The National Government Setting

The National Government Setting • Separation of Power • Checks and Balances • Federalism • Polycentric

Rules of the Game Decentralization vs. Centralization of Power Separation of Executive/Legislature Federalism Independent Courts

Elastic Clause (a.k.a Nec. & Proper) - Article I, sec. 8. Gives Congress the authority to make whatever laws that are “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated responsibilities - Creates the notion of Implied power - McCullough v. Maryland (1819) * U.S. National Bank Created * Threat to Private Bank Profits - Implications: Fed. can now go beyond enumerated powers.

Federal Government Spending - Grants to States: land or cash grants Purpose – push policy agenda, stimulate economy, correct for externalities - Categorical Grants - Block Grants - General Revenue Sharing Grants Ended in 1987 - Mandates e.g., civil rights and environmental regulations; Federal criminal laws

ANALYIZING FEDERALISM Alexis de Tocqueville (1831-2) - nations need centralized power - people prefer one central government - too complicated to understand - Majority of the Tyranny - Reduces Military capacity - Government too weak to intervene in internal conflicts (almost right) -Incapable of adapting to growing diverse population

Federalism and Democracy - could increase representation - reverse could be true (lower govt. captured) - less quality/visible information on lower govts. - lack of national standards increased political/economic standards - “Laboratory of Democracy”

Federalism and Modern Politics - Eisenhower and the dictatorial centralization - Johnson’s Great Society - Nixon’s New Federalism - Carter – new agencies (Energy & Education) - Reagan and General Revenue Sharing - Clinton – National Health Care - Bush – DHS; Patriot Act - Obama – Keynesian Economics

POLICY RAMIFICATIONS? • Flexibility? • Accountability? • Dispersed Costs/Concentrated Benefits • Protection of Minority Rights – limits to democracy? • Multiple Access Points – enhance democracy?

Why federalism didn’t fail • Do we let state and localities deal with disasters? • Or do we need a centralized agency to quickly act in times of need? • Why couldn’t we respond to the needs of the people of New Orleans as fast as we responded to the disaster in Indonesia.

12/26/2005 tsunami. U.S. military troops begin to mobilize a response in hours. By Jan. 1st USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group was afloat off the Indonesian island of Sumatra , and the ship's 17 helicopters and aircrews were flying relief supplies to survivors in devastated areas. • Why such the quick response? President bush could simply pick up the phone and order nearby military personnel to respond.

The Contrast of Katrina • That wasn’t the case for Hurricane Katrina where federal agencies are frequently required to wait for state requests. • Does this mean that we need to take control of disaster relief from state and local governments? • Derthick doesn’t necessarily believe so.

Katrina Successes • Getting 1-1.2 million of the 1.4 million living in New Orleans out in two days • National Hurricane center provided early warning • National Guard and Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries were quick to respond and saved many lives.

Katrina failures • Arrangement for buses and other public transportation for those without cars was not made before the hurricane struck • Local government encouraged development in dangerous areas • Did the Corp of Engineers do a good job building the levees? • Did local authorities do a good job maintaining the levees?

Conclusions from Katrina • After the disaster many proposed to centralize authority for disaster response • Derthick is skeptical that this is a good idea. • Although there were clear failures, a centralized authority may not necessarily have done a better job. Each locality faces different disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) • States may better at learning how to deal with their most probable disaster • Of course the federal government should lend support and resources.

But better coordination between local, state, and federal agencies would have improved response times. • Derthick recommends that we look to the successes and the failures to improve response. • Both local, state and federal agencies can make improvements without centralizing authority.

Growth of Polycentricity • Growth in state and local government employment much fast than federal government • 58% of federal employees worked in the postal service, national defense and international relations-related jobs • What does this mean? More and more of policies are implemented by local and state governments.

Is this a good thing? • Decentralization of authority allows localities to focus on their specific needs • More local/state control and accountability • But could lead to horizontal inequality. • States might decide to spend less on services: schools/health care/child welfare. • Therefore citizens living in different areas may not get the same services, thus leading to inequality of opportunity

The National Government Setting