In the article Public Performance and Management Review, the research question is what can states do to maximize the performance of third-party implementers in the context of fiscal federalism?
Theory
The theory included a review of the literature to enhance understanding of the weatherization assistance program. It also entailed concepts of devolution and fiscal federalism.
Hypothesis
H1. Contractors providing public services to states with greater policy-specific capacity will be more likely to meet performance goals than contractors providing services to states with less policy-specific capacity.
Research Design
The research design included the measurement of the variables of interest. For instance, the operationalization of the main concepts and the subsequent quantitative analysis was carried out by the use of semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to identify the states. Other components covered under the research design were the control variables and analytic techniques. The analytic techniques involved the application of the hierarchical model with random intercepts which formed the basis of testing relationships.
Flaws in Research Design Elements
Of the four elements, the most flawed was the research design. Research design elements are critical in determining the procedures to be used to answer the research questions or in testing the hypothesis. It is in research design that various components of the entire study are linked to ensure the actual implementation of the research. The first flaw entailed the sampling process. Even though the researcher pointed out that purposive sampling was used to identify the states, there were no criteria on how the interviewees were selected. The lack of a proper sampling process could affect the credibility of the research. The second flaw was that there was no comprehensive process to outline the data collection method. Despite using interviews to gather information from the state officers, the researcher did not give the rationale and criteria used for the compilation of the quantitative data which was entered in the tables. The only detail is that it was obtained through state energy officers and the department of energy. The implication for the omission is that the reliability of the study is affected. Finally, there is no clear identification of the research design used in the study. This signifies that another researcher cannot replicate the entire study.
Ways to Correct the Flaws
To correct the flaws, a systematic procedure should be applied to ensure that different elements of the methodology and design are included. The following are the necessary steps to correct the flaws.
Step 1: Inclusion of the research methodology and philosophy. The research methodology should entail the use of mixed methods, i.e. the qualitative and quantitative approaches. The rationale is that the interviews mainly collect qualitative data which cannot be used to test the hypothesis.
Step 2: Include a particular research design that was applied to the study and the timeframe for the data collected. In this case, a cross-sectional research design could form the basis of the research.
Step 3: Identity the sample size and the sampling procedures to be applied. This will help in expounding the scope of the purposive sampling identified by the researcher.
Step 4: Include the data collection method and the types of data to be collected. This will entail the primary data collected by the use of interviews and the secondary data obtained from the energy offices. Also, this step will entail the inclusion criteria for the secondary data. Also, the various variables to be used for the study will be identified at this stage.
Step 5: Definition of the data analysis methods and rationale. This will then be followed by real data analysis and tests.
The anti-federalist papers of 1787 remain to be some of the most fundamental studies carried out with the sole aim of bringing out the shortcomings of the constitution that was about to be ratified. Though the papers were written by the authors who wanted to hide their identities, they did achieve some fundamental goals that led to the improvement of the constitution that was in the process of development.
Although the authors may have appeared retrogressive as they were opposed to the new constitution, it is important to acknowledge that their criticism led to identification of the major weaknesses in the document that was to be ratified to become the governing bench of the United States of America (Putz, 2009, P. 87).
According to Brutus, the author of anti-federalist paper number eighty four and many others, the constitution lacked the foresight and thus failed to take into account the future generations (Dougherty, 2009, P. 54).
Brutus was of the idea that if the American society were to ratify a constitution that would provide a harmonious living for the generations to come, there would be no need to ensure that the rights of the individuals are protected by the constitution.
The document to be ratified failed to recognize that people in a natural setting were always after their own benefit, thus posing a great danger to the others as ones pursuit of pleasure may conflict with the others intentions.
Brutus envisaged that if there were no other forces in place to govern the men, then the weaker mortals would be disadvantaged by the stronger ones. Thus, according to the anti-federalist paper on human rights, the constitution was to recognize that future generations needed to be protected from the possible abuse due to breaches in the main law.
From the analysis of the assertions contained in the paper number eighty four, it is clear that the constitution that was in the process of being ratification contained some serious flows, and thus, it required attention to be paid to the areas of concern.
Therefore, it is important to note that the anti-federalist paper served as an alternative voice by helping to pinpoint spheres that needed to be rectified to ensure that the constitution that was in the process of becoming the law had the capacity to protect the interest of all the subjects (Lim, 2011, pp. 76-77).
The papers managed to introduce the new fundamental changes into the constitution even though some of them were instituted after the constitution had been ratified. For example, the institution of the bill of rights which addressed the concerns that were raised by Brutus in his anti-federalist paper number eighty four was approved after the constitution had been adopted.
Apart from the role of acting as the alternative voice for the proponents of the new constitution, the papers represented an independent view that probably was not affected by the euphoria of having a new constitution in place.
According to Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, (2005, P. 152), the anti-federalist papers showed that the constitution that was in the process of development required a serious consideration to make sure that it effectively manages all the affairs of the country and its subjects.
It is clear that the constitution in the process of being ratified failed to recognize what may have happened in the future and heavily relied on the countrys stability of regimes in the past as well as during the period of the proposed enactment.
The anti-federalists through their papers managed to attract attention to many burning issues that although their main assertions seemed to be illogical at the time, needed to ensure that the stability of the unborn generations was guaranteed.
In the anti-federalist paper number eighty four that raises the issues of fundamental rights of the citizens, Brutus reminds Americans that brutal regimes needed a constitutional backing to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizens are not violated.
He helped arouse the sense that even though the people had no immediate problem with a brutal regime, they had no clear ability to determine the nature of the future leaders as they are known to change their behavior and views once they take office.
It is this possibility that made the author of the paper believe that passing a constitution that could infringe the human rights was a dangerous undertaking for Americans (Storing, 1981, P. 7).
Today, the rights of the American citizens are entrenched in the constitution through the elaborate bill of rights. The journey towards the inclusion of this important segment in the constitution can be traced to the anti-federalist paper number eighty four that criticizes the main law due to its lack of a clear stand on human rights.
As stated in the paper, it is important that certain quarters surrender some portions of their natural freedom for effective administration of a balanced society.
The enactment of the bill of rights guarantees that natural freedom is balanced, so those who may benefit from violating the fundamental rights of others would be restricted. Thus, the anti-federalist paper number eighty four was of great significance as it helped shape the future bill of rights adopted in the current constitution.
Reference List
Dougherty, KL 2009, An Empirical Test of Federalist and Anti-Federalist Theories of State Contributions, 1775-1783, Social Science History, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 47-74.
Hamilton, A, Madison, J, & Jay, J 2005 The federalist. Hackett Publishing, New York, NY.
Lim, ET 2011, The Anti-Federalist Strand in Progressive Politics and Political Thought, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 68-84.
Putz, A 2009, Viewing the Constitution-Making Process Need, Danger and (Non)Sense of a Bill of Rights: A Comparative Analysis of the United States of America and Europe. BoD, New York.
Storing, HJ 1981, The Complete Anti-Federalist, Volume 1, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
The peculiarities of countries political courses largely determine the sustainability of its different areas, including social, economic, and other aspects of development. In view of this, following a certain movement plays a significant role for both the ruling elites and the population. The concept of federalism is a well-known political trend, and the emphasis on its promotion is the practice that leaders of many states adhere to and develop. This movement has unique features, and its assessment, along with a comparison with other systems of power organization, will make it possible to identify the key strengths and weaknesses that are inherent in it. As a justification base, a variety of sources will be used, including both findings from academic literature and online resources. In general, federalism has more advantages than disadvantages in the case of the competent organization of state institutions activities, but some existing shortcomings are significant obstacles to preserving countries integrity.
Background Information
Federate government systems are more typical of the modern world than confederate ones. According to Hueglin and Fenna (2015), the mechanism under consideration acts as an intermediate form between confederation and a unitary state. Therefore, this principle embodies a compromise between the provisions of unity and regional diversity of the country, between the need for effective central power and the necessity to limit it. Nevertheless, despite this explanation, each federal system is unique since relations among government boards are determined not only by the constitution but also by the total amount of political, historical, geographical, cultural, and social conditions.
The specific nature of federalism depends on how it exists in the system of the separation of powers. The executive and legislative branches, as is most commonly expressed in the USA, or the parliamentary system, have different approaches to allocating responsibilities. Hueglin and Fenna (2015) argue that, in the first case, the authority in the state is distributed not only along a functional but also territorial axis, and many points of contact arise between the two levels of government. On this basis, the complex models of the interpenetration of the central and local levels of power are manifested. As Riker (2017) notes, parliamentary systems often generate what is called executive federalism, when the balance of the political system is ensured by relations among executive authorities throughout the country. In general, the federal system of government is flexible in comparison with other forms of political control, and the description of its advantages and disadvantages may allow presenting its features in more detail.
Analysis/Competing Arguments (Pro/Con)
In any system of government, an opportunity to directly participate in elections is perceived as a valuable component of democratic freedoms. As Obi (2019) argues, unlike unitary systems, one of the main advantages of federalism is that it constitutionally guarantees the right of a political voice to the representatives of regional and local interests. States or provinces have a number of independent rights and are represented in the central government. Nevertheless, despite this advantage, a fair division of power is a contentious issue. According to Torrevillas (2018), federalism was unable to prevent the general tendency of the 20th century to centralization largely due to economic growth and the expansion of state interventions in different social spheres. A cooperative system was replaced by a coercive principle that allowed the government to dictate its will to states in an authoritarian mode, enacting laws in the interests of the center and recapturing legal prerogatives. Therefore, this nuance is a negative side of federalism, which manifests itself in the conditions of authorities interference in most social areas.
Ensuring a balance of obligations and rights is a significant aspect of power in any country. Obi (2019) states that one of the advantages of federalism is that dispersing authority, it creates the checks and balances system that has a positive effect on the protection of individual rights and freedoms. The presence of numerous barriers to the abuse of power complicates the process of monopolization, thereby creating a democratic background. However, as Kincaid and Cole (2015) note, this advantage leads to weakening the system. With an opportunity to control the central government, federalism does not contribute to implementing bold economic and social programs (Kincaid & Cole, 2015). At the state level, the federal course makes it possible to minimize erroneous decisions. However, in relation to the local development of individual regions, innovations are hindered by the lack of concentration on specific industries. As a result, against the background of general sustainability, some problems arise with the promotion of individual social, economic, and other areas in individual state entities.
Due to the relevance of many social issues, the protection of the population classes occupies a significant place in political regimes. According to Leon and Orriols (2016), federalism as a course towards equality provides an institutional mechanism that allows society to maintain unity with all internal differences. In states adhering to this political plan, the social space of conflicts is narrowed. Most often, disputes arise and develop at the regional level; they are autonomous in nature and do not undermine the countrys stability. However, this system does not guarantee complete safety, and there is some danger. In particular, Kincaid and Cole (2015) remark that in the situation of powers separation, local opposition forces may arise, which, in turn, may be fraught with the collapse of the state. In addition, Torrevillas (2018) argues that in some countries, the dynastic nature of federalism is manifested, which is unacceptable. Therefore, it is crucial to prevent the development of opposition and extremist movements that could harm the integrity of states.
As a result, the analysis of federalism as a well-known political movement makes it clear that, despite the merits of this trend, the consequences of certain decisions may be negative. Depending on the economic, social, and other features of countries development, the implications of this federate influence on different areas can be distinctive. Control over maintaining the unity of classes and the safety of the population is an essential aspect of political activity. The concentration of power in autonomous circles, as Torrevillas (2018) notes, contributes to democratization and a move away from the monopolistic model of managing the countrys resources. At the same time, total independence is fraught with the emergence of internal opposition forces, which poses a severe danger to state integrity. Thus, the governments of countries adhering to the federal concept of power are to ensure the protection of all social strata interests and avoid disputes at either the national or local levels.
Observations and Recommended Policy Changes
Based on the assessment of federalism as one of the policies promoted by many governments today, conclusions can be drawn regarding its acceptability, as well as potential positive changes. Since this trend involves avoiding centralization and expanding the powers of regional authorities, more productive dialogue among the representatives of the regulatory apparatus should be developed. Torrevillas (2018) argues that this type of governance is financially costly due to the need to establish the activities of individual district missions. Accordingly, in order to minimize expenses and, at the same time, improve the quality of interaction, a curation system may be created. Since the introduction of innovations in individual industries is difficult due to a single state course, individual authorized persons can submit reports with proposals for specific changes. Speeches by the members of regional authorities at the national level will provide an opportunity to draw the attention of the supreme government to certain issues and eliminate serious errors and omissions in a single state policy.
Regarding the issue of state integrity in view of the separation of powers, this problem is also relevant and requires a comprehensive and authoritative assessment. The opinion was given by Kincaid and Cole (2015) about the emergence of possible opposition to supreme governance is reasonable. The powers vested in the regional authorities allow them to regulate local legislative and executive branches, thereby creating potential precedents for disputes and complaints. Moreover, the principle of federalism implying partial autonomy may adversely affect the standard of living of the population. The distribution of budgetary funds is more difficult to control in the context of delimiting particular spheres of influence. In order to minimize the risks associated with these challenges, the supreme government should appoint persons who could maintain strict accountability for all financial issues. In addition, target focus groups monitor such indicators as the degree of public confidence in the authorities, dissatisfaction with certain political nuances, and proposals for improving the system of interaction between the government and people. These approaches can improve the rating of the local administrative apparatus by responding promptly to residents requests.
Finally, when analyzing the topic of the continuity of power under federalism and the dynastic approach, the problem of corruption is acute. According to Torrevillas (2018), if the supreme government apparatus fails to control regional electoral systems, this will be fraught with the regress of the institution of power, which leads to the violation of constitutional provisions. In order to prevent any manifestation of unlawful interference in the legality of authority transfer and peoples will, the government should create a flexible system of feedbacks and suggestions from the population. In addition to focus groups, special digital platforms for communication with the members of the ruling boards are to be developed, and each citizen should be able to report the fact of any violation. If such a system is established, this will reduce the level of corruption precedents and enable the authorities to monitor regional administrative units more competently.
Conclusion
The advantages of federalism compared with many other political movements are significant, but in case of the incompetent implementation of its certain provisions, risks may arise. The rejection of monopolization, decentralization of power, and the distribution of authority open up wider prospects for the democratization of society. At the same time, potential problems, such as corruption, a threat to the integrity of the country, and inadequate management decisions may occur. To avoid them, special measures should be promoted, for instance, creating focus groups to establish interaction between the population and the authorities, as well as promoting a system of feedback and suggestions from citizens.
References
Hueglin, T. O., & Fenna, A. (2015). Comparative federalism: A systematic inquiry (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Kincaid, J., & Cole, R. L. (2015). Citizen evaluations of federalism and the importance of trust in the federation government for opinions on regional equity and subordination in four countries. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 46(1), 51-76. Web.
Leon, S., & Orriols, L. (2016). Asymmetric federalism and economic voting. European Journal of Political Research, 55(4), 847-865. Web.
Obi, E. A. (2019). The theory, practice and current trends in federalism. Journal of Social Service and Welfare, 1(1), 10-20.
Riker, W. H. (2017). Federalism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, 612-620. Web.
This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a federal system of government. It is thus divided into an introduction, advantages, disadvantages and finally, a reference list.
Introduction
Federalism is a political philosophy where a number of parties are conjugated together by an agreement (Pierre, 2003). Federalism is a type of public administration system where power is allocated between a national or central government and constituent or provincial political units. Both governments derive their powers from a constitution. A federal government can either be centralized where the central government has broad powers compared to state or provincial powers, or a decentralized one where the scope of authority for the provincial government is comprehensive.
Advantages
A federal system has a greater scope for diversity and experimentation. Some states are more advanced than others, and this offers a platform for the federal government to experiment different social policies that can later be adopted. It allows development for unique and innovative methods of eliminating social, economic and political problems (Shafritz et al., 2008). A good example is Australia where Victoria State was the first to introduce compulsory wearing of seatbelts, and Queensland State which introduced a very innovative hospital management system.
Uniform currency system is easy to create and manage. Common currency saves minting and production cost through utilization of a common central bank. Uniform currency stimulates economic growth since it favors ease of trade. Trade increases since as a result of elimination of exchange rates that keep changing from time to time. Incase one state experiences some economic hardships, the effects are absorbed by the rest of the states, and this is advantageous since its currency value would have decreased significantly if it had a different currency. A good example is that of Canadian states, where they trade more with each other than with the United States (Shafritz et al., 2008).
A federal system must consider the different ethnic or cultural groups. Federal system allows people to differ from one another but is united by common goals and benefits. It must protect the minority and special groups. Different groups are allowed to maintain their cultural diversity and individuality, for instance Massachusetts did not have to adopt the ways of South Carolina and vice versa. A good example was constitution enactment in Nigeria that forbids any form of discrimination against a particular ethnic tribe, religion and political opinion.
Disadvantages
Individual states lose their identity to a degree under the title of United States. In some cases, individual states have to wait for the approval of their legislative statutes from the federal government there by, compromising their independence. A good example was in Canada where Nova Scotia and New Brunswick provinces had strong identities but had to loose them for the sake of Canadian federal government (Pierre, 2003).
Local interests are sometimes sacrificed on the altar of federalism. When federal government has more powers, local interests have no priority over national interest. An example where local interest was compromised was in the formation of Canadian federalism, where Quebec province was unwilling to join the central government due to their minority but had to compromise (Pierre, 2003).
Rebellion against authority is a constant threat although this is counter balanced with a strong federal military. The state is in charge of matters that affect the nation as a whole such as national security. In health and education, rebellion may arise if it doesnt consider local concern as national concerns. Rebellion may arise when a state feels neglected or not protected. Tension may arise when funds are allocated unfairly among states on various projects. A good example was the 1788-1787 Shays armed rebellion in central and western Massachusetts where farmers were protesting against the federal government for improper dealing in debt administration (Khan, 2008)
Reference
Khan, H. A. (2008). Introduction to Public Administration New York: University Press of America.
Pierre, J. (2003). Handbook of Public Administration. New York: Sage publications.
Shafritz, J., Russel, E. W. and Borick, C. (2008). Introducing public administration. (Ed) London: Longman.
In the article it is clear that in the 2004 presidential election federalism was noticeably absent and no party candidate brought up issues that weighed down the states and localities. The contest was streamlined by the then on-going war against terrorism and the fluctuating conditions in Iraq.
While there was much progress on internal security, a continuation of intergovernmental wrangles over federal grants proceeded. In a number of policy areas such as healthcare, education and general environmental protection, the federal-state disputes were quite evident.
The economic growth rose as states encountered an increase in revenue but their financial state was fogged up by the rise in costs for education, Medicaid not leaving out employee pensions and prisons (Krane & Koenig 2005).
The decisions made by the United States Supreme Court with regards to cases where they ruled with a federal aspect has suggested that the court acted in a way to cut back power of the Congress instead of granting the states more power.
Most of the events that unraveled in the first Bush administration should be seen in a broader perspective against the changes that took place in the political party system. The Democratic Administration in 2004 only gave a suggestion in a federalism dimension that the resolution to outlaw (or not) gay marriage be handled by state governments.
Federalism in America has grown to be more nationalized and this is well demonstrated by the alterations that occurred in policy control as well as party organization in particular the Bush administration.
Federalism is a political ideology in which members of a group are bounded by an accord headed by a representative chair. Federalism illustrates a governmental system where sovereignty is divided between states and a central governing body according to the constitution.
It can also be used to describe a system where authoritative power is shared between constituent political units and a national government thus establishing a federation. Separation of powers refers to a systematic method in which a state or political unit is governed.
In this, there is a division of states into branches which have powers and responsibilities separate from each other and no branch exceeds the other in power. In accordance to the United States constitution, Article1 section 1 bestows the Congress legislative powers herein granted and further lists those acceptable actions in Article 1 Section 8 whereas section 9 gives a listing of forbidden measures by the Congress.
The concept of federalism
In the American constitution, specific powers were bestowed upon the national government and in the tenth amendment of 1791, it stated the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to states, are reserved to states, respectively, or to the people (LaCroix 2010).
But over time, both economic and social transformations have resulted to a change in the balance of powers which is between the states and central government. One concept of federalism is the constitutional framework.
The constitution vividly favors the federal government when it comes to the balance of powers between the states and the federal government.
There are powers delegated to the central government such as Congress is to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper (Article1, Section 8) while little power is given to the states in comparison to the federal government (Zavodnyik 2011).
The constitution on the other hand gave the states power in some sectors for instance they were allowed to establish voter credentials and also create mechanisms that guided the congressional elections. The imbalance of power between the two was amended in the Tenth Amendment.
Under the concept of dual federalism, it was proposed that authority given to federal government be distinctive and have limitations with definite duties be assigned to national government and the rest of the tasks be given to the state governments.
And this indicates that the central government is prohibited from involving itself on the specialties given to the state government or else it would be violating the state constitutional right. In the US, cooperative federalism arose when federal governmental power increased in response to the Great Depression in the period of the New Deal.
It is emphatic that responsibilities of both state and federal government overlie each other and it gives a slack perception of the elastic clause which grants a go ahead of power to surge via federal government.
Concept of separation of powers
Under this concept, it contains a couple of fundamentals that is the ideology of three separate branches of the government which include the executive, legislature and the judiciary. The separation of powers which was designed by framers of the constitution aimed to avert any branch from having the majority rule.
In the Constitution of Virginia in 1776: The legislature, executive and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other: nor shall any person exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time.& (LaCroix 2010).
In each of the three branches they have powers that are checked and balanced by another branch. For instance, the president has the power to appoint a judge but this appointment must have an approval by the senate.
These checks and balances compel the branches to have accountability over the other branch. Therefore, concluding that in the concept of separation of powers, no branch can have dominant power over the other.
References
Krane, D. & Koenig, H. (2005). The State of American Federalism, 2004: Is Federalism Still a Core Value? Publius 1-8.
LaCroix, A. L. (2010). The Ideological Origins of American Federalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Zavodnyik, P. (2011). The Rise of the Federal Colossus: The Growth of Federal Power from Lincoln to F.D.R. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.
Federalism is one of the characteristic features of the United States. This model of government implies the distribution of power among the territories of the country. Although there is a certain central power (such as federal government), different parts (or the state, in the American case) have wide rights to manage diverse spheres of peoples lives (Krutz and Waskiewicz 72). As with any other type of governance, it is possible to discuss federalism in terms of its advantages and shortcomings. However, this political approach is the most appropriate mode for the United States of America due to its historical, cultural, and political peculiarities.
In order to understand the reasons for the chosen path, it is necessary to look back at the distant sixteenth century. The continent was colonized by Europeans who came from Great Britain, Spain, France, Holland, and other countries. Americas have always been the land of immigrants as people from all over the world came there in their search for a better life. This diversity made Northern America the land where people with different views had to live and collaborate to address major challenges. Thus, states fought against France and earned their independence from empires (Wilson et al. 53). People who lived in different territories (states) united to solve various issues. They were ready to contribute and even give away a certain amount of their sovereignty, but they were not prepared to lose the power to decide what is best for them. To ensure that every state has certain freedom, a confederation and, eventually, federation came into being.
It is necessary to emphasize that peoples freedom is one of the major advantages of federalism. At present, state governments address the issues people face in the most effective way. Every state has numerous peculiarities that make certain rules and norms inapplicable and even harmful or destructive. For example, gun control is one of the problems Americans have different views about. Ten states allow carrying concealed weapons on campuses, while sixteen states forbid concealed weapons on campuses, and the rest of states allow educational establishments to set their own policies regarding the matter (Rozell and Wilcox 3). The adoption of specific regulations would be a real improvement for certain states, while some laws may lead to fierce opposition. Although the example is rather far-fetched, the United States almost ceased to exist once due to such major disagreement. Slavery and its abolition led to the American Civil War because southern states opposed the idea of the end of their economic model (Krutz and Waskiewicz 84). In a sense, federalism is an opportunity to develop strategies that could satisfy all parts of the multicultural country.
Another important benefit of federalism is its being an appropriate ground for the system of checks and balances. Every state has enough power to oppose federal policies or regulations and go to the Supreme Court if some legislation seems inadequate or wrongful (Conlan and Posner 289). At the same time, the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate foreign affairs and commerce, as well as interstate commerce (Krutz and Waskiewicz 75). The federal government is often trying to ensure the enactment of the most critical laws in all states, although this can be difficult to achieve. Still, federalism makes it impossible for a person (U. S. President, for example) or a group of people (a party or state governments) to seize power. State governments will focus on their local issues and making their peoples lives better, which is a good ground for discussion and collaboration, or even opposition that can also be necessary.
Federalism is a favorable platform for the development of successful policies and laws. This system is often referred to as a set of the laboratories of democracy (Wilson et al. 61). States can develop and try new policies regarding different spheres of peoples lives. If a policy is effective, other states can also try to implement it, or the federal government can try to help other states to follow. Importantly, if some laws do not work for people, the policies are abandoned. In simple words, states can choose what is better for their people and try to innovate. Obamacare is often seen as an illustration of the power of states to transform or safeguards older practices. For instance, California and North Dakota (as well as many other states) found this healthcare reform effective and appropriate for their local peculiarities. However, Texas and Florida (and other states) still oppose the implementation of the reform. At the same time, they would benefit from receiving the funds provided to the states that adopted the reform and have serious issues in their healthcare systems.
Clearly, federalism cannot be perfect and supported by all the people in the country since it also has certain disadvantages. Ironically, states freedoms and ability to oppose the federal government is both favorable and sometimes harmful. As mentioned above, states had the authority to choose the most appropriate economic model, which made slavery (and later segregation) a norm in southern states (Krutz and Waskiewicz 84). Although several rules seemed undemocratic and inhumane for northern people, many Americans who lived in southern states did not view plantations and the use of slaves labor as something bad. Thousands of people were deprived of their right to be a citizen of the country they were born in, and this was safeguarded by the principles of federalism. Luckily, Americans managed to overcome these problems, which shows that federalism is an effective system that leads to progress.
Another disadvantage of federalism is the overlap of powers and responsibilities in some cases. For example, such natural disasters as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (that occurred in 2005) showed vulnerabilities of the system (Wilson et al. 61). The federal and state governments could not make correct and timely decisions regarding various issues such as repair and maintenance of facilities or the implementation of relief incentives. When such catastrophes strike, it is essential to make sure that every authority and official knows exactly what to do. Nevertheless, this shortcoming of federalism can be addressed, and such major events as natural disasters make federal and state governments collaborate and develop effective strategies and policies.
Finally, federalism is often associated with the unwanted competition that can lead to various political, economic, and demographic issues. Rivalry among states can lead to the introduction of higher or lower taxes, which can affect peoples lives (Wilson 66). States try to attract big companies with lower taxes or more favorable conditions but introduce regulations that are harmful to other organizations or individuals. Some residents find it impossible to live in certain states and travel to other places to start a new life. However, this disadvantage can be seen as the cost of competition and innovation. People choose the best conditions and support the policies they find the most effective. In the course of time, they manage to develop effective strategies to ensure the wellbeing of the majority. The critics of federalism say that the focus on the needs of the majority is a serious disadvantage of federalism, but this is one of the downsides of democracy as well. Besides, minority groups have the right to voice their concerns and their will and try to make their interests satisfied.
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that historical, political, and cultural peculiarities of the United States make federalism the most appropriate type of governance for the country. Although this model has some disadvantages, such as an overlap of responsibilities, uncertainty, and a degree of rivalry among states, federalism is a good choice for the USA. It serves as a platform for collaboration and innovation. States have the right to introduce policies and laws they find appropriate for their people. The most successful regulations can be used by other parts of the country. In case a policy is ineffective, other states and the federal government can assist by providing funds or other help. These days, Americans have numerous issues to discuss and try to make the most winning decisions, and federalism can help them to succeed. Of course, it is essential to focus on collaboration rather than concentrate on specific interests without any chance of compromising. The history of the USA shows that Americans can collaborate as they managed to make their country one of the leaders in the global arena.
Works Cited
Conlan, Timothy J., and Paul L. Posner. American Federalism in an Era of Partisan Polarization: The Intergovernmental Paradox of Obamas New Nationalism . Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol. 46, no. 3, 2016, pp. 281-307.
Krutz, Glen, and Sylvie Waskiewicz. American Government. 2nd ed., Phil OpenStax, 2019.
Rozell, Mark J., and Clyde Wilcox. Federalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Wilson, James Q., et al. American Government: Institutions and Policies. Cengage Learning, 2018.
Federalism at the moment is one of the most important political principles, being the foundation of any federation. Almost all the largest countries in the world are built on this system, which is why this concept deserves attention. At its core, federalism is most often displayed in the unification of several elements into a single state, as was observed, for example, in the United States. However, federalism can be expressed in two models: dual and cooperative federalism, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this essay is to examine the concept of cooperative federalism and to identify its role and significance for the US political system.
Dual and Cooperative Federalism
A vivid example of the implementation of the concept of dual federalism is the United States of America in the form in which they were initially formed. The main distinguishing features of this theory is the internal sovereignty of objects, independence from each other and relative freedom in their organization. For politics, this means that state and federal governments have power over specific individuals, but this power is limited and cannot be taken away by another government (Smith).
The positions consistent with dual federalism were even enshrined in the Constitution. In the text of this document, there is a clear separation of powers between the federal government and the state government. The theory of dual federalism has long been the main one for interpreting the provisions of the Constitution (Smith). However, this interpretation began to lose its relevance at the beginning of the 20th century, along with the upcoming Industrial Revolution, and gradually gave way to the theory of cooperative federalism.
Cooperative federalism is much more liberal, aimed not at the separation of powers, but at communication between subjects. As the name suggests, this concept includes the active cooperation, as well as the duplication of functions of different governments (Morris). Dual and cooperative federalism is often compared to different types of pies. While the first is a kind of layer cake, the layers of which do not intersect, the second is more like a marble cake, the layers of which are mixed. This analogy reflects the intersection and overlap of various segments of power of different political structures.
Although directly in the United States, the principle of cooperative federalism began to be actively introduced into the political structure of the state only starting from the 1930s, its roots are much more profound. As in the case of dual federalism, in the US Constitution can be found acts dating back to the 19th century that refer to the cooperation of various levels of government (Morris). However, the idea was most actively implemented in the mid-20th century, when the state began to rely on the states to enforce new policies. Together with the active development of this concept, it changed, evolved and took a new form. However, these changes did not negatively affect the work of the idea in general. Therefore its elements continue to be introduced in the current political system.
Importance of Cooperative Federalism
The active introduction of cooperative federalism in the middle of the last century was associated with the struggle over the problems of society. The influence of the government expanded after World War II and primarily increased after the announcement of Lyndon B. Johnson War on Poverty (Morris). The state used the concept of cooperative federalism to unite the efforts of the whole country. These attempts were aimed at such problematic issues as education, medicine, ensuring social security and many others. For a productive endeavor in these areas, the concept of dual federalism was not suitable. Unity was required to defeat the problems of society, which could not be ensured if the states were free from government influence. The concept of cooperative federalism helps unite forces and focus them against a particular problem.
To achieve this, as was said above, restructuring and rethinking of this concept, its adaptation to the realities of our time, was required. Modern views on cooperative federalism are significantly different from the origins of this theory, moving away from unconditional help to the implementation of the requirements for joint work (Morris). On the one hand, such a policy in some ways contradicts the original meaning, in which national and state governments share power among themselves.
On the other hand, in modern conditions of the presence of a vast number of freedoms for effective management, state intervention, the establishment of restrictions and requirements by them are necessary. Such changes are introduced precisely to ensure the cooperation of various states since even when conditions are created for their interaction, likely, governments will not do this.
Recently, the question of the role and importance of cooperative federalism has been raised again due to a partial return to the concept of dual federalism. For example, at the end of the 20th century, the policy of the United States again turned to this theory, strictly separating the various levels of power, and this was especially noticeable during the reign of Ronald Reagan (Morris). These changes affect only negatively the system since there is no single focus and various kinds of contradictions arise.
An example of this is the Clean Water Act (CWA) and nonpoint source pollution, explicitly expressed in the state of the Mississippi River basin. Despite the presence of the CWA, its use is difficult due to the inactivity of state government, as well as due to their ignoring of scientific approaches to solving the problem (Secchi and Mcdonald 247). This happens simultaneously both due to insufficient state intervention in the regulation of state cooperation and due to the partial introduction of elements of dual federalism and separation of powers. The state government, among other things, also does not have enough funding to pay sufficient attention to this problem. Thus, it can be noted that in politics as a whole, it is worth adhering to one approach to obtain maximum results.
A positive example of the application of cooperative federalism is the situation related to the implementation of the concept of the Rangeland fire protection association. This fire department consists of volunteer teams and is one of the latest innovations in this area (Abrams 252). The concept itself is saturated with the spirit of cooperative and cooperative federalism since it implies the joint and flexible interaction of various state structures to work on one problem. According to Abrams, the landscape of economic management is changing significantly thanks to these innovations, including the initiatives of rising cooperative federalism (258). As practice shows, with a proper approach and organization of the system, such a policy can be beneficial.
Thus, the concept of cooperative federalism at the moment not only takes place in the political system of the United States, but there is a clearly expressed need for it. Its main goal is to combine the efforts of various government structures and ensure their active interaction by creating the conditions for this. The importance of cooperative federalism lies in the fact that thanks to this interaction, it is possible to solve various social problems. With the proper approach, this concept can be used very effectively, and it is in this direction that the political system of the United States should develop.
Works Cited
Abrams, Jesse, et al. State Lines, Fire Lines, and Lines of Authority: Rangeland Fire Management and Bottom-Up Cooperative Federalism. Land Use Policy, vol. 75, 2018, pp. 252-259.
Secchi, Silvia, and Mcdonald, Moira. The State of Water Quality Strategies in the Mississippi River Basin: Is Cooperative Federalism Working? Science of the Total Environment, vol. 677, 2019, pp. 241-249.
Smith, Troy. Dual Federalism.The Center for the Study of Federalism. 2018. Web.
The American constitution does not capture the term federalism despite the fact that governance method has been in existence for many years. George Washington was not of the view that federalism would totally take a place in America.
It did not occur to him that national governance would prove difficult at some point in time. The characteristic wide geographical area, expanded infrastructural network and social amenities were some of the factors that steered America towards federalism (Smith 2).
It was difficult to offer comprehensive and balanced national governance to all regions within America especially in the 18th century. The federalism was thereafter born and it enjoys its existence until today. Several interventions have seen America move towards complete federalism (Helfman 108). Close ties among state governments have been instrumental in the working together of state governments. Cooperative federalism is now in place.
It emphasizes on shared policy formulation between the respective governments. The essay discusses how federalism has evolved since James Madison wrote The Federalist, 51 and the effects of Federalism on American politics. It also explains my opinion on whether I would construct a federalist or unified system if I were to design a constitution for a foreign government.
Articles of Confederation in 1770 may be regarded as the genesis of federalism. They laid down policies on the operation of federal government. However, the work of James Madison and others in the Federalist Papers contributed significantly to the genesis of federalism in the US.
Madison alone wrote over 20 articles on the subject and helped in the development and ratification of the US constitution and the 39th article as well as Federalist 51 is regarded as the most indicative of the concept of Federalism and the reasons for the need to have checks and balances of any government respectively. In the Federalist 51, Madison suggests that there is no greater reflection on human nature than that of having a government.
The long journey towards federalism is still transforming itself to accommodate various needs (Hamilton, Madison and Jay 45). Political power sharing and power of governance are the centers of interest within this form of government. The concept of federalism has been changing over the years. The various evolution changes are discussed next.
The Articles of Confederation did not receive total support from the citizens. It was viewed as a tool for limiting the strengths of the federal government (Bailyn 13). Some citizens supported the recommendations of introducing federalism. It was the governments failure to control the economy that sparked a rebellion from citizens in Massachusetts. The federal government could not handle the protests.
The bicameral legislature was adopted and enforced in 1887 and the formation of the US constitution given a thought in Philadelphia. Those opposed to the new constitution represented those who were also opposed to federalism. 1791 saw the passing of 10 articles drafted by Madison. The Bill of Rights was the product of these articles. The tenth Amendment held answers to the element of federalism. The conflicts that existed between proponents and opposes of federalism began to subdue with time (Martinez and Richardson 314).
The powers of the Federal government were increased once the sixteenth and seventeenth schedules were adopted. Dual Federalism lasted for a century. The demarcation of power was later characterized by the introduction of the local governments that functioned on different grounds from the state governments (Martinez and Richardson 325). The local governments were assigned duties that improved the quality of life.
Social amenities provision was left to the local governments. The federal government was assigned roles that included National Defense, Foreign policy and Currency Patents (Smith 13). It was upon the state government to ensure that Civil Service laws, family law, labor law and property law were enforced. Cases that were within each docket were handled by the respective governments.
The Great Depression experienced in US made things change in favor of the federal government. The federal government once again enjoyed a skewed amount of power.
The deterioration of the economy saw the federal government cooperate with the state governments to counter the recession. The introduction of the New Deal policies by Franklin Roosevelt gave the federal government more power to manage the financial aid (Martinez and Richardson 319).
The federal government received the aid and distributed it to the state governments. The creation of the cooperative Federalism was initiated. The absolute power to manage these grants did not ensure equitable economic development in the various states. The early 20th and 21st centuries witnessed the evolution of Cooperative Federalism to New Federalism (Martinez and Richardson 322).
President Ronald Reagan championed the shift of power from the central government to the state governments. This shift was witnessed between 1981 and 1989 and was referred to as the devolution evolution. This recent evolution has enjoyed the test of time and is still in practice today.
What was achieved in this evolution was the restoration of lost autonomy and creation of political balance between the governments (Helfman 116). Presidents that succeeded Reagan have handled this with utmost care to ensure that US remains united in all its economic, social and political goals.
The national government is superior in the sense that it ensures matters of national interest remain intact and orderly (Bailyn 16). It is upon it to ensure that states function as required by the law. The national government would thus intervene and avert cases where a state rises against the other (Martinez and Richardson 331).
It ensures that all the citizens within states adhere to both laws. A practical example involved the contested 2000 Presidential election. The disputed votes in Florida exposed America to one of the biggest legal tussles due to issues of jurisdiction (Martinez and Richardson 333).
It was a big test for both governments, at a time when the world was awaiting to witness the election of the 43rd president of USA. The US Supreme Court was the final player in this matter and ensured that the contestation was over (Bailyn 18).
This clearly attests to the fact that the national government may be forced to intervene once a matter within a state is of national interest. The local government plays a crucial role in the expansion of education, health and sanitation facilities. It is however important to establish whether a facility is of state or national interest.
The federal government is keen on highway, airport and sewage plants projects that benefit people from various states. It is therefore common to have federal funding for such projects. The federal government stipulates policies that govern the allocation of such funds.
If I were to design a constitution for a foreign government, I would construct a federalist system of government. In my view, Federalism is superior to a unified system.
A number of reasons can be cited to sufficiently support this claim. Federalism has proved to be the most effective way of power sharing without bringing a picture of political division. A concentrated power experienced in unified systems has been a source of limited democracy (Smith 28). The emergence and growth of monarchial empires have been a fruit of unified system.
Federalism ensures that policies and politics are decentralized for the good of all. Its upon the states to decide what policies to adopt and which persons to spearhead their implementation. The adoption of policies in consideration of cultural and social norms is made possible through federalism. The state governments have been associated with remarkable innovation and democracy.
Moreover, the abolishment of slave trade in some states and the realization of affirmative action for women were witnessed in some states. Increased public participation through voting has sensitized people towards the awareness of their political rights.
Federalism, therefore, ensures that the public interests are accommodated at one level or the other. Policies that are rejected by a state may be acceptable to the national government. A practical example is the racial integration that was criticized and opposed by the southern states in 1960 (Bailyn 23).
The national government viewed the integration as a step towards attaining racial equality. Federalism is important in ensuring that decision making accommodates the needs of the citizens within a given state. A fair democratic system is that which offers a platform for positive criticism.
Federalism has proved crucial in the positive challenge of policies that may seem inappropriate at a given time. It is for this reason that a person may become a successful governor in a given state but fail to be elected at the national level. Federalism is therefore preferable to the unified system of government.
The essay has discussed how federalism has evolved since James Madison wrote The Federalist No. 51 and the effects of Federalism on American politics. It has also explained my opinion on why I would construct a federalist government instead of a unified system if I were to design a constitution for a foreign government.
Works Cited
Bailyn, Bernard. The Federalist Papers. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2007: Pp. 13-24
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James and Jay, John. The Federalist Papers: 178788.
Reprint, New York: New American Library of World Literature, 2001: Pp. 43-76
Helfman, Tara. The Law of Nations: The Federalist Papers. Journal of Legal History, 23 (August): 2000, Pp.107128.
Martinez, J. Michael, and Richardson, D. William. The Federalist Papers and Legal Interpretation. South Dakota Law Review, 45, 2000: Pp. 307333.
Smith, Jennifer. Understanding Federalism. UBC Press, 2005: Pp. 1-37
The federalist papers refer to a series of eighty five articles that were written and published in the New York newspapers under the name Publius. The articles were written by three American constitutionalists namely James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay (Bernstein 14). The articles were mainly written to drum up support for the then proposed constitution. This effort was later recognized as one of the most successful public relation campaigns ever. All of these articles were published between 1787 and 1788. The papers were published in different newspapers and journals. The federalist papers are still considered good reference materials for anyone who wants to understand the United States Constitution.
When the Federal Convention proposed the new constitution and sent it to the Confederation Congress for ratification, it immediately became a major debate item. This debate took the form of numerous essays and articles especially from those who were opposing it. These anti-federalists had begun publishing articles in New York papers as early as September of 1787 (Meyerson 24). This development gave rise to another group whose intention was to demystify the contents of the proposed constitution. The first Federalist paper explains that the series would respond to all objections that were relevant to the readers. Alexander Hamilton the pioneer author of the federalist papers recruited the other two authors to help him with the task. These two other contributors were John Jay and James Madison.
These papers were to appear in three different papers in New York; The New York Packet , The Independent Journal , and The Daily Advertiser . The purpose of the federalist papers was to convince the people of New York to ratify the proposed constitution because most of the other states had already done so. It is not clear to what extent these articles were able to accomplish this mission but their overall contribution is notable. The federalist papers were structured in such a way that they were able to cover six major topics. However, the papers are mostly used to interpret the constitution and prove the intentions of those who framed it. These papers are very useful especially in understanding those pieces of legislation that bear controversy.
One of such sections is the one that protects citizens right to bear arms. This section is covered by the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution. This section was part of the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791. The federalist papers number forty six and twenty eight discuss this subject. These papers can help in understanding the intentions of those who framed the Second Amendment. The context of this section of the constitution can also be understood through the federalist papers.
The Second Amendment was meant to disperse fears that the rights Americans were accustomed to would be lost. One of the authors of this piece of legislation also authored the federalist papers. James Madison, the framer of the Second Amendment wrote federalist paper number forty six that addresses the issue of right to bear arms. According to this paper, Americans have an advantage over people of other nations because they are armed. The paper then notes that this premise threatens other institutions of authority that bear the responsibility to appoint militia officers. The paper also commented on the situation in Europe where monarchies were quick to restrict arms. This was mostly because they were afraid of the citizens revolting against them. It is also noted that a fair system of government has nothing to fear when it comes to granting citizens the right to bear arms. Alexander Hamilton on his side wrote in paper number twenty eight that the best people hoped for, was that they be properly armed. The paper adds that arms ownership contributes to the citizens right to self defense.
These papers address the main issues surrounding the right to bear arms. First, the papers outline the reasons Americans should be allowed to bear arms. The first reason is because it is a right they have always been accustomed to. The second reason is because the power that comes with having guns should not be limited to organs of the government. This is because governments often use this power against the citizens. The other reason is because it sets Americans apart from other people especially those in Europe. According to the paper, disarming Americans would have marked the beginning of oppression against them. The federalist papers were meant to get the people to ratify the constitution; therefore they addressed those issues that opponents of the constitution dwelt on. This way it can be concluded that the main fear at the time was that the new constitution would propose that the citizens be disarmed.
Works Cited
Bernstein, R. The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Bogus, Carl. The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms, New York, NY: The New Press, 2001. Print.
Cornell, S. Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect, New York, NY: St. Martins, 2000. Print.
Meyerson, Michael. Libertys Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World, New York, NY: Basic Books, 2008. Print.
General impact of fiscal federalism on finance and budgeting in public organizations
With particular inconsistencies, theories of fiscal federalism represent a set of principles implemented for regulating the fiscal relations between various governmental levels. As a study aimed at selecting the most appropriate strategies and fiscal instruments for regulating the budgets of various layers of administration, fiscal federalism includes a system through which central government shares its revenues with the lower levels of administration (Mikesell 2010). According to a certain theory of fiscal federalism, the central government can impose particular restrictions and regulatory measures on pubic organizations for regulating their finance and budgeting operations.
Disregarding the lack of a comprehensive theory of fiscal federalism and the current debates surrounding it, the state fiscal constitutions can be defined as powerful though poorly understood instruments having a significant impact upon financing and distribution of revenues within public organizations. Super (2005) noted that states should update their constitutions for the purpose of eliminating the chaotic responses to the swings of the private sector and fulfilling the tasks which are assigned to them (p. 2560). Public organizations have to comply with the federal accounting principles, avoiding any deficits while planning their yearly budgets and maintaining the budgetary process in the sunshine.
For example, the annual finance report of a city should be available for the wide audience (Byers Laws, regulations, and policies). The central government can also regulate the distribution of the costs, indicating particular fields of the annual reports. For example, all public organizations have to include data on the post-employment benefits for their retirees in their annual reports (Byers Laws, regulations, and policies).
In general, it can be concluded that implementing certain principles of fiscal federalism, the central government can control the financing and budgetary operations of public organizations.
The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements upon fiscal and budgetary operation of American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
The enactment of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 and following its amendment in 2008 was aimed at providing citizens with disabilities with equal rights and opportunities. This mandate law obligates organizations to employ workers with disabilities, observe their rights and satisfy their specific needs as well as to take into consideration the demands of their potential customers with disabilities. The ADA requirements influenced the fiscal and budgetary operations of American College Health Association (ACHA) in terms of enforcement of employment rights and observing the rights of employers and students with disabilities.
Disregarding all the criticism of the methods implemented through this mandate law, it was intended to increase the level of employment of people with disabilities and protect their rights in working and public environment for preventing any discrimination. Deleire (2000) noted that substantial barriers to the employment of people with disabilities persist in spite of the employment mandates of ADA (p. 24). The enforcement of the ADA presupposed not only providing equal employment rights for people with disabilities, but also additional expenses for equipping colleges with all the necessary facilities needed for observing the rights of people with disabilities.
The regulations of these issues is controlled by the central government and the corresponding expenses need to be considered while planning a budget and included into the Annual Fiscal Report of all organizations (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended). The peculiar feature of American College Health Association is the necessity to create the conditions for students with disabilities which would not violate their rights for receiving education (American College Health Association). In general, it can be concluded that enactment of ADA caused additional financial burden for American College Health Association in the form of expenses required for observing the rights of employees and students.
Reference List
Byers, J. Laws, regulations, and policies. n.d.
Super, D. A. (2005). Rethinking fiscal federalism. Harvard Law Review, 118(8), 25462652.
Mikesell, J. (2010). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications for the public sector. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Public.
American College Health Association. Web.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. (n.d.) Web.
Deleire, T. (2000). The unintended consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regulation 23(1): 21-25. Web.