The Process of Devolution since 1960 - Essay Example

 The process of devolution since 1960 Introduction Patterson defines devolution as the process of removing a program from one level of government by delegating it to a lower government level for example from the national government to local government or to the federal government. Devolution is a decentralization process which gives a greater degree of self rule to sub-central (Patterson 92). Certain powers and responsibilities are transferred from one entity to the other in an effort to reduce federal government powers. Federalism on the other hand is a system where there is a constitutionally established division of authority between a central level government and the regional or sub central level governments. It is the division of power between federal governments and individual state governments. As such, federalism is based on balanced authority with either the central or the regional level of government dominating in policy making and legislation. The USA moved to new federalism in the 1970’s and 80’s under the Republican regimes of President Nixon and Reagan which allows the state to reclaim some power and at the same time recognize the federal government as the highest government with most power (Patterson 96). Body Factors that have contributed to the process of devolution since the 1960’s Throughout history, governments have had a tendency of centralizing power. Therefore, certain groups within the federal and unitary systems have increasingly sought to decrease power from the central governments through devolving some duties and responsibilities to regional and local governments. There are many factors culminating to devolution of power including amendments in the constitution and Supreme Court rulings since the 19th century. The great depression of 1930’s led to an increase of power for the federal government as it tried to get America out of this great crisis. This led to the expansion and adoption of the then president Franklin Roosevelt policies (Patterson 98). The federal government role was expanded which was based on the partnership with the states popularly referred to as cooperative federalism. This coalition continued throughout the administration of J.F. Kennedy from 1960 to 1963 as well as Lyndon Johnson from 1964 to 1968. At this time, the national government was viewed as a promoter of civil rights and liberties and as such its policies about devolution of power were well adopted. Cooperative Federalism main feature was the grant aid system where the federal government uses financial resources to give money to the states for use on mutually agreed upon goals. This type of arrangement ended in the mid 1960’s when the federal governments started enacting programs the states had little interest in and also the funds were being given to small units of local governments (Patterson 99). New federalism This was a policy that was propagated by President Nixon. He disagreed with the many social welfare programs the democrats had passed in the mid 1960’s. However, he realized that many of the welfare programs were popular and the democrats who passed laws were still a majority in the in both houses. As such, he did not propose elimination of the social welfare programs, rather, he proposed New federalism which to divide policy functions between the federal government and the states with more responsibilities placed at the state level. This was a significant factor towards devolution in the USA. This was seen as managerial and administrative than ideological as he was seen to move towards rationalizing the system with a more clearly functional division of policies along with more discretion for state governments. Nixon therefore supported a number of consolidations of categorical aid programs into large blocks where the states would have a broad leeway to spend funds so long as they were within the general area of policy agreed upon (Patterson 102). President Reagan had a more conservative approach the social policy and government than was Nixon. He had the conviction that the national government particularly played a very large role in the nation. He was of the idea that the government was part of the problem and not the solution. In an effort to reduce government role across the board, he called for major cuts in the domestic programs. He proposed a major restructuring of federalism. His was a swap between the roles undertaken by the national government and the national government. The states would take over financing of the general welfare and food stamps and the national government would finance Medicaid (Patterson 104). The republican revolution of 1994 The republicans formed a contract with the people popularly referred to as contract with America, where they promised to push a set of ten policies if elected to power. Among these were two policies touching on federalism (Patterson 109). They set out to eliminate mandates from the national government on state governments and they also proposed to change the welfare system. This was a step further towards devolution as they agreed that government was part of the problem. Among the federalism initiatives was the need to end unfunded mandates that the national government seemed to have imposed on state and local governments. Bill Clinton’s devolution In 1996, Bill Clinton stressed the need for devolution which meant having programs run by the national government operated by the state government. He was successful in having a federal program dubbed Aid to families with Dependent children moved to the states. It is the state and locals who now run this program. American conservatives are of the view that the federal government should concentrate on matters of defense, foreign trade and diplomacy favoring a decentralized system where more power is with the states and the local governments (Patterson 112). Some of the court cases touching on devolution include: The National league of cities vs. usury, which was to address the conflict between the tenth amendment limiting the federal government power to that specified in the constitution and the commerce clause article 1, where the national government had been bestowed power to regulate commerce. The intention was to shift authority, funds and responsibility to the state government In 1985, in Garcia vs. San Antonio metropolitan Transit Authority, the issue of state sovereignty and the states was revisited. This was to prevent the local and state governments from being imposed with federal actions. Others include United States vs. Lopez and Seminole Tribe of Florida vs. Florida to affirm the sovereignty of the states. During the administration of George. W. bush, a republican, the party vowed to restore the force of the tenth amendment to the constitution that states that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states. The bush administration referred to this as the best protection towards intrusion and bullying of the state governments (Patterson 116). Obama’s government continues to embrace and strengthen the state government by issuing more funds for projects. Patterson is of the view that devolution has entered an all new stage where problems are sought out more in the states than in Washington. He further asserts that devolution has resulted in a change of fiscal and cooperative federalism than their death. He feels that federal government will continue being the solution to many problems that were a preserve of the state governments. Conclusion Through devolution, the states have acquired a greater degree of discretionary authority where some policies are involved. However, the states may fail to regain the autonomy they enjoyed in the early twentieth century. For devolution to succeed, stability in rules and funding are of paramount importance. Devolution will also require visibility. The local and state governments need to be accountable to all the people affected especially the poor who require the welfare programs (Patterson 122). Work cited: Patterson, Thomas E. We the People: A Concise Introduction to American Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Print. Read More