions of threat was channeled through these values. The implications of these findings on the study of value trade-offs in public opinion are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federalism and Foreign Affairs in 1960s Civil Rights Reform Mary L. Dudziak University of Southern California Law School This essay argues that a central issue in the history of federalism in the United States in the 20th century was the role of the U.S. in world politics, and the impact of international affairs on domestic constitutional development. The essay examines this issue through the example of the impact of international affairs on federalism in the civil rights context in the 1960s, focusing on arguments about foreign affairs in the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The historical record illustrates that one of the reasons President Kennedy supported a civil rights bill in 1963, and Congress passed it in 1964, was that race discrimination harmed the image of the U.S. in the world, which harmed U.S. foreign relations. In the context of the Cold War, perceived as a battle for the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world, the U.S. international image was thought to have great repercussions for U.S. national security. The paper does not argue that Congress explicitly drew upon foreign affairs powers in passing the Civil Rights Act. Instead it suggests that national security was part of the calculus when Congress weighed the importance of the national interests at stake in civil rights reform, and that assessment of the national interest must be kept in mind when examining the impact of civil rights reform on federalism. The impact of national security on federalism and the scope of federal power was not a new issue in the 1960s, for national security considerations underlay the virtual elimination of federalism as a limit on the Commerce Power during World War II. In these and other contexts, international affairs influenced the trajectory of federalism in 20th century American constitutional history. In this context and elsewhere, there is an international history to the story of ?domestic? American law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of federal reorganization provide an incomplete perspective on its implications for intergovernmental relations and by extension the role of the states in U.S. national policy. The literature reflects persistent theoretical and practical debates over how best to characterize the U.S. federalist system. From these debates emerge normative and empirical arguments that serve to bring into focus the fundamental role of "states’ sovereignty" in influencing U.S. national public health policy and practice. This paper presents a preliminary case study of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, with particular focus on Section 505, which governs the health and human services’ components of national counter bioterrorism policy. The goal is to illustrate through the prism of theory and public administration praxis ? how the U.S. public health system exemplifies the basic tenets of collaborative federalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal prosecutions of state and local officials for political corruption are a significant feature of the American political landscape. However, they raise serious federalism questions, especially the potential impact on state autonomy and sovereignty. Thus, these prosecutions would seem to run counter to the Supreme Court?s ?New Federalism.? The Court has never explored the issue in depth. Last term it handed down a decision highly favorable to the federal role in the case of Sabri v. United States. This paper examines Sabri, and questions the rationale that the prosecution in that case was an example of justifiable protection of federal funds. The article offers an alternative perspective, namely, that the Court was anxious to further the anti-corruption imperative demonstrated in McConnell (the Campaign Finance Reform case). The article concludes with possible alternative rationales for a strong federal role in overseeing state and local governments and for a general anti-corruption statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How, precisely, does governance matter for the production of state education policy? In this paper I explore that question using the analytical framework described in Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill (2000; 2001) and Hill (2004). Specifically, I study how variation in state governing arrangements and other relevant factors influence the quality of state policies in two important areas: standards and accountability, and teachers. The analysis relies on a panel dataset of the American states from 1997-2004. Overall, I argue that the institutional links between governors, state boards, and chief state school officers, the fiscal federalism of education, and state political environments noticeably influence the quality of state policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers detailed instructions for using role-playing techniques to teach introductory American Government courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EU is a unique type of polity. It is neither a federation nor a state. It has achieved a high degree of integration during its history, but it is still a process, which meets different challenges. The actual institutional and constitutional structure of the EU does not allow it to always cope with the challenges. That is why it needs a change. The EU could take some lessons from successful federations and adapt them to its reality. The USA dual type of federalism is one example. The EU has already a significant number of federal features. However, it still needs reforms in order to function with the new enlargement. The objective of this paper is to see what the EU can learn from the dual American type of federalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the U.S. federal system, each state is a rival of and an ally to other states. The equilibrium established among the states is subject to disruption as the result of competition and cooperation. In pursuit of its self-interest, a state will compete and cooperate with other states. This paper examines both behaviors, using an original data set including interstate compacts, joint legal actions, economic development competition, and interstate lawsuits. The research finds that the interstate equilibrium established during the 1990s tended to be more cooperative than competitive. Further, the states themselves vary in terms of how cooperative or competitive they are. Finally, states with higher levels of government capability interact more with other states than those with less capable governments do. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the relationship among the three branches of the U.S. federal government is critical to understanding our political system. This paper focuses upon the relationship between the judicial and the executive branches. We attempt to provide significant new information related to the nexus between these two branches. Our primary interests revolve around issues of political power, influence, and decision-making. For example, do Supreme Court justices show deference towards the Solicitor General? Are their votes congruent with the positions taken by the Solicitor General?s office? Are certain justices more likely to show support for the executive branch? Is this related to political party? Do issue or policy areas affect the level of support by the justices? Has there been any changes or trends, overtime, in terms of this inter-branch interaction? We will try to advance our knowledge about this relationship by examining cases which included an amicus curiae brief filed by the Solicitor General?s office between 1953-2000. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The essay reviews the principal events and trends affecting American federalism from 2001 to mid-2002. The first part of the essay details intergovernmental efforts to provide homeland security. The second section describes the interplay betwen federal policy makers and state and local government officials in education, welfare reform, and health care policy areas. The third section of the paper reviews the current state government fiscal crisis as well as state government policy actions taken independently of Washington, DC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our understanding of the dynamics of judicial lobbying and the strategy of the participants in that activity is limited to research that examines the role played by judges, in an individual or occasional collective effort. The significance of this study lies in its unique focus on the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) as a strategic judicial actor in contemporary lobbying before Congress. No research to date systematically treats the liaison role played by this support unit of the Judicial Conference in particular and the federal courts in general. The research draws from previously untapped AO correspondence files, private paper collections, and personal interviews with key personnel, sources that provide fresh insights into the dynamics of judicial lobbying. This study focuses on the five contemporary initiatives adopted by the AO and pursued by its legislative affairs office. It looks in some depth at the issue of courthouse construction because it bears directly on the internal management of the federal courts, uniquely involves both the legislative and executive branches of the national government, and in many ways was the centerpiece of the Conference and AO legislative agenda in the 1990s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Rehnquist Court's recent federalism decisions raise two related questions. First, has the Court been a maverick among political institutions in its attempts to limit federal power and enhance state sovereignty, or has its actions coincided with broader political trends? Second, what impact have the Court's decisions actually had on the balance of federal-state power, and consequently what are we to conclude about the role of judicial review in the federalism debate? We explore theoretcial debates over the proper role of the Supreme Court over federalism matters. Empirically, the paper examines the extent to which the Court’s decisions have run counter to majoritarian politics versus the extent to which the Rehnquist Court has simply followed political and policy developments. We show that the Court has not led a "federalism revolution," but rather, it has followed national political trends. In short, we illustrate how the elected branches of government have paid increasing attention to federalism issues over the past thirty years. We will review how control over public policy has devolved to states in key policy areas and how federalism issues have been part of campaign rhetoric and party platforms prior to the 1990s; additionally, we document how the rise of interest groups representing state, municipal and local governments has increasingly influenced federal-state relations and the legislative agenda in Congress. Thus, we argue that these trends began well before the Rehnquist Court began handing down its federalism decisions. Of course, the normative implications of the empirical findings are still the subject of an important debate in the field. Proponents of the political safeguards theory may argue that such evidence supports the argument that the states can protect themselves in the political sphere, while those in favor of maintaining judicial safeguards can argue that the Court is simply one institution among many involved in a Fisheresque "constitutional dialogue." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a research paper which focuses on the presence of meaningful and measurable values regarding equality, freedom and limited government in the American culture, and how people's multidimensional attitude may cause instability in their values. It uses data from the National Election Studies for the years 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

In the past few years, scholars in Political Science and American Indian Studies have identified a change in the relationship between Indian nations, the United States Government and state governments across the country. This important, and expanding, relationship in public policy making focuses on the devolution of public policy decisions from the federal/tribal level to an expanded state/tribal relationship (Corntassel and Witmer 2008, Steinman 2004). This paper first touches on the transition to the Forced Federalism era, beginning with the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). Second, we identify the types of legislation proposed and passed in the American states during this new era. Third, we consider a number of possible explanations for legislative activity including institutional, constituent, state/tribal relations and state political measures. Our findings suggest that states with an established institutional structure in their legislative and executive branches are more likely to propose and pass American Indian related legislation. Similar findings for constituent measures were evident, namely that the size and percentage of the population that is American Indian. Other explanatory factors such as whether a gaming compact had been signed, state political ideology, initiative and unified government were less likely to increase the number of proposed and passed legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to understand how political ambition plays out in a federal system in which incumbency does not exist because of the constitutional prohibition against consecutive reelection. Using a unique dataset of the career paths of over 1,400 federal deputies, both before and after reaching the Chamber of Deputies, we estimate the impact of personal attributes, institutional and partisan constraints on their career choices. Our evidence indicates that Mexico's federal system leads many professional politicians to begin their political careers in the local and state political arenas before becoming federal deputies, and eventually return to their states when the single three-year legislative term expires. Comparatively, Mexican political careers (constrained by the nation's formal rules and informal relations) look much more like those of Argentina and Brazil, and less like those of the United States. This finding has important implications for Mexico's consolidating democracy, in that powerful governors control many of the resources that matter to ambitious politicians from all political parties. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents an inventory of congressional acts facilitating state criminal law enforcement, draws conclusions relative to the value of the acts to the states and local governments, and briefly suggests a broader theory of United States federalism than the current dual and cooperation theories. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines public attitudes about the allocation of powers within the American federalist system. Previous research has shown that public perceptions of the responsibilities and performance of specific levels of government are weakly held and often inconsistent. This analysis focuses on beliefs about the strength of the federal government in order to disentangle the influence of long-term, generalized attitudes from more immediate responses to political institutions. On the whole, I find that Americans' perceptions of federal power are largely determined by their orientation toward government itself. Short-term assessments of political leaders also help to shape opinion about the scope of federal authority; people are less critical of federal power when they have a positive affect toward current political leaders. Finally, I show that racial prejudice no longer is an important factor shaping attitudes about federal government power. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper (1) assesses the adequacy of the theories of dual federalism, cooperative federalism, and coercive federalism in explaining the continuing metamorphous of national-state relations caused by preemption statutes, (2) calls for a broader theory of national-state relations in the dynamic United States federal system by emphasizing the failure of the existing theories to explain the unplanned, kaleidoscopic transformation of such relations by congressional preemption statutes since 1965, and (3) contains recommendations addressed to Congress, the President, Governors, and State Legislatures to improve the regulatory processes of the economic union and the political union. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal research regulation policy in the United States, through the mechanism of local Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), developed in response to a history of abuses of research subjects by medical researchers conducting experimental research. Its particular policy history and implementation design have made IRB policy problematic for social science research. But more than that, its origins in experimental research design creates difficulties for one specific subgroup of social scientists - ethnographers and others following field research designs. These implicit methodological assumptions and presuppositions frame policy procedures. Policy recommendations to clarify policy statements do not, and cannot, address these difficulties. Elucidating what they are is the focus of our paper. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FEDERALISM AND HEALTH CARE: THE CASE OF WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CAREMarian Lief PalleyUniversity of DelawareBy its very nature, a federal structure has the seeds of public policy fragmentation built into it. It has been argued that variability in policy development and implementation can lead to program experimentation and innovation. In fact some scholars argue that important national policies depend heavily on state implementation. Moreover, states do much to shape policy and set the parameters for local implementation of policy. Scholars also point to the fact that states have always played a prominent role in American politics. They initiate programs and they play a central role in the intergovernmental nexus. Despite the growth of the national government and an increased role by the national government in setting public policy in a broad array of policy areas, states' responsibilities have grown in the past 3 decades and there is more "state-centered" policymaking than there was in the past.Agranoff and McGuire have identified four models of management in the U.S. intergovernmental system. These are, the top-down model, the donor-recipient model, the jurisdiction-based model and the network model. The network model focuses attention on the actions of multiple governmental and non-governmental players as they pursue joint action and intergovernmental adjustments. There are several programmatic effects that can occur in this type of system, and one of them is fragmentation.Moreover, fragmentation is likely to be the by-product of a system that is not following a top-down approach. It can also be argued that a federal structure that relies on states to shape policy can lead to "horizontal inequity" - that is geographic inequities, and "vertical inadequacy" - that is unequal quality of services. This is not to say that public policies must be fragmented in a federal system. However, the potential for fragmentation is present and without a focused national policy that follows a top-down approach, fragmentation will likely result. Development of non-fragmented policies are certainly possible in a federal system and in many instances desirable. For example, the Social Security Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program is a national program that adheres to a top-down model of management and thus has national administration and nationally determined contributions and benefits.The development and the delivery of health care services is a policy area that is rooted in localism and in our federal system, and it is fragmented. Fragmentation of the health care delivery system is the reality despite the fact that there are numerous federal programs and a multitude of federal regulations. The obvious question one should ask is WHY? That is, why is the OASDI program a centrally controlled program without the problems associated with fragmentation and health care delivery wrought with problems associated with federalism run amuck and its associated fragmentation? In this paper one example of health care fragmentation, women's reproductive heath care, will be considered and the effects of this condition will be assessed. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Checks and balances" is the concept under the microscope in this paper. The thesis advanced is that U.S. federalism balances the nation's political system; however, as the years have gone by, it has become less of a checking instrument. It was generally true in the nineteenth century that the conventional textbook idea of checking power was operative. The theory of dual federalism that there is a division of responsibilities between the national government and the states was strongly manifest, for example, in presidential actions (vetoes in some instances and a lack of initiatives in others) and in Supreme Court decisions that prohibited national government incursions into certain (mostly domestic) policy domains on the grounds that such actions would invade state sovereignty. John Tyler was the first President to use the veto for the purpose "of maintaining the structural division of authority between the states and the federal government. He vetoed two national bank bills (1841) and two provisional tariff bills (1842), which Tyler believed would produce a chain reaction that would obscure the line between state and federal power; he also vetoed a bill to appropriate $340,000 for improvements to eastern harbors (1844), which Tyler viewed as outside the bounds of the congressional commerce power and thus a threat to state sovereignty." But that was then. What about now? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper approaches the issue of the role of urbanization in American political development from a comparative-historical perspective. By comparing the role of urbanization in Canadian political development with that of the United States, we gain valuable new insight into the different roles cities can and do play in the erection of jurisdictional power between national and sub-national political domains. As centers of economic and political activity, cities play a crucial - but variable - role in national networks of prominence and power. Historically, this resulted in a disproportionate role for urban elites in Canadian and American national development. Given the incremental, local nature of 19th century American state formation, the current provincial-federal relationship in Canada might at first appear surprising, for example. The origins, and ultimate failure of, the American "states' rights" movement is equally surprising. The United States is both a less "urban" and more politically centralized society than Canada. Its origins, too, lie in the past. When Congress "nationalized" the near-west (trans-Appalachia), federal government took jurisdictional reign over what would be the majority of the nation's new state governments. American municipal governments were similarly subjugated to state jurisdiction, often via the Army and state guards. In Canada, city dwellers were both more powerful and their city governments were more autonomous in the scope and size of programs under their purview. In America, in sum, rural constituents exert inordinate power at the federal level via Congress, and particularly the Senate; Canadian federal government is more beholden to the provincial governments, which serve largely at the behest of their urban constituents. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Executive federalism emphasizes collaboration between the executive branches at the national and state levels to transform grant programs through the implementation process. In this regard, federal waivers proved particularly pivotal during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Geo rge W. Bush. This paper uses the case of Medicaid demonstration waivers to assess issues of policy performance and democratic process under executive federalism. We conclude that in key respects these waivers fostered implementation success, though are unlikely to yield a major solution to the problem of the uninsured and have limitations as vehicles for policy learning. In a broader context, the waivers helped preserve Medicaid by undercutting support for those seeking to convert the program into a block grant.From the perspective of democratic process, we find that congress has been a more significant player in shaping waivers than the executive federalism model suggests. While the decision processes surrounding Medicaid waivers often fall short of democratic standards with respect to transparency and opportunities for public input, they still compare favorably to certain alternatives. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the evolution of American climate change policy from a set of individual state actions toward more of a regional approach that involves varying degrees of multi-state collaboration. It focuses in particular detail upon the challenge of setting up a regional cap-and-trade emissions control system for carbon, in the absence of active engagement by the federal government. This analysis examines the viability of regional strategies for climate policy and other areas of environmental policy and offers preliminary comparison between the American experience and that of other federal systems of governance. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A conference paper about the U.S. history is presented. It discusses the difference between U.S. nationalism and imperialism. It shows that the concept of union must be included in the examination of the past of the U.S. because nationalism and imperialism left out the country's political development. It explains why union was used to deal with the development of U.S. politics, instead of federalism and internationalism.

The article investigates the writings of Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S., and former U.S. President James Madison in the "Federalist Papers" and discovers that both advocated judicial safeguards as the frontline defense in the protection of federalism. They knew that public loyalty to the states, the primary political safeguard of federalism, could fairly easily under the right conditions, be turned to strong public support for the national government thereby removing the primary political safeguard and undermining federalism.

In this paper I explain when politicization occurs in the U.S. federal government, focusing on the tradeoff between political control and bureaucratic competence. I analyze data on the percentage of political appointments among managers in 250 federal agencies over the 1988-2004 period. I show that politicization is neither increasing steadily over time nor caused by the actions of Republican presidents. Politicization increases when agency preferences diverge from those of the president and when agency outputs are relatively insensitive to changes in politicization such as when agency tasks are uncomplicated or when outside wages available to career managers are low. Politicization also increases during periods when Congress and the president share similar policy preferences. I conclude that politicization occurs in regular and predictable patterns and that understanding these patterns are essential for an understanding of American politics, public management, and the policy process. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A conference paper about the state of federalism in the U.S. in 2004 is presented. It is noted that neither political party in the 2004 presidential elections devoted any attention to questions of federalism. The U.S. was engaged in a global war on terrorism, and it influenced much of the ensuing debate between incumbent President George W. Bush and his challenger. It is added that the indifference of Bush to federal matters is striking when contrasted to other recent presidents who also were state governors.

How national governments interface with the IT industry can have an important influence upon the delivery of government IT projects, which in most advanced industrial countries will account for at least 1 per cent of GDP. Looking across seven countries (the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands and Japan) we characterize the power of the IT industry in terms of three variables: patterns of contractual relations, the largest firms? market and technical dominance, and the extent to which government retains IT expertise or ?intelligent customer? capabilities. We assess the performance of government IT in terms of three factors: the extent of catastrophic project failures or cancellations, indications of the price competitiveness of government IT contracts, and the relative modernization of government IT compared with the private sector nationally. Using a ?fuzzy-set social science? approach we argue that an overall index of corporate power viz a viz central governments shows a clear negative association with government IT performance. Where governments are weakly placed in relation to powerful IT corporations, long-run performance outcomes are less satisfactory. Our cases also illuminate the different ways in which governments can ensure and maintain more balanced relationships with the IT industry, which in turn will foster better long-run results in the design and operations of government IT systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Content analysis of 6,480 front page stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post that deal with the federal government in 1981, 1993, and 2001 reveals a clear focus on the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. Capitol Hill is treated more negatively than the White House during these three years. The content analysis also reveals some evidence of partisan disparities in Congressional coverage, particularly for the New York Times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress’s increased use of its complete and partial preemption powers to remove regulatory authority from subnational governments has produced revolutionary changes in the federal system, including subnational governmetns seeking to persuade Congress to provide relief from burdensome mandates and restraints. Federalism theory has not kept pace with the changes in the system produced by preemption. Nine postulates of a more general theory of federalism?containing dual, cooperative, and preemptive elements?are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issues of government responsiveness to the disadvantaged possess important implications for American democracy. Any such responsiveness in part flows from the formal policies that political principals adopt and promulgate. But it also emanates from the behavior of administrative agents during the implementation process. In this regard, means-tested social programs provide one important focus in efforts to develop a better theory of administrative responsiveness to the disadvantaged (ARD). This study focuses on two means-tested programs in the context of American federalism, Medicaid and the State Children?s Health Insurance Program. We develop an ARD index based on the degree to which states have adopted marketing and enrollment practices that seem likely to facilitate greater take-up rates for uninsured children. Evidence from 17 states suggests that the preferences of a major political principal, governors, accounts for considerable variation in ARD. But factors in the task environment of administrative agents related to race and problem acuity also condition responsiveness to the disadvantaged. Comparing our findings to those of other studies, this analysis concludes that the level and sources of ARD seem likely to vary considerably depending on the substantive policy domain (e.g., health versus cash assistance) and the target group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent federalism cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court indicate that an increasingly central preoccupation of the Court?s current conservative majority is a reconsideration of the theory of federalism taken for granted since the New Deal. Despite the fact that the concept of sovereignty fell out of favor in political science under the impact of the behavioral movement and in legal theory under the impact of H.L.A. Hart’s critique in The Concept of Law, both in the late 1950s, it was one of the central issues of politics at the time of the American founding and thus necessary to the theoretical coherence of the concept of federalism. The hypothesis I wish to explore is that the concept of sovereignty confuses our consideration of the theory of federalism and yet, paradoxically, provides the only possible path to a coherent account of that theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The historiography on the relation between slavery and American political development has shifted markedly in the last ten years to show how much the federal government was implicated in the continued existence of slavery during the 1789-1861 period (Fehrenbacher 2001). But we still lack any quantification of that relationship. In this exploratory study, I attempt to rectify that shortcoming by showing how much the federal government spent on such slavery-related items as interdicting illegal slave trading, subsidizing African colonization, and enforcing fugitive-slave law. The many financial connections between the federal government and slavery provide a more concrete picture of the way the two institutions were entangled together. They also suggest that slavery had a positive impact on the development of the early American state. This finding ?amends? studies that argue it had a negative impact (Einhorn 2000) as well as studies that argue the early American state was ?weak? (Benzel 1990). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on American federalism. Financial crisis faced by American state governments since the 1930s Depression; Occurrence of divided government in state governments in the U.S.; Role of the federal aid in the recovery of American state governments.

Presents research which investigated the emergence of protective federalism in the U.S. in 2003. Importance of federal system to the challenges posed by the threat of terrorism to the nation; Contribution of protective federalism to the national security in the country; Risks associated with the implementation of the political change.

For the most part, presidential Cabinet scholars have adequately addressed the issue of neatly categorizing both the Cabinet construction process as well as providing a taxonomy of the structures that Cabinets may take on once assembled. What is missing, however, is a workable categorization of Cabinet function. Through an in-depth review of qualitative historical data from the administration of George Washington through that of Bill Clinton, the findings here suggest that Cabinets can be adequately divided along functional lines by their primary use as either administrative or advisory bodies. It is also concluded that the trend in the modern era towards presidents using their Cabinets as administrative arms is expected to continue, due primarily to increasing levels of complexity of the federal bureaucracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the endurance of the belief of U.S. citizens on civil liberties and personal security after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the country. Reasons behind the fear of terrorism; Factors that affected the trust of the people to the federal government; Background on willingness of the people to concede their civil liberties for safety and security.