The Federal Government and Its Inter-Governmental Influences on State and Local Government - Essay Example

The Federal Government and Its Inter-govermental Influences on and Local Government and Federal Policy Issues Introduction Policies are rules or principles that guide decisions that are aimed at achieving positive outcomes. Policies are usually instituted by governments, businesses, and organizations and assist in objective and subjective decision making. Policy making generally involves eight steps including identification of the issue to be solved, analysis of the policy, instrument development, and consultation according to Spitzer (1987). Others include coordination, decision making, implementation and evaluation of the policy. In a nation governed by a federal government such as the United States of America, the policies created at the local government and state level may affect activities at the national level as noted by Mossberger (1999). Similarly, the policies that are developed at the national level are bound to affect the states and local government. What this means is that there is an intergovernmental relationship between the three entities in respect of policy making and implementation. This paper will discuss the federal government’s influences on local government, state, as well as federal policy issues. Federal, State and Local Governments in the United States The local governments in the United States of America exist in the form of special purpose governments, county governments, municipal governments, as well as township governments. The local and state governments play vital roles in the country (Mossberger, 1999). More specifically, they organize the police, institute regulations, manage public schools, and provide water and fire services among other services. The local and state governments in the U.S. are not mutually exclusive as they cooperate a lot in serving the nationals that reside within their jurisdictions (Mossberger, 1999). While this is the case, the state government makes the final decisions over functions that work locally. Just as the local governments are created by the states, the states are part of the federal system. Furthermore, the state government can manage the existence and powers of a local government within its jurisdiction. Each of the three government agencies can make decisions and thus impact the lives of nationals living in their areas of jurisdiction as noted by Hedge (1983). With the debate about federalism and decentralization raging, people are left wondering how intergovernmental influences are going to impact their lives. With a decentralized system, the local and state governments are given more power with the hope that service delivery will be more efficient Hedge (1983). With the local and state governments enjoying greater presence at the group, many people feel that they are better placed at developing policies that guide the developments of their areas of coverage as they better understand the needs of the nationals that they serve. Inter-govermental Influences on State and Local Government and Federal Policy Issues The United States federal system works in such a way that the state, local and national governments are assigned decision making authority. However, the national government seems to enjoy more powers relative to its counterparts, thanks to the supremacy, proper, and commerce clauses of the constitution. Federal government agencies have the mandate of executing programs across the nation. However, in order to make this a success, they need the support of state and local government agencies. Intergovernmental policy implementation thus depends on several factors including the capabilities and efforts of the two subordinate players. Before the founding of America as a nation and before the end of the civil war, individual states that currently make up the U.S. retained absolute powers to make policies, not so today. Currently, the federal government is subject to great advantages in structuring the way it relates with local and state governments. Federal officials have the capacity to dictate the policies established at the state levels when they wish to. In fact, the growth currently witnessed at the local government and state levels is a consequence of federal domestic policy and nationalization. The federal government can influence the choices made by state and local governments in making policies directly by preempting policies at the state level. Further, it can induce the cooperation of states by applying various penalties (such as sunctions) or incentives depending on the actions of individual states (Welch & Thompson, 1980). Yet again, it can impact state policy choices without an intention of doing so. By lowering the cost of initiating regulatory action or placing certain agendas in respect of state policy, the federal government encourages greater state regulation. On the other hand, when the federal government reduces the net benefits of initiatives that arise at the state level, it discourages state regulation (Welch & Thompson, 1980). Essentially, what this means is that federal regulation can lower or enhance regulatory activity at the state level. Several researchers have made conclusions regarding federal government influences on state policy. For example, a study conducted by Thomson and Welch revealed that the rate of diffusion of policy innovations across states is impacted by federal financial incentives (Welch & Thompson, 1980; Mossberger, 1999). A study by Hedge revealed that states’ reliance on aid from the federal government impacts their budgetary processes (Hedge, 1983). Yet again, some scholars have noted that national welfare policy alterations influence the welfare policies that individual states adopt. It is clear that policy makers working at the national or federal level have agendas directed toward the domestic level. They may thus use incentives to compel states to abide by those agendas. That said, it is worth noting that policy makers who are greatly inclined to the domestic environment may easily find the federal system that is firmly rooted in the U.S. quite frustrating. The most obvious and straight forward action that the federal government uses in influencing state policies is fiscal federalism. In this respect, fiscal federalism relates to the revenue sharing, taxation, and spending policies adopted by the federal government with respect to subnational governments (Mossberger, 1999). The revenues earned by the federal government may reach the subnational governments as project grants, or block grants. Alternatively, they may be transferred to the same destination in the form of categorical grants or as grants in aid. As an example, when the federal government increased the AFDC grants, more benefits were enjoyed by state citizens. However, when the grants were reduced the benefits experienced no changes owing to contextual factors at the state levels. In this respect, the federal government can impact state policy making through fiscal incentives by making them depend on revenues from intergovernmental sources or by making a policy or program more reasonably priced (Saul, 1998). The demands made by the federal government in respect of states normally accompany fiscal incentives according to Mossberger (1999). The mandates of the federal government in this respect may be instituted by the executive, Supreme Court, or Congress. These may be in the form of crosscutting regulations, direct orders, partial preemptions or crossover sanctions (Saul, 1998). Beyond the application of penalties and incentives, the federal government may hint its preferences to state policymakers prompting them to anticipate future advances. In case the signals are clear and strong, the state policy makers read the move as an endorsement by the federal government prompting them to take actions that will bring the state closer to adopting the policy centris baribus (Welch & Thompson, 1980). As an example, the federal government may tackle an issue somehow this sending signals to state governments that the issue is vital. The states will also realize the preferred action to be taken in respect of the same issue. However, when the federal government fails to act or cannot act in regard to an issue the states also catch a signal and act on its own accord in solving the issue at hand. The federal government may then endorse the steps taken by a state or local government, making it become adopted by other states over time as noted by Welch and Thompson (1980). Several examples can be applied in explaining the relationship between the federal government and policy making at different levels. However, for this paper, only a few examples are highlighted. The Supreme Court ruled against laws that prohibited abortion completely in the early 70s. A year or so following the ruling, Congress instituted a raft of measures compelling states to expand health coverage through Medicaid. Yet another mandate that can explain the relationship between the national government and state policy making is in respect of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The Act, together with its amendments established the standards that apply in regard to air quality. The mandate led to an increase in the adoption of several policies at the state and local government levels. Conclusion In a federal system, such as that that applies in the United States of America, the state, the federal and the local governments must act in coherence. The policies that apply at the state level may affect the federal government’s way of doing things. On the other hand, the federal government greatly influences the policies that are adopted at the state and local government levels. The federal government can guide policy making at the state level by applying incentives and penalties as appropriate. In this respect, the incentives may come in the form of aids and grants while penalties may came in the form sanctions. Fiscal federalism as a measure commonly applied by the national government involves the revenue sharing, taxation, and spending policies. Apart from applying these, it can give signals that guide the policy makers at various levels to make policies that are inclined somehow toward the signal. In addition, the federal government may establish mandates and impose them on the states considering the power it has relative to that wielded by the state governments. Following the global economic crisis that hit the world at large, the federal government had to release stimulus packages to foster growth and save some elements of the U.S. economy from total collapse. The stimulus package was aimed at solving problems nationally, down to the domestic level. With such packages on offer, the state governments as well as the local governments realized that the economy was at its worse and had to institute measures to save the public from the very worst. Even so, the local governments which are charged with the responsibility of collecting taxes at the grass roots had to continue with their work in spite of the challenges being faced by the nation. Even so, the federal government has offered a budget with huge deficits prompting state governments to institute spending cuts across the board. The difficult moments have seen state and local government leaders work together in formulating policies that are aimed at addressing specific problems that affect the nationals. In as much as most powers are vested with the federal government in managing the country, it is worth noting that all the three government agencies depend on one another for their individual and corporate success. Considering the policy making cycle presented above, it is important to note that the federal and state governments many times have to establish policies that affect people ate the grassroots. What this means is that the policies that are created at the state and federal levels to some extent emerge at the local level. Also, as previously noted, many of the policies that apply federally today were created at the state levels before being universally adopted for the worthiness when applied in the states. References Hedge, M. (1983). Fiscal Dependency and the State Budget Process. Journal of Politics 45: 198-208. Mossberger, K (1999) State-Federal Diffusion and Policy Learning: From Enterprise Zones to Empower Zones. Publius 29: 31-56 Saul, R. (1998) Major Developments in the States:1997. The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 1: 22-31. Spitzer, J. (1987). "Promoting Policy Theory: Revising the Arenas of Power". Policy Studies Journal 15 (4): 675–689. Welch S. & Thompson, K. (1980). The Impact of Federal Incentives on State Policy Innovation. American Journal of Policy Science 24:715-729. Read More