Federalism Vs Confederalism

Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) involves the workings of the federal government, including interactions among national, state, and local governments. It encompasses regulation, allocation of funds, and the process of data analysis. The study of intergovernmental relations involves understanding the complexities of the federal system based on mutual interdependence, shared functions, and intertwined influence (Stillman, 2010). Intergovernmental management is most effective when studied under the cooperative federalism model. Better intergovernmental coordination across all programs and levels of government is required.

Cooperative Federalism has been most successful at intergovernmental relations because it delineates functions and expands federal grant systems.

The surge in complex programs strained administrative relationships, prompted reforms, and led to a rise in intergovernmental tensions. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 promoted greater involvement by state and local elected officials. The new approach created flexible and decentralized new federalism (Stillman, 2010, p.124). For example, Public Health programs are a part of intergovernmental cooperation.

Opportunism surfaced when federal-state-local relations wanted to shift from relying heavily on grants and incentives. They aimed to implement a plan that limited the authority of state and local government. More federal obligation and regulation brought about a more coercive federalism, creating a spectrum for the behavioral aspects of modern intergovernmental relations. Opportunistic actors, especially states, exploited local governments when they redirected direct federal grants from their intended purpose to serve other means. Cooperative federalism encourages joint intergovernmental action and emphasizes shared goals across the federal system. In modern federalism, conservatives tend to block all progressive policy and enhance their flexibility in the intergovernmental relations system. The adoption of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1995 (Stillman, 2010, p.125) is an example. However, we still see states acting independently, a concept coined as “cut the best deal you can” form of federalism.

These types of federalism gain and lose their prominence over time. The cooperative framework began to unravel when the density of conflict and concern grew mainly within the grant and aid system (Stillman, 2010). This pushed IGR systems toward a more opportunistic model of federalism. The creation of preemptions and uneven efforts of actors led to a shift from cooperative to opportunistic. The government saw a switch from intergovernmental relations management to performance management.

When cooperative federalism dwindles, individuals lean towards a more opportunistic federalism to place individual political and jurisdiction interest above shared goals. This trend increases at every government level (Stillman, 2010, p.125). Local responsibilities overwhelmed the normative constraints of traditional responsibilities. Opportunistic federalism emphasizes process-based systems, failing to recognize the benefits of a system without one.

Case Study 5, “Wichita Confronts Contamination,” illustrates the characteristics and issues in intergovernmental relations. The move from cooperative federalism to opportunistic federalism negatively impacted the functions of IGR. The failure to reach a consensus involving intergovernmental regulations would have negatively impacted the city manager, as he would have been unable to implement the developed plan. The option of a superfund was not beneficial since it would have added more cost, and the cleanup would have taken longer. This situation created a more opportunistic approach, as implementing agencies would have rushed to act in their own best interests. Political negotiation between the city manager and the city-county council created a policy that put the state in charge of overseeing the cleanup process, ensuring a check and balance system among the localities. Coalition building and bargaining among various agencies, such as the city council, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the city manager, proved to be the ultimate solution in dealing with intergovernmental relations. It would have been impossible for the city manager to reach positive outcomes without negotiation and cooperation. The political aspect of intergovernmental regulations was also present in facilitating the allocation of funds for site cleanup. After plan implementation, there was more active dialogue about city redevelopment, intended to ensure that it would better accommodate business opportunities.

Did you like this example?

982

41