The contributors to this volume analyze the impetus, nature and impact of state devolution in the United States. While debates over such changes typically centre on economic, political, and social change, the contributors shift the debate to an examination of the complex geographical implications of devolution. In a society territorially fragmented and diverse as exists in the US, changes in the form and function of government are experienced differently in different parts of the country. This volume details the outcomes of restructuring and explores how the redistribution of resources and responsibilities affects the lives of all Americans.
Now that responsibility for welfare policy has devolved from Washington to the states, Pamela Winston examines how the welfare policymaking process has changed. Under the welfare reform act of 1996, welfare was the first and most basic safety net program to be sent back to state control. Will the shift help or further diminish programs for low-income people, especially the millions of children who comprise the majority of the poor in the United States? In this book, Winston probes the nature of state welfare politics under devolution and contrasts it with welfare politics on the national level. Starting with James Madison's argument that the range of perspectives and interests found in state policymaking will be considerably narrower than in Washington, she analyzes the influence of interest groups and other key actors in the legislative process at both the state and national levels. She compares the legislative process during the 104th Congress (1995-96) with that in three states — Maryland, Texas, and North Dakota — and finds that the debates in the states saw a more limited range of participants, with fewer of them representing poor people, and fewer competing ideas. The welfare reform bill of 1996 comes up for renewal in 2002. At stake in the U.S. experiment in welfare reform are principles of equal opportunity, fairness, and self-determination as well as long-term concerns for political and social stability. This investigation of the implications of the changing pattern of welfare politics will interest scholars and teachers of social policy, federalism, state politics, and public policy generally, and general readers interested in social policy, state politics, social justice, and American politics.
In this report, Harold A. Hovey explores the constraints that states face in collecting taxes and assesses which states are best and least prepared to finance any added responsibilities.
The balance between state and federal health care financing for low-income people has been a matter of considerable debate for the last 40 years. Some argue for a greater federal role, others for more devolution of responsibility to the states. Medicaid, the backbone of the system, has been plagued by an array of problems that have made it unpopular and difficult to use to extend health care coverage. In recent years, waivers have given the states the flexibility to change many features of their Medicaid programs; moreover, the states have considerable flexibility to in establishing State Children's Health Insurance Programs. This book examines the record on the changing health safety net. How well have states done in providing acute and long-term care services to low-income populations? How have they responded to financial incentives and federal regulatory requirements? How innovative have they been? Contributing authors include Donald J. Boyd, Randall R. Bovbjerg, Teresa A. Coughlin, Ian Hill, Michael Housman, Robert E. Hurley, Marilyn Moon, Mary Beth Pohl, Jane Tilly, and Stephen Zuckerman.
In the period from 1970 to the early 1990s, Republican leaders launched three major reforms of the federal system. Although all three initiatives advanced decentralization as a goal, they were remarkably different in their policy objectives, philosophical assumptions, patterns of politics, and policy outcomes. Expanding and updating his acclaimed book, New Federalism: Intergovernmental Reform from Nixon to Reagan (1988), Timothy Conlan provides a comprehensive look at intergovernmental reform from Nixon to the 104th Congress. The stated objectives of Republican reformers evolved from rationalizing and decentralizing an activist government, to rolling back the welfare state, to replacing it altogether. Conlan first explains why conservatives have placed so much emphasis on federal reform in their domestic agendas. He then examines Nixon's New Federalism, including management reforms and revenue sharing; analyzes the policies and politics of the "Reagan revolution"; and reviews the legislative limitations and achievements of the 104th Congress. Finally, he traces the remarkable evolution of federalism reform politics and ideology during the past 30 years and provides alternative scenarios for the future of American federalism.
Polls show only 20% of citizens trust the U.S. federal government to do what is right most of the time. Polls find the average American believes the nation is two-thirds of the way to "the edge of a civil war." Can the federal government unite and govern this polarized nation? If not, how does it divide? Devolution of Power directly addresses these questions. It provides a roadmap to unwinding the massive accumulation of federal power by returning many domestic functions to the states. By distributing power throughout the nation, the federal government can focus on protecting America while empowering citizens in the respective states with the freedom to determine the domestic policies they want to be implemented by more efficient governments closer to them. Unlike many books on government reform, Devolution of Power is not just a list of complaints that leave the reader seeking solutions. It addresses how to restructure a federal government before it collapses the nation: Rekindling the idea that government officials must serve as fiduciaries, not self-interested politicians. Providing alternative mechanisms for rolling back federal power. Outlining a restructuring plan to devolve federal power to the states. Identifying options for trimming the national debt and the federal bureaucracy. Describing the character traits needed by elected officials to restore trust in government. While electing fiduciaries and devolving federal domestic powers to the states may seem to be an impossible task, the author presents a compelling case that it is a far easier task than rebuilding a collapsed nation burdened with massive debt, regulatory sclerosis, continuous wars, and little concern for the average American.
The contributors to this volume analyze the impetus, nature and impact of state devolution in the United States. While debates over such changes typically centre on economic, political, and social change, the contributors shift the debate to an examination of the complex geographical implications of devolution. In a society territorially fragmented and diverse as exists in the US, changes in the form and function of government are experienced differently in different parts of the country. This volume details the outcomes of restructuring and explores how the redistribution of resources and responsibilities affects the lives of all Americans.
Devolution and Black State Legislators examines whether black state legislators can produce qualitative gains in the substantive representation of black interests. Once a battle cry by southern conservatives, "new federalism" has shifted power from Washington to the respective state governments and, ironically, has done so as black state legislators grow in number. Tyson King-Meadows and Thomas F. Schaller look at the debates surrounding black political incorporation, the tradeoffs between substantive and descriptive representation, racial redistricting, and the impact of black legislators on state budgetary politics. They situate contemporary constraints on black state elites as the union of macro- and micro-level forces, which allows for a reconsideration of how the idiosyncrasies of political, economic, and geographic culture converge with the internal dynamics of state legislative processes to produce particular environments. Interviews with black legislators provide valuable insights into how such idiosyncrasies may deprive institutional advancement—committee assignments, chairmanships, and party leadership positions—of the influence it once afforded.
Why do national governments implement devolution given the high risk that it will encourage peripheral parties to demand ever more devolved powers? The aim of Challenging the State is to answer this question through a comparative analysis of devolution in four European countries: Belgium, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
