Module 1 - Chapter Four

Federalism: Dividing Governmental Power

• In the Online Lecture section, explore the instructor's discussion of the points raised in the first chapter.
• Ask yourself: how do these points compare to those found in the text?
• Make a note of the major concepts as listed in the text and as highlighted below.
• You may want to follow some of the current events hyperlinks to find examples of issues mention at the end of the online lecture."
• Go to the Dye textbook publisher site to look at the chapter overview and to test yourself as required (see below).

 

Dye Textbook: Overview

• Look at the Dye overview to assure yourself that you have absorbed the main points.  Only look at the overview after you have read the chapter!

The chapter on federalism starts with a review of the meaning of federalism. This "meaning problem" might not seem like much of an issue to you, but if you read the Dye chapter carefully you will see that two competing interpretations have followed American history: (1) as a voluntary union among independent entities (states); or, (2) as an inviolable union of interdependent parts. What is the difference between these two?

It seems clear today that the Civil War consolidated the second idea as the ascendant one in American history.

Still it is important to understand that federalism is a middle condition of political integration. It is neither as centralized as a unitary form of government, nor as loose as a confederation. Its main claim is that it can provide more coherence to a political/spatial entity than confederation, without the threats to independence and local self-determination of unitary regimes. It is important to remember that federalism is not the typical form of regime: unitary forms are more typical and found in such countries as France, Portugal or Japan.

Federalism typically takes root when a country is spatially large, has a large population, culturally heterogeneous, or has important regional distinctions (as with slavery in the south). The more of these elements that combine, the better are the chances for federalism. Thus countries like Brazil, Russia (and formerly the USSR), Mexico, and India are federal in form. The major exception to the rule is the Peoples Republic of China, which has an ancient tradition of strong centralized rule.

Modern conservatives tend to like federalism because it works more like a market system of competitive states. Advocates of federalism say that decentralization increases political participation, ensures that more local units respond to local demands and conditions, and allows regional cultural patterns to be protected.

Modern liberals tend not to like federalism because they claim it fosters inequality. They point to the southern states’ resistance to providing equal rights for African-Americans, and the need for federal government action to eliminate "separate but equal" elements and to force equality of access to voting rights. Often, they argue, national action is required to really serve the public good. They insist that American society is politically best understood as a single nation having states with transparent borders: problems which are not dealt with in one state will inevitably seep onto other states. If one state has a higher minimum wage, workers will leave to go there; if one state has lax environmental laws, pollution from that state will travel to adjoining states; if one state funds education poorly, its workers with "degrees" may seem qualified in another state when in fact they are not.

Especially when they are in power in Washington, liberals are fond of using the clause in the Constitution which says that "all laws…necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the powers designated to the federal government are within reach of that level of government. This means that by implication the federal government has many powers over states. These implied powers can grow by virtue of the national supremacy clause which presupposes that in areas of competing jurisdiction, the federal government has precedence.

States still do have many powers in the areas of criminal law, property law, education, and to a lesser degree, welfare and roads. They have fewer (or no) powers regarding foreign affairs and the abridgement of individual rights.

Dye mentions some of the historic phases in the evolution of federalism, introducing such concepts as "state-centered federalism," "dual federalism," "cooperative federalism," "centralized federalism," "new federalism," and finally "representative federalism."

Look at that discussion: is he arguing that federalism has always tilted to the side of the national government? Have there been any reversals to that trend?

You might note the important developments such as the McCulloch vs. Maryland case in the Supreme Court, the Civil War, the passing of the 14^th Amendment, the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision and other events in assessing the trend regarding federalism.

It is important to note that the ability of the federal government to influence state governments is partly dependent on financial incentives it provides. Thus, if the federal government wants the drinking age increased to 21, it can threaten to withhold highway building funds to states that insist on keeping the drinking age at 18.

Overall, the federal government has developed three means of transferring money to the states:

(1) Categorical grants: provide $$ for specific projects, with federal agencies having the most discretion regarding exactly what to fund. These can be thought of as including "funded mandates" – that is, instructions (direct orders to perform a particular service or act in compliance with federal law) to the states as to how to run a particular project, but with money to help them do so. "Unfunded mandates" are similar instructions, but without any additional funding. Thus, if the federal government passes a law requiring access to be provided for the disabled but provide no money to build such access, state and local governments must pick up the bill (see Dye for examples);

(2) Block grants: provide states $$ for a general purpose, like education, or welfare. These come with fewer strings attached, but with less accountability to the federal government regarding the efficiency and effectiveness with which the money was spent;

(3) Revenue Sharing: provided funds to states based on a specific formula (population, tax effect, income level) but was ended in 1986 due to a growing federal budget deficit and difficulties holding states accountable for how they were spending the money.

What do you think about this debate over the proper roles of the federal and state levels of government? Is it right for the federal government to pass "mandates" or should be the states be free to operate largely on their own? Should the federal government simply be giving money to the states to spend as they wish, or should the federal government insist on defining uses and accountability?

Can you think of any recent examples in which federal and state levels of government have clashed?

Try going to the http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/ site for some national events.  Local events are covered in several newspapers such as the Annapolis Capital, the Baltimore Sun or the Washington Post.