2-2 Short Paper Models of Federalism
2-2Short Paper: Models of Federalism
Thispaper presents the models of federalism as a democratic system ofgovernance. The paper starts by defining the concepts as well asdifferent approaches towards the adoption of this system ofleadership. The manifestation of these models in the policyformulation process is also discussed in this paper. This discussionentails a relationship among different models as applied in thedevelopment of policies and decision-making processes. Various lawsthat have been significantly affected by this system of governance,including the Affordable Housing and Health Care Acts have also beenanalyzed. The paper also presents incremental and rationaldecision-making models as useful in the development of reliable andsustainable public policies. The secondary sources have been used inthe developing ideas in this document. The paper has also analyzedthe past learning activities and complemented details with currentpieces of literature to ensure reliability and credibility of theinformation presented.
Incontrast with the unitary political systems, Federalism is thedivision of power between the state or provincial governments and thecentral government. The unitary political systems do not provide aquasi-sovereign official organ for co-existence with the nationalgovernment (Hueglin& Fenna, 2015).Federalism has been supported as the most efficient form ofgovernance for a vast and diverse country. Leading examples of thesekinds of systems include the U.S., India, Australia, Mexico, Canada,Germany, and Switzerland (Hueglin& Fenna, 2015).Political scientists have defined the modern federalism an approachof democratic institutions and rules in which the governing power isshared between the provincial and the national governments. Forinstance, in the U.S., the forms of federalism evolved from dual,cooperative, creative, to the new system known as the competitivefederalism. Both the state and the federal governments are composedof the judiciary, legislature, and executive each with uniquefunctions. According to Wright, this concept can be divided intothree models which include inclusive, coordinate, and overlappingauthority patterns (Agranoff& Radin, 2015).This paper seeks to describe different models of federalism andanalyze how they have manifested themselves into the public policies.
Inthe coordinate model, as Wright demonstrated, there exist clearseparating boundaries among the various levels of governance leadingto a clear distinction between the local and national governments(Agranoff& Radin, 2015).On the other hand, the Inclusive power model contrasts the Coordinatearrangement. This approach presents hierarchy-based intergovernmentalrelations with an emphasis on the predominant role of the nationallevel (Agranoff& Radin, 2015).The Overlapping model puts emphasis on the need for the actors tobargain on the best policies to govern a country. This system limitsdiscretion, autonomy, power, and influence of both the local andfederal leaders. The first forms of the Overlapping authority modelsin the U.S. include the emergence of the law and politics in the 19thCentury. The Dual Federalism doctrine dictated that the states andthe national government were sovereign in their particular spheres.These governments, therefore, could not make certain politicaldecisions independently. The second phase of the Overlapping modelwas ushered by the agenda for expansion and development of states’welfare 20thCentury (Agranoff& Radin, 2015).This stage brought about the acknowledgment of the need to involvepublic actors in the formulation of policies in the country. Anexample of the involvement of the local and national government,profit, and nonprofit organs in the running of a country is theformulation and implementation of policies regarding housing andlawlessness. This approach also acknowledges that the publicadministration problems had evolved beyond the borders of thegovernment to levels that necessitate all levels of the federalorgans, profit, and non-profit businesses (Robertson,2013).All these parties sit down and explore, discuss, negotiate, and solveissues interactively.
Federalismcan also be classified into three distinct evolution models. Theseinclude Dual, Cooperative, and Fiscal Federalisms (Robertson,2013).In the Dual model, the union entails sharing the power among thestates, but the federal government holds more power than theindividual states. An example of this system is the current U.S.government. On the other hand, the Cooperative arrangement is basedon the idea of the federal and state governments equal sharing ofpower. This approach has not yet been applied in today’s politics.It’s feared that this model would lock the two parties in stalemateunable to compromise over significant policies. The Fiscal modelassigns the Congress a lot of power. The Congress gains a capabilityof controlling the other political organs. This method is notbelieved as a practical approach to governing America. The amplespace left for power interpretation by giving the president fullpower of the Treasury, as evident in the several historicalinstances, is ineffective in fair, democratic, and just leadership.Creative Federalism is a standard approach in the U.S. even today. Inthis method, the federal government is assigned the responsibility ofthe needs of the state governance and serving them. This approachincludes a joint planning between the federal and state governmentsto come up with goals that work. However, the application of thismodel has diminished with the rise of the cooperative model andincrease in power of the federal governments which started andescalated from FDR’s presidency. Finally, the new federalism wasinitiated to restore the power lost by the states due to PresidentRoosevelt`s New Deal in the 1960’s and the enforcement of civilrights. The powers were returned to the local and state politicalagencies by President Nixon when he enforced the return of theprovision of revenue and block grants sharing to the localgovernments (Hueglin& Fenna, 2015).
Thisconcept has manifested itself in different policies. Thecharacteristics of the overlapping model have led to thetransformation of the policy formulation process. As evident in thediverse kinds of literature, this approach of governance leads tolimited and dispersed powers. The federal nation in this concept doesnot have full powers of determining the strategies for housing andhomelessness (Fraser,Oakley, & Bazuin, 2012).The separation of a particular program from other efforts by any ofthe three organs of the government becomes severe (Fraseretal.,2012).Therefore, this approach may also be viewed to promote democracysince the members of the public are involved in making decisions thataffect their lives as well as the nation. The Act for the protectionof patients and provision of affordable care (ACA) is a perfectexample of the influences of the federalism on the policies (Fraseretal.,2012).This law was meant for the expansion of insurance access, improvedquality, and increasing the protection of the consumer. The statesdecided on the implementation of these policies. They could choose toimplement the laws or defer them to the national government to do so.
Theunprecedented demand for rental housing is evident in the U.S. Thisrequirement is shared among individuals from different income levelsmaking it challenging for both the local and federal governments toensure that the housing needs of all citizens are enabled. Althoughthe federal government has assumed an active role in eliminating thehousing challenges, the state agencies are faced with tough decisionseach day regarding the same. The federal Department of Developmentand Housing (HUD) provides the states with resources necessary forthe transformation of the cities (Fraseretal.,2012).The federal-state relationship leads to adequate housing andresidence policies. In the 1930’s, the government of the U.S.embraced person-based from the first place-based aid. The state andthe federal government combined ideas, block grants, and revenues tocreate sustainable means of accommodating the poor living in thecities. In 1998, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act wasenacted by Bill Clinton who aimed at addressing the issues ofconcentrations in poverty, deteriorating public housing, and thesubsidization of the rent to help individual households (Fraseretal.,2012).The new laws facilitated the devolvement of the responsibility ofproviding housing services to the lower levels of government. Thehousing authorities at the state level were granted greater power andflexibility. In Australia, federalism has significantly influenced bythe housing policies. For instance, the empowerment of the stategovernment to collect taxes after the WWII enabled the statecontributes to their individual development without overreliance onthe federal government. The local and federal government engages allother shareholders in the formulation.
Arational decision model is efficient for application in the processof policy formulation (Dunn,2015).This type refers to an orderly system for the definition of problemsand isolation, a gathering of the information, identification of thealternatives, and coming up with strong regulations. On the otherhand, the incremental model suggests an availability of interrelateddecision-making processes which entails sequences of steps. Thesesteps normally include the identification, alternative development,and selection phases. As evident in the discussion earlier, these twoapproaches could be embraced in the developing decisions intendedgoals. All the stakeholders including the public, state, local, andthe federal governments should be involved in activities of each ofthe phases (Dunn,2015).For instance, the state government and the members of the public mayidentify the problem affecting the lives of the people and suggest achange of policies eliminate it. The stakeholders later come togetherto present their conflicting opinions regarding the challenge.Eventually, a solution that meets the need of all the parties isreached. Other decisions such as financial, implementation, andfollow-up are also developed collectively to promote sustainability.
Inconclusion, as evident in this paper, federalism system is suitablein governing large and complex nations. This system is classifiedinto different models which include inclusive, coordinate, andoverlapping authority systems. Other classifications that have led tothe evolvement of the new federalism include Dual, Cooperative, andFiscal Federalisms. Today, the overlapping system of governance isfamous in the U.S. For instance, the formulation of policies requiresall the stakeholders to come together and suggest varying opinionswhich facilitates the development of laws that are favored by allpeople. The rational and incremental decision-making models areessential in achieving sustainable public policies.
Agranoff,R., & Radin, B. A. (2015). Deil Wright’s overlapping model ofintergovernmental relations: The basis for contemporaryintergovernmental relationships. Publius:The Journal of Federalism, 45(1),139-159.
Dunn,W. N. (2015). Publicpolicy analysis.Routledge.
Fraser,J., Oakley, D., & Bazuin, J. (2012). Public ownership and privateprofit in housing. CambridgeJournal of Regions, Economy and Society, 5(3),397-412.
Hueglin,T. O., & Fenna, A. (2015). Comparativefederalism: A systematic inquiry.University of Toronto Press.
Robertson,D. B. (2013). Federalismand the Making of America.Routledge.
No related posts.