Federalism in Practice
Jamie Monogan
University of Georgia
September 8, 2014
Objectives
By the end of this meeting, participants
should be able to:
• Differentiate collective dilemmas that
can be solved with more federal
power from those that call for more
state power.
A Puzzle
• The Constitution establishes a system
of shared power between states and
the federal government.
• Why have the states and the
American people allowed the federal
government’s power to grow in the
past century?
Federalism as Response to
Collective Dilemmas
• Increased federal authority can help
solve collective dilemmas
– Prisoner’s dilemma: Prevent states/units
from going to war with each other
– Collective action problem: Protect
states/units from outside aggression
– Free rider problem: Set national
standards for labor and environmental
laws
Air Polluters in Georgia
33
32
31
Latitude
34
35
White dots=solid waste. Black plus signs=air polluters.
+ ●
+
+ ++
●
●
+
+
+
+ +●+●
● ●
+●● ● ●●
●
+
+ +
●●
+
+
+
●
+ ●
+ +++
+ + ++●●●+●● ● +
●+
●+
++++
+●●●+● ++● ++
++ ● ●+
●
●
++● +++●●+
●
+
+
+● ●+●
●
+
+●●● +
●●
+●+●+● +●● + +● ++
++
+●● ++
●●● ●
●● +
●
●+
+
●
+
●
+
●
+
●
+
●
●
++
●
●●●● ●●
++
●● ● + ●
+
+
++●
●+
●
●++
+
●+
●+
●
+
+
+
●+
●● +
++●+
●●
●●●●
++ ++● ● +
●● ●+
●+
●+
+
●
+●+
+
●+
+
●●●+
●+
+ +●+● ++● + +
●●●
●+
+
●+
+
++●●
+●●●●+
●
●● +
+ ++
+●● ++
+
●
+
+ +● +●+● ++
●●+
+●
●+
●
+
●
+● ++
+●+
++++ ++++++● ++
++ ++
●●+
●●
●+
+
+
+
+++
++
++●●+
+
+
●
+●+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
●
+
●●
+
+
++
●
++
++●
+ ++ +++
●+
●+
●●
+++
●+ ●
+
● ++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
●
+
+
●
●
●+
●● ●●●
++
+
+
+
● +
+ ● ++
●
+ ++++
+ +
+
+
●●●
+
●+
++
++++
++ +
●
+●
++
+
●
+
●
+
++● +
+
●
+
+●●●+●●
●
+
+●
++ ●++
+
+
●+
+
●
+
+●+●++
+
+
+ +
+
●+
++●+● +
+●
+
+
●
+
+ ++
++
+
+
++
+●
●+
●+
+
+
+
+
●
●
+
●
++
+●●++
+
+
●●
+
+●+
++●
+
+
+
+●● ++ +
●
+
+++●●●
++
++
+
+
+
+
++
+
●
+●+
●
+ +
+
●+
+
+
●
●●
●+
++●●●
+
+
+
+
+
−85
−84
−83
Longitude
−82
−81
Federalism and Competition
• Competition and innovation across
states has mixed effects
• Experimentation in states can
produce evidence for new, effective
policies
• Competition for industry can reduce
tax base
– Race to the top/bottom
Laboratories of Democracy
50
The Emergence of State Lotteries
●
● ● ● ● ●
● ● ●
40
●
●
● ● ●
●
●
30
● ●
●
●
●
20
●
●
●
●
● ● ●
● ● ●
10
●
●
●
●
● ● ● ●
● ● ●
0
Number of States With Lotteries
● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
●
1970
1980
1990
Year
2000
2010
Differing Preferences and
Coordinated Policy
• In many policy areas, coming to no
solution is problematic
• Different locales may have different
policy preferences
• In some cases, devolution can
eliminate a national-level coordination
problem
Do People Get What They Want?
Opinion Liberalism v. Policy Liberalism
Future Day: Delegate v. Trustee Representation
6
CA
NY
MD DE
NM
2
WV
ME
WAIL
CO
SC
0
MO
IA
−2
NE
KS TX
IN
OK
MS
ND
SD
ID
AL
UT
TNAR
LA
NC
RI
NJ
NH
MI
OH
PA
WI
AZ
KY
VA
GA
−10
CT
OR
MT
−4
Public Policy Liberalism
4
MN
VT
MA
NV
WY
FL
0
10
Public Opinion Liberalism
20
Federal Influence on State Spending
• Grants-in-Aid
– General programs (e.g., infrastructure)
• Categorical Grants
– School lunches
• Revenue Sharing
– Interstate highways
• Block Grants
– 1995 welfare reform
• Contrast: Unfunded Mandates
– All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
Revisiting the Puzzle
• Why has the power of national
government grown?
– Collective dilemmas among the states
– 16th Amendment: income tax
– 17th Amendment: direct election of senators
– National elections that focus on national
problems/solutions
– Vagueness of the Constitution has made it
difficult to check federal power
Assignments
• Chapter 4 concept map exercise
due at 11:59pm on Wednesday.
–Login to ELC to complete.
• Also for Wednesday: Read
Kollman, pp. 101-117
• For Friday: Read Bullock &
Gaddie, Chapter 9