This paper examines the history and legacy of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), established in 1959 and abolished in 1996, and argues against its reinstatement. The paper reviews the ACIR's original role in addressing intergovernmental issues, the reasons it was sunset under bipartisan pressure, and the key arguments against re-establishing it today. These arguments include duplication of existing organizations, susceptibility to special interests, potential overreach into federalism's checks and balances, and a lack of measurable positive impact on intergovernmental relations. The paper also considers what body, if any, should coordinate federal intergovernmental relations going forward.
The paper models refutation and concession: it acknowledges the proponents' case for reinstatement before systematically dismantling each rationale. This structure — present the counterargument, then counter it — strengthens the paper's credibility and reflects a graduate-level understanding of policy analysis.
The paper opens with a historical overview of the ACIR and a thesis previewing four arguments against reinstatement. The body sections address each argument in turn: organizational duplication, special-interest capture, federalism overreach, and lack of measurable impact. A separate section considers alternatives for intergovernmental coordination. The conclusion synthesizes the arguments, adding broader observations about partisanship, lobbying, and federal power concentration.
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) was a nonpartisan agency that provided research and recommendations on intergovernmental relations to the President, Congress, and state and local officials. It was established in 1959 and abolished in 1996 (Chi, 2004). Its mission was "to strengthen the American federal system and improve the ability of federal, state, and local governments to work together cooperatively, efficiently, and effectively" (UNT, 2022). By its very mission, the ACIR was set up for failure in a system of American federalism.
In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the idea of re-establishing the ACIR. Proponents argue that the commission could help address the growing problem of gridlock and polarization in American politics. They contend that the ACIR could serve as a forum for constructive dialogue between different levels of government, promoting cooperation and collaboration rather than conflict and dysfunction (Stenberg, 2011). Opponents of re-establishing the ACIR argue that it would be an unnecessary duplication of effort, as there are already numerous agencies and organizations that focus on intergovernmental relations. They also worry that the ACIR would simply become another vehicle for special interests to advance their agendas (Kincaid, 2011).
The question of whether or not to re-establish the ACIR is complex, and there are compelling arguments on both sides. Ultimately, it is a decision for Congress to make, but this paper argues that there are several reasons why the ACIR should not be re-established. First, the ACIR would duplicate the work of other existing organizations, such as the National Governors Association and the Council of State Governments. Second, the ACIR was likely just as swayed by special interests as any other commission. Third, the ACIR was the federal government's attempt to influence intergovernmental issues more directly, potentially overstepping the checks and balances of federalism. Finally, there is no evidence that the ACIR had any positive impact on intergovernmental relations. In fact, some experts believe that the ACIR actually made relations worse by creating an atmosphere of distrust and rivalry among different levels of government. For these reasons, it is clear that the ACIR should not be re-established.
The United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (USACIR) was an independent, bipartisan agency established in 1959 to study and report on issues related to fiscal federalism and intergovernmental relations. The Commission completed its work in 1996 and was abolished by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. During its nearly four-decade lifespan, the Commission issued over 500 reports on a wide range of topics, including fiscal federalism, emergency management, civil rights, environmental protection, and Native American affairs (Kincaid & Stenberg, 2011).
While the Commission did not have the authority to enact policy changes, its reports often served as a catalyst for intergovernmental reform. For example, the Commission's 1971 report on revenue sharing sparked a decade-long debate over the best way to distribute federal funds to state and local governments (Kincaid & Stenberg, 2011). The report ultimately led to the enactment of the Revenue Sharing Act of 1972, which provided billions of dollars in federal aid to state and local governments. In another instance, the Commission's 1982 report on urban policy helped shape the way the federal government provides assistance to cities. The report's recommendations led to the creation of several new programs, including the Community Development Block Grant program and the Urban Development Action Grant program. While it is no longer in existence, the USACIR played an important role in addressing intergovernmental issues during its 36 years of operation (Kincaid & Stenberg, 2011).
While the commission was tasked with studying the relationship between different levels of government and making recommendations for improvement, over time it became increasingly redundant as other organizations took on similar roles. In addition, the Growth of Government Act of 1983 limited the commission's ability to engage in advocacy or research. As a result, the USACIR was sunset in 1996. Ultimately, a Republican-led Congress joined forces with a Democratic President (Bill Clinton), who was not pleased with the way the ACIR was handling unfunded mandates (McDowell, 1997).
Clinton and Congress were likely both frustrated as constituents in cities seeking relief saw the ACIR vote against its own recommendations (Shafroth, 1996). Democrats and Republicans alike were unhappy with the commission's performance, and nothing effective seemed possible given the stalemates and watered-down proposals. Allowing the ACIR to sunset in 1996 simply made practical sense for all parties concerned.
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) was established in 1959 to "study and appraise the relationships among the various levels of government in the United States and make recommendations." In fact, some experts believe that the ACIR actually made relations worse by creating an atmosphere of distrust and rivalry among different levels of government. As such, there is no compelling reason to re-establish the ACIR. Considering the immense bureaucracy that the federal government has become, and the extent to which everything has grown partisan and politicized, it is difficult to see how any commission or agency could remain neutral and bipartisan at this time. It is equally difficult to see how any commission or agency could remain free from the sway of special interests, which always find ways through lobbying to have their voices heard over those of average American citizens. The federal government should probably exert less influence in intergovernmental relations — for currently it enjoys something of a monopoly of power in that arena.
Chi, K. S. (2004). The contributions of the US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: A retrospective assessment. State & Local Government Review, 36(3), 231–233.
Conlan, T. (2006). From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: Reflections on the half-century anniversary of the commission on intergovernmental relations. Public Administration Review, 66(5), 663–676.
Kincaid, J. (2011). The US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: Unique artifact of a bygone era. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 181–189.
Kincaid, J., & Stenberg, C. W. (2011). "Big questions" about intergovernmental relations and management: Who will address them? Public Administration Review, 71(2), 196–202.
McDowell, B. D. (1997). Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1996: The end of an era. Publius, 27(2), 111–127.
Shafroth, F. (1996). ACIR votes against its own report. Retrieved from
Stenberg, C. W. (2011). An ACIR perspective on intergovernmental institutional development. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 169–176.
UNT. (2022). ACIR. Retrieved from https://digital.library.unt.edu/explore/collections/ACIR/
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.