Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Ever

Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations

Ever since the creation of the United States, there has been a constant tremendous debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists, about the division of labor and responsibilities between a federal government and the state entities. At the same time, the discussion is ongoing and developing in the intergovernmental relations so as to what is the responsibility of each governmental agency, how much does it need to be involved into state or local matters and how it should successfully cooperate with state and local entities. This paper will aim to present the matter of the nature and have a keen analysis on the most efficient way that federal and local governments could function together, as well as on how to split responsibility between the two levels.

The conflict between federalism and anti-federalism most likely manifested itself in the United States because of the vastness of land that needs to be organized and administered. Even with only the initial colonies being taken into account, the challenge was still enormous: the communications and transportations were difficult and messages took long to arrive from one place to another. The Supreme Court, for example, was initially an itinerant entity, but it took so long for a Supreme Court judge to arrive from one city to another that this option was soon abandoned.

Similar factual descriptions are valid in other cases as well.

Nowadays, transport and communication have greatly facilitated central governance, but the challenges remain. One should consider, for example, that Europe is divided a significant number of states that only recently have agreed to let go of a limited part of their sovereign rights and transfer them over to Brussels, to the European Union institutions. Many of the functions are still dealt with on a local and state basis, from country to country.

So, how and what part of federal attributes should be passed down to the state and local authorities and what should be the intergovernmental relations that could make the governmental process more efficient?

First of all, it is important to note that the combination of a central government and auxiliary sub-national governments creates a structure in which these different entities can make decisions without the consultation or even subordination to each other (Moore, 2008). At the same time, these entities should work together in order to ensure a successful collaboration, which can lead to better solutions to existing problems at different levels. For example, a problem in a certain area that is identified in a certain state can be worked on better if there is information on a similar problem having existed in another state at another time.

One such excellent examples of cooperation between the central government and state governments is given by the Great Depression and what is known as cooperative federalism. During this period, many of the states and local institutions receives more substantial support from the central government than they had actually contributed to the federal budget, because the economic situation was more dire in these countries. South Carolina could be a good example in this sense, with $242 million being allocated during the period of time in which the state only contributed with $10 million.

However, there is an argument against such type of federalism, generally provided by the fact that this type of federalism in fact positively impacts mainly the poorer states. It is the type of socialist approach by which the federal government tries to work on the economic differences between different states and increase the average income level and economic growth overall. The problem in this case is that the richer or average states may object to having their participation used to increase economic levels in poorer states, instead of using the funds themselves.

The creative federalism that followed increased the financial direct implication of the federal government in federal-coordinated programs at a state level. The problem here was that this resulted into a mismatched, unfortunate overall coordination between state and local authorities and the federal government. Some of these programs lacked the local supervision, because they were federal programs, which means that they were not very efficient. The tendency that followed historically after this was that of a new decentralization process, initiated and encouraged by President Nixon.

The evolution of federalism and intergovernmental relations followed through on a more intensive decentralization process by which the state and local administration would be given more power in the decision making process (Moore, 2008). This type of approach makes sense, from different points-of-view, especially on specific local projects, because of the existing local expertise. For example, we could consider a local agricultural project. The local and state expertise in determining what are the right decisions to be made on this project should be more useful and in a more timely manner than decisions that could be made at a federal level.

In the current security and economic environment, the answer is probably somewhere mid-way between all the notions previously presented. From this perspective, a combination of both cooperative federalism and decentralization can be used, with the pre-condition that the federal government fixes the overall goals that the country should try to reach and which should obviously be followed and sought at state and local levels as well. The current economic crisis provides an excellent example in this sense.

The current main objective for the United States is to find the appropriate ways by which to fight with the current economic crisis, probably the most significant one since the Great Depression. This can be fixed as a national objective, so that all federal, state or local instruments will work to reach that goal. The federal goal should provide the means to do so, while the state and local administration should find the right local instruments to use the funds received from the federal government, while keeping in mind, at the same time, the primary national objective.

At the same time, the federal government should also have in place the appropriate feedback and control mechanism by which it can record the changes, positive or negative, that occur at state and local level and whether what is going on at these levels are in line with the grander design at a federal level. The importance of such a feedback and control mechanism is critical, because it means that the federal government would also be able to intervene and correct the mistakes that may appear in the implementation of these local measures.

Basically, the relationship between the federal government and state or local administration should be the same as in any other organization, with the federal government/upper management providing the general means and guidelines that need to be followed, with the bureaus and regional managers overseeing the tactical and operational implementations within each of their areas of jurisdiction. As in such an organization, the rules imposed by the federal government should check-in some of the local and state initiatives. Some of the federal guidance will also lay the ground rules for the state and local activity.