Expert answer:Discussion Forum: Case Study 5: Wichita Confronts
Solved by verified expert:Case Study 5: Wichita Confronts ContaminationsRead Case Study 5 in your textbook and answer the following questions:Identify the various actors of intergovernmental relations involved in the caseIn general, what does this case tell you about the complexity of IGR in this country and the work of public administrators in the 21st century?should be at least 75 to 150 words, but may go longer depending on the topic. If you use any source outside of your own thoughts, you should reference that source. Include solid grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and spelling.Course Book:Stillman II, R J (2010). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, 9th edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9781337051842 or 9780618993017
module_3_lecture_notes_and_summary.docx
wichita.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Module 3 Chapter Outline and Summary: Chapter Five
Intergovernmental Relations, Program and Policies
Important Advice to Students:
This notes and chapter outline is a summary of the chapters in your textbook to get you started while
you await your textbook. The notes SHOULD NOT be in any way considered a substitute to your
textbook. The textbook, (Public Administration: Concepts and Cases) offers the detailed information
and discussion necessary for the proper understanding of the concepts and topics under discussion.
Therefore, treat this as a skeletal sketch, for which the textbook offers the full body of the discussion
on the topics.
Chapter Summary
The chapter examines the origin, structure, and nature of intergovernmental relations in the
US and the role of public administrators. It compares the relationship between federalism
and intergovernmental relations and discusses the different types of federalism, the new
trend of federalism and how it relates to the intergovernmental relations. The chapter also
explains the concept of opportunist federalism, the management of intergovernmental, the
new trend in the management, and how the changes in trend impact the role of public
administrators.
Chapter Outline and Lecture Notes
The nature of US government
Unlike other unitary forms of government which allows little or no semiautonomous local
units of government, the US government is framed on the idea of federalism and the
structure of government, as designed by the Constitution, distributes authority among the
various levels of government (federal, state, and local). The nature of the US federalism
was facilitated by several factors such as the desire to attract the states to ratify the
Republican Constitution and be part of the federal government, the memories of the harsh
rule from the top-down unitary government of George III’s monarchy, and the loose
nature of the extreme decentralization of the Articles of Confederation. Even though
federalism is the central idea of the US Constitution, the precise role of the various units
and levels of government are not clearly indicated in the Constitution beyond the items
listed in Article I, Section 8.
Public administrators in the US therefore work in an unusual, complex framework in
which various jurisdictions, levels, units of governments share power and authority over
agency and programs activities. The scattering and sharing of authority sometimes
generates administrative problems, which extends to the study of intergovernmental
relations (IGR). IGR involves comprehending the complexities of the federal system
based on mutual interdependence, shared functions, and intertwined influence. Thus,
federalism in the US confounds and confuses public administrators’ role and
responsibilities to an extreme degree but fail to provide a clear picture of which level of
government or unit is the boss.
Cooperative Federalism
According to Conlan, a professor of Government and Politics at George Mason
University, Fairfax, Virginia, Cooperative federalism was epitomized by the ideas
embodied in the 1955 Commission on Intergovernmental Relation Report (the
Kestnbaum Report, named after Meyer Kestnbaum, the chair of the committee). The
Report stressed effective intergovernmental management and coordination as the
cornerstone for sound IGR practices. The recommendation of the Report led to the
creation of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations for promoting
better information, analysis, and coordination of IGR throughout the federal system; the
establishment of an office within the Executive Office of the President to improve
cooperation among executive branch agencies involved with IGR; the formation of
subcommittee in both the House and Senate to oversee IGR processes; and the
development of broader use of federal categorical grants-in-aid for strengthening overall
administrative direction and control. Conlan traces the rise and unraveling of the
cooperative federalism paradigm and conceptualizes the way that federalism and IGR
operate nowadays as “opportunistic federalism”.
Opportunist Federalism
Opportunist is a system that allows- and often encourages actors in the system to pursue
their immediate interests with little regard for the institutional or collective consequences.
For example, the federal mandates, policy preemptions, and highly prescriptive mandates
tend to be driven by opportunistic policy makers who seek to achieve their own policy
and policy goals regardless of traditional norm of behavior or boundaries of institutional
responsibility. States also behave in a similar way towards local governments and both
the states and local governments exhibits opportunistic behavior when they direct federal
programs away from their intended purpose to serve their parochial interests. Opportunist
federalism that places individual political and jurisdictional interest above shared goals
has been on the increase to replace cooperative federalism as it diminishes.
Intergovernmental Management and Performance Management
The US government has seen a lot reform since the 1950s and in the area of Public
Administration, the focus of reform has been on simplifying and coordinating grants.
Many different methods to improve grants coordination were examined when the grants
program flourished and coordination became difficult. The Budget of Bureau and the
Office of Management and Budget issued management circulars mandating elected
officials to receive notice about the offer of grants to their jurisdictions and also to
establish area-wide clearing house for grant information. The use of block grants and
increased use of waiver authority, etc were also tried. In addition, other reform of grant
management focused on standardization and simplification, which was done through the
Single Audit Act, Circular A-133 (on common auditing standards), and OMB Circular A87 (on cost principle sought to standardize requirements for grant recipients. However,
the ascendant paradigm in intergovernmental relations and public administration is
performance management and was one of the reforms President Clinton’s reinventing
government established. It was also the core feature of President George Bush’s
management agenda. Congress in recent times has also expressed interest in outcome and
results especially in the Government Performance and Result Act of 1993. The adoption
of the performance management system at the national level gives a lot of weight to the
agenda.
From Intergovernmental Analysis to Instrumental Advocacy
The network of federal offices and agencies that were established to improve and
rationalize intergovernmental management has been diminished, disbanded, or
transformed into instrument of advocacy since the 1970s. Therefore, the tools and
processes of intergovernmental analysis, coordination and consultation have fallen by the
wayside. At the same time, congressional attention to the issues of intergovernmental
relations and public administration has eroded as intergovernmental subcommittees have
diminished in stature. The ACIR program, which was a major source of data, policy
analysis, and the intergovernmental management expertise in the federal government, has
been abolished.
From Fiscal Deference to Federal Disregard
The intergovernmental tax coordination in the federal system for both sources of tax and
tax base recommended by the Kestnbaum Commission has also diminished over time.
The Commission recognized the value of having different levels of government focus on
different sources of tax revenue (income, sales, and property) and it recommended the
coordination of tax bases and tax administration where there was overlap. It also
endorsed a policy of federal restraint in taxation, demonstrated by deductibility of states
and local taxes on federal income taxes and the exclusion of interest on state and local
bonds. In addition, Coopearative federalism was also manifested in efforts to reconcile
the valuation of assets for federal and state income tax purposes, state piggybacking of
the federal income tax system, and coordination of estate taxes. However, all these have
diminished over time and the federal policy makers do not consider how federal tax
policy changes affect state or local governments.
Causes of Changes
The causes of change in the approaches to intergovernmental relations and management
are many and complex and they include significant changes in the nature of our society
and the structure of our economy; changes in the political system, both organizationally
and ideologically; and increased polarization in American politics. The impact of social
and economic changes can be seen in the growth of federal mandates and preemptions,
many of which include civil rights and environmental protection regulations like Title VI
of Civil Right Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and others. The
civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s and the environmental movement of the
1960s and 1970s contributed to the development of such laws and to the more expansive
federal role. The expansive role was a necessary response to the long and sorry legacy of
racial discrimination and the problems of cross-border pollution blazed a trail for a more
assertive style of intergovernmental relations across the board. Similarly, economic
changes have contributed to the accumulation of federal preemption statutes. In addition,
the sharp increase in partisan and ideological polarization in American politics since
1970s has great implication for intergovernmental management and in Congress; this
manifested itself in the decline in the number and influence of ideological partisanship.
Implications for Intergovernmental Management: Hopeful Signs and Continuing
Challenges
In spite of the opportunistic federalism, a variety of developments hold promise for
intergovernmental management. These include progress in rebuilding support for
intergovernmental analysis, effort to meld intergovernmental flexibility with performance
management, emerging paradigms of public administration that recognize the centrality
of intergovernmental relations, and bottom –up efforts to new arenas of
intergovernmental cooperation. At the same time the powerful political currents that have
contributed to opportunistic federalism have not vanished and national policy makers
continue to face strong incentives to embrace federal forbearance.
Cooperative State Policy Making
The continuing level of policy innovation by state government is the most positive signs
of the health of American federalism. Such innovation has long been recognized within
individual states- in policy fields as diverse as health care, welfare reform, and
environmental policy – but it is also apparent in patterns of regional and national
interstate cooperation. One such cooperative venture was the states’ efforts to forge a
common sales tax system for the internet age and the collaboration to adopt common
sales and use tax system for remote vendors, negotiating uniform definitions of taxable
items, common tax rates, and simplified administration.
In modern times, the intergovernmental relations in the US have changed significantly
since the Kestnbaum Commission. There has been the expansion of vertical relationships
and opportunistic federalism and less cooperation among the levels of government. In
spite of that there have been signs of a period of relative disinterest and
deinstitutionalization in the intergovernmental management and analysis at the national
level, which being addressed.
Reference:
Stillman II, Richard J (2010) Public Administration: Concepts and Cases Ninth
Edition Wadsworth: Cengage Learning
Stillman II, Richard J (2010) Instructional Manual for Public Administration:
Concepts and Cases.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades