Types of Federalism
Dual Federalism:
Interpretation that limits powers to both national and state governments. Sometimes referred to as layer cake federalism where there are clear divisions between layers or levels of government. With dual federalism there is a strict definition of federal, state and local responsibilities. Tends to lean towards national supremacy.
Marble Cake Federalism
Federalism is a marble cake in which all levels of government (national, state, and local) are involved in a variety of programs. Tends to favor states rights.
Cooperative Federalism
A system in which national, state, and local governments interact cooperatively, working jointly to solve common problems, rather than making policy separately.
Competitive Federalism
Competitive federalism means that regional or local governments compete with other regional or local governments. People choose which regional or local government to live under which means states compete for business and workers.
New FederalismNew federalism originated in the early 1970s with the Nixon administration's Republican efforts to return federal administrative power to state governments; later led to Reagan’s devolution (returning control to the states).
Primary advantages of state control
Federal ideal – diverse states provide real choices
Promotes competition across states
Revitalizes state government – governments only improve if stakes are high
Grassroots problem solving – involves local communities, tailored to local problems
Reduces federal bureaucracy Primary advantages of federal control
Equity: benefits from education or social security not dependent on where you live
Economies of scale (one bureaucracy instead of fifty)
States cannot redistribute (competition for productive firms and workers creates incentives to reduce social welfare spending)
Many states have limited partisan competition
Many states are dominated by narrow economic interests
Categorical grants
One form of aid from federal to state and local government
Grant finances particular policies
No state or local discretion
Administered by federal agencies
Block Grants
Form of aid from federal to state and local government
Grant finances broad array of policies
Substantial state and local discretion
Administered at state level
Advocated by Republican Presidents
Timeline
Founding to Civil War: 1789-1860s
Federalism in the first century of U.S. history is often described as dual, with clear distinctions between the spheres of activity of state and national government. Competition between the two levels was chiefly over economic development and regulation.. While there were few intergovernmental grants before the Civil War, the governments cooperated in establishing new territories and the transportation needed to open and exploit the new lands.
Post-Bellum Expansion and the Progressive Era: 1865-1920s
Following the Civil War, diversity among states was no longer seen as a source of liberty. While individual states might lead with their progressive reforms, only the national government could take that agenda to all states. The national government became a more active regulator and reformer in the economic system, while state reforms focused on traditional areas of police power and services--hospitals, sanitation and public welfare. By the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the national government became the keeper of economic development, greatly expanding its role in supporting and regulating commerce. This growth of national authority, ostensibly controlling industries, was more often protective of the large commercial interests.
Industrialization, urbanization and immigration created new problems that existing institutions were ill-suited to solve. State and local governments were absorbed with these problems, which seemed to be exacerbated by corruption and collusion between corporations and the national government. Progressive responses to the problems of modernization often began at local and state levels, in the governments that were struggling to cope with the consequences of the economic changes. Unlike earlier reactions to economic centralization, however, the reform agenda was then taken to the national level.
New Deal and World War II: 1930s-1950s
Hamilton had argued that a strong national government was needed to respond to external enemies and to protect commerce. His theory was vindicated as a global depression and two World Wars led to the most powerful national government in the history of the United States.Although the New Deal was the most centralizing period of Federalism, the shift was well under way before FDR's election. The national government's greater flexibility in raising revenues following the adoption of the 16th amendment led to revenue sharing, with a pattern of federalism that continues today: advanced approval of state plans, formula funding or distribution, requirements to provide matching funds, and detailed reporting. Postwar Prosperity The national government played such a dominant role in the New Deal and World War II that some students of federalism have declared an end to federalism as the founders intended. However, state governments tended to keep pace with the national growth, and growth in national governmental power was shared to some extent with the states. From the New Deal onward, state-national relationships were closer than they had been in the first half of the nation's history, with different levels of government working together towards common objectives
Great Society and Vietnam War: 1960s
Another period of national government activism began in 1964 with Lyndon B. Johnson's election. Elected with a strong mandate and large Democratic majorities in both houses, LBJ greatly expanded the national commitment to addressing social problems that beset society. The courts uphold crosscutting grants, coercive taxes and outright mandates in the face of growing challenges by states
New Federalisms: 1970s-Current
Beginning with Richard M. Nixon's administration there has been a series of efforts to reduce national control over the grants-in-aid programs and revise the character of federal involvement in general welfare spending.
As the size of the federal budget has become a limiting factor in policy making, Congress has been increasingly willing to use mandates and coercive grants to achieve policy objectives during the 1970s and 1980s. This has further fueled a reaction against this regulatory federalism.