1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
CHAPTER 4
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Breena E. Coates, Ph.D.
The following are prohibited by law:
• any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network;
• preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images;
• any rental, lease, or lending of the program.

2. Intergovernmental Relations
Learning Objectives:
Understand the U.S. federal system of government, its constitutional design, its underlying rationale, and its evolution.
Comprehend the dynamic structure of U.S. intergovernmental relations, including the different types of federal systems.
Make connections to the four main various types of intergovernmental management.
Discern the many ways in which fiscal federalism works.

3. Intergovernmental Relations, Cont.
Know what the “devolution revolution” means and how it came about.
Appreciate the contemporary public policy controversies constituted by intergovernmental relations.
Define key terms at the bottom of the pages and at the end of the chapter.
Write critical essays on topics covered in the chapter.

4. The Evolution of the Federal System
The US was originally a loose confederation of independent states that delegated powers only on selected issues to the central government. This form of government is inherently weak—with few delegated powers and limited authority.
In 1787 the Constitutional Convention provided itself with an entirely new form of government in a written constitution that divided up powers between the central government and states, assigning specific powers to each. Such powers cannot be changed unilaterally without legislation.

5. Categories of Governments
Today we see 3 main categories of Governments around the world, each has its advantages & disadvantages
UNITARY—such as the United Kingdom
CONFEDERATIONS—such as the European Community of Sovereign States
FEDERAL—such as the United States

6. Dynamic Structure of Intergovernmental Relations
Intergovernmental relations are like a marble cake, with levels of government intermingled with each other. There are blurred boundaries between them. The relationships have evolved over the years via various understandings of the term “federalism:
Grodzins’ marble cake metaphor

7. The Various Understandings of “Federalism”
Federalism has evolved over the years into many understandings
Dual Federalism:
separate govts.—no longer exists
Cooperative Federalism:
Collaborative relationships
Creative Federalism:
Federal bypassed states & gave grants to local govts.
New Federalism:
Attempted to return states’ autonomy, yet retained strong central govt.
New, New Federalism:
An attempt at revenue sharing

8. Intergovernmental Management
Picket Fence Federalism
Bureaucratic specialists interact constantly w/ each other, at all govt. & occupational levels. They are the pickets. Whereas elected officials (the bosses) come and go, & are the vertical slats in the picket fence
Councils of Govts. (COGs)
Represent any multi-jurisdictional units across govts. To provide for water, etc., that effect a region as a whole. Sometimes the COGS are special districts w/ taxing authority..
Cost of Compliance
Compliance with mandates from upper levels can be costly and impede smooth IG relations. To address this Congress passed the Unfunded Mandate Act of 1995, which restricts financial mandates of over 50 m dollars on a state govt.
There are various concepts that explain Intergovt. Mgmt.:

9. Fiscal Federalism
Laws & programs have mandates that have to be uniformly applied across the nation (busing, welfare, etc.).
A way to make these palatable to recalcitrant state & local governments was to provide grants-in-aid to the programs, with strings attached. In the past, most of the grants were categorical later, multi-category grants, called block grants, have become popular. This allowed the states &local governments more autonomy & discretion on how the money would be spent.
The theory of fiscal federalism focuses on the financial relationships between the units of a federal system & suggests that a federal form of government is effective in distributing income equitably, maintaining high employment & stable prices, & establishing efficient resource allocation. Variation across & between states in the U.S. federal system is evidence of the need for fiscal federalism.

10. The Devolution Revolution
In 1994, Republican governors held a convention at Williamsburg, Virginia, to call for the return of power from the federal government to the states in a document known as the “Williamsburg Resolve.” It passed by an overwhelming majority. Across the nation, however, many saw the “resolve” as somewhat hypocritical. It appeared that the Republican governors were saying that they wanted federal money without federal mandates! Many states could not have been settled with their present density without immense expenditures by the federal government on water and engineering.

11. Public Choice Theory The Public Choice Solution:
Public choice theory rejects the welfare economics that arose out of the New Deal.
It questions whether such federal intervention really is the intent of the citizens.
Its exponents feel that governmental action and expenditures should be placed at the lowest level of government (the local level) because at that level more experimentation, competition, and innovation can be achieved. Citizens are better able to compare their taxation to the level of service provided and then vote out irresponsible governments.
Public choice advocates want to increase the discretion of the individual voter and maximize “user-pay systems” (fees for services).

12. Race to the Bottom Race to the Bottom:
The ultimate devolution objective is to privatize goods and services. However, who is to make up the gap that inevitably exists when private enterprise cannot or will not provide goods and services to certain segments of our society?
In such a climate of devolution, it is evident that many state and local governments, depending on the power-elite structure and available resources, have gradually diminished services to their own people, or may have denied services to people not from the state, creating a whole new range of intergovernmental problems.