Federalism is a system which expresses a desire for national unity and, at the same time, an insistence on regional, state, or local distinctiveness. we have seen that the dominance of liberal cultural values are widely shared among
Americans with diverse interests. However, there are
[according to Daniel Elazar, AMERICAN FEDERALISM: A
VIEW FROM THE STATES] three separate manifestations of liberal culture in the U.S.:
• moralism
• individualism
• traditionalism
Additionally, culture types may be combined in any specific region, state, or locale such that there is a dominant culture type and a subculture (i.e., moralism/individualism, individualism/moralism, individualism/ traditionalism, traditionalism/individualism, and traditionalism/moralism. See maps that follow and discussion of culture types in the table titled “Elazar’s Three Culture
Types”].

ELAZAR’S THREE DOMINANT
CULTURE TYPES by STATE
M
M
M
I
I
M
T
M
M
I
T
M
I
Elazar explains the dominant cultures among the states in terms of patterns of migration during the
19th century. Migration during this period occurred basically from east to due west. This is why the northern tier is dominated by moralism, the southern tier by traditionalism, and the middle tier by individualism.
M
M M
M
M
I
T
M
T
M
M
I
T
M
I
T
M
I
I
T
T
I
T
T
T
T
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
M = moralistic
I = individualistic
T = traditionalistic

ELAZAR’S CULTURE TYPES* by
STATE with Sub-Cultures indicated
MI
MI
MI
I
MI
TM
MI
MI
IM
TI
MI
MI
MI
IM
MI
TI
TI
MI
MI
Elazar explains the subcultures among the states in terms of patterns of migration during the 20th century. Migration during this period occurred basically from north to south. This accounts for the mixing of culture types in any state.
MI
MI
MI
IM
MI
MI
IT
IM
I
TI
IM
TI
I
T
I
IT
IT
IM
TM
T
TI T
TI TI
T
TI
I TI
*dominant type listed first
IT

ELAZAR’S LOCALIZED
CULTURE TYPES
Elazar contends that political culture is a localized phenomenon.
Therefore, patterns of migration can produce some interesting combinations of dominant culture types and subculture types. Note, for example, the combination of moralism and traditionalism in the desert southwest.
M
M
M
M
M
M I
M
M
M I
M I
M I
M I
I
IM
M I
IM
I
M I
M I
M I
I
T
I
IM
I
M T
M T
M T
M
M
M I
I
M I
M
TI
M
M
I
IM
M
I
M
M
M T
TM
T
I
T
I
M I
T
M
M I
M I
IT
TM
T
M
M I
M I
M I
TM
I
TM
IT
M
M I
T
M
I
M I
M
I
M I
IT
IT
IT
I
M
M
IT
I
I
M
M
M I
M
M
TI
IT
IT
IT
TI
M IM M I
M
IM
M I I
TI
I
IM
IT
I
TI
TI
TI
TI
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M I M I
M I
T
T
TI
M
I
IT
T
TI
T
M
TM
T
T
M
T
M
TI
T
T
T
TI
T
M
M
M I
M
I
M I
M I
IM
M I
T
T
I
IT
T
T
TI
I
I
I
IT
T
T
TI
I
IT
I
I
M
M I
M I
IM
T
IT
I
T
M
T
I
I
T
TI
IT
TM
M T
M I
M I
I
M I
IM
I
IM
IM
M I
I
I
I
I
I IT
TI
TI
TM
TI TM
T
T TM
T T
I
IM
IM
IT
I
T
TI
I
T
IM
IM
I
I
TM
TM
TM
TM
TM
T
TM
T
T
T
TM
T
T
T
TI
T
T
TM
T
T
T
TI
TI
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
TI
T
T
M IM
M I
M I
IM
M I
M I
IM
TI
M
TI
TI
M I
T
T SOURCE: Daniel Elazar, American Federalism: A View
TI from the States , pp. 124-125

ELAZAR’S THREE CULTURE TYPES
C ULTURE T YPE
MORALISTIC
L OCATION patterns of 19th century migration spread this culture types across the northern tier of states, from New
England to Pacific northwest;
20th century patterns of migration have allowed this type to spread from north to sunbelt, particularly the desert southwest, to become important subculture in region
G OVERNMENT viewed as a
“commonwealth”
[means to achieve the good of the community through positive action]
A
PPROPRIATE
AREAS OF PUBLIC
POLICY
P OLITICS any area that will enhance the community although nongovernmental action preferred social as well as economic regulation considered legitimate; new programs will be initiated without public pressure if believed to be in the public interest viewed as a healthy civic enterprise; everyone should participate
P OLITICAL
PARTIES viewed as
“vehicles” to attain goals believed to be in the public interest; third parties popular; subordinate to principles and policy issues
E LECTIONS competition is over issues winning public office viewed as greater opportunity to implement policies and programs

ELAZAR’S THREE CULTURE TYPES
C
ULTURE
T
YPE
INDIVIDUALISTIC
L
OCATION
G
OVERNMENT patterns of 19th century migration spread this culture types across the middle tier of states, from the mid-Atlantic coast to western interior and parts of
California;
20th century patterns of migration have allowed this type to spread from industrial northeast and midwest to sunbelt, particularly the South Florida to
Texas], to become important subculture in region viewed as a marketplace
[means to respond efficiently to demands]; government functions like a business
A PPROPRIATE
AREAS OF PUBLIC
POLICY
P
OLITICS
P OLITICAL
PARTIES
E
LECTIONS largely economic, encouraging private initiative and access to the marketplace; economic development given highest priority; new programs will not be initiated unless demanded by a significant client of government viewed as dirty, act as left to those who would soil themselves by business organizations, doling out engaging in it; only political professionals participate favors and responsibilitie s; party cohesiveness tends to be strong; competition is between parties rather than over issues; winning public office is seen as opportunity to attain and distribute tangible rewards

ELAZAR’S THREE CULTURE TYPES, continued
A
PPROPRIATE
C ULTURE T YPE L OCATION G OVERNMENT
TRADITIONALISTIC patterns of 19th century migration spread this culture types across the
Old South into
Texas and
Oklahoma;
20th century patterns of migration have allowed this type to spread into the desert southwest, to become dominant culture type in region viewed as a means of maintaining the existing social, economic, and political order; elite dominated
AREAS OF PUBLIC
POLICY
P OLITICS
P OLITICAL
PARTIES
E LECTIONS include those that maintain traditional patterns; new programs will not be initiated unless they serve the interest of the governing elite, implying minimal government services viewed as a privilege; only those with legitimate claim to public office should participate; power is highly personal, based on family and social ties
[one or two families tend to dominate in most communities] serve as a means to recruit people to public offices not desired by established power holders; one-party politics competition tends to be between elitedominated factions of a dominant party; the goal of winning public office depends on the political values of the dominant elite faction adapted from Daniel Elazar, A
MERICAN
F
EDERALISM
: A V
IEW
F
ROM THE
S
TATES
, 3rd edition, 1984, pp. 120-121

– “In Texas, (the) preservation of cultural patterns manifests itself concretely in wide circles as anti-federal, anti-social welfare, anti-tax radicalism tied in with the very clear economic interests in the state.” Daniel Elazar, American Federalism: A
View from the States, 3 rd edition, 1984, p. 29
– “Individualism (in Texas) is exalted over community…. Texans see few legitimate social goals as separate from private or individual goals. Economic development, particularly, excludes other matters from the public agenda….
– ….”whereas (formerly) segregation of blacks was the great unifying issue….(it) is now being replaced by a common interest in economic development….Economic development is the political issue of the greatest internal unity in Texas.” Elazar, pp. 18-19

Voter Turnout and Political Culture
[ taken from Federal Election Commission website ]
11
12
13
14
7
8
9
10
15
17
17
5
6
3
4
1
2
2000
Rank State
Minnesota
Maine
Alaska
Wisconsin
Vermont
New Hampshire
Montana
Iowa
Oregon
North Dakota
Wyoming
Colorado
Connecticut
South Dakota
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
IM
M
IM
MI
MI
MI
M
M
Culture
Type
M
M
I
M
M
MI
IM
M
IT
59.7
56.8
58.4
58.2
61.5
60.7
60.6
60.4
Turnout in
2000 Election
68.8
67.3
66.4
66.1
64
62.5
57.6
57.5
57.5
59.4
52.8
56.2
60.5
62.1
57.7
57.1
56.0
Turnout in
1996 Election
64.1
71.9
56.9
57.4
58.1
57.3
55.0
54.4
54.0
5
23
14
4
10
16
3
7
13
8
6
9
1996
Rank
2
1
18
20
22

Voter Turnout and Political Culture
23
24
29
31
31
33
25
26
27
28
34
35
20
21
22
2000
Rank State
18
19
Washington
Nebraska
Delaware
Ohio
Idaho
Rhode Island
Louisiana
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Illinois
Utah
Kentucky
Maryland
New Jersey
Florida
New York
IM
T
I
I
M
TI
MI
I
T
I
TI
IM
Culture
Type
MI
IM
I
I
MI
Turnout in
2000 Election
56.9
56.5
56.3
55.8
54.5
54.3
54.2
52.6
51.6
51.6
51
54.1
53.7
53
52.8
50.6
50.4
Turnout in 1996
Election
54.8
55.9
49.4
54.3
57.1
52.0
57.0
49.9
47.4
46.6
50.1
56.1
49.0
47.5
49.3
48.0
47.5
24
12
26
37
40
25
15
31
35
29
33
35
1996
Rank
19
17
28
21
10

50
51
52
32
46
47
48
49
41
42
43
44
45
38
39
40
Voter Turnout and Political Culture
2000
Rank State
36
37
North Carolina
Alabama
Culture
Type
TM
T
Turnout in
2000 Election
50.3
50
Turnout in 1996
Election
45.6
47.7
Tennessee
District of Columbia
Indiana
T
T
I
49.2
49.1
49
46.9
44.0
48.8
Oklahoma
Mississippi
Arkansas
New Mexico
West Virginia
South Carolina
California
Georgia
Nevada
Texas
Arizona
TI
TM
Hawaii IT
UNITED STATES (average)
T
MI
T
I
TI
T
T
TI
TI
43.1
42.3
40.5
51.3
46.6
44.1
43.8
43.8
48.8
48.6
47.8
47.4
45.8
41.3
44.7
40.5
49.1
41.6
43.9
42.4
38.3
49.7
45.4
47.2
45.4
44.9
1996
Rank
41
34
39
46
32
27
42
38
42
44
50
45
51
30
49
47
48
52

•
State and Local General Expenditures (Table 20, p. 362)
•
Poverty Rate (Table 4, p. 3)
•
Overall Welfare Expenditures per Capita (Table 23, p. 365)
•
TANF, Average Monthly Payment for a Family of Three
•
Average Monthly Medcaid, per Recipient (No. 132) ( detailed table )
•
Teen Births per 1,000 (Table 5, p. 4)
•
Education Expenditures per Capita (Elementary/Secondary)
• Average Teachers’ Salaries
•
Percentage of Population Completed High School (Table 3, p. 2)
• Percentage of Population with Bachelor’s Degree
(Table 3, p. 2)
•
Highway Expenditures per Capita (Table 25, p. 367)
•
Crime Rate per 100,000
•
Public Safety Expenditures (Table 26, p. 368)
•
Environmental Expenditures per Capita (Table 27, p. 369)
•
Overall Tax Capacity (% of national average) (Table 30, p. 372)
•
Overall Tax Effort (% of national average) (Table 30, p. 372)
•
General Revenue Per Capita
•
Tax Revenue Per Capita
•
Tax Revenue as a Percentage of Personal Income
•
Average Sales Tax Rate
•
Cigarette Tax Rate
•
State and Local Property Taxes per Capita (Table 15, p. 357)
•
State and Local Fees per $1,000 of Personal Income
•
Federal Aid to State and Local Governments Per Capita
46 th
43 rd
42 nd
48 th
39 th
48 th
33 rd
27 th
46 th
29 th
46 th
42 nd
23 rd
47 th
40 th
34 th
49 th
48 th
48 th
7 th
37 th
19 th
36 th
46 th
[Click on links for sources of data included in this table.]
($200)
(91%)
(90%)
($2,653)
($1,380)
(5%)
(7.9%)
($.41)
($845)
($26.92)
($889)
($3,949)
(15.6%)
($575)
($156)
($253)
(70.9)
($647)
($38,614)
(79.2%)
(23.9%)
($254)
(5,032)
($375)

• Federalism also refers to a dynamic political relationship among the levels of government in the federal system. The development of the federal system in the 20th century has been marked more by cooperation than by conflict.
Whereas relations between the national and state governments had largely been characterized by conflict during the 19th century, the 20th century ushered in an era marked less by attempts on the part of state and local governments to resist encroachments by the national government on their reserved powers and more by a new spirit of cooperation among the three levels.
• The fiscal dilemma of the 20th century [see diagram below]
With the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the nature of intergovernmental relations in the American federal system changed dramatically. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to impose a tax on personal incomes. The imposition of the national income tax resulted in a huge reservoir of financial reserves at the national level of government. State and local governments being faced with the problems of a rapidly industrializing, urbanizing society welcomed federal financial assistance to deal with concerns that were beyond the means of state and local governments. To put it another way, while the “burdens”
[responsibilities] of government lay mainly at the local and state levels, the “bounties” [financial ability] of government lay at the national level. This situation led to massive transfers of money from the national government to state and local governments.
In short, state and local governments lacked the financial resources to provide services needed or demanded by their residents and, therefore, had much incentive to “cooperate” with the national government.
• The extensive use of grants-in-aid:
IGR during the 20th century has been distinguished by the development of a large number of grants-in-aid programs. There are three basic types of grants that have been utilized during the 20th century. These three differ mainly in terms of the discretion that the recipient government has in spending the money.
-categorical grants
Fiscal Dilemma of 20th Century Federalism
N
N are provided for fairly narrow, specific purposes. They are the most numerous of the three types and give the recipient government the least discretion.
-revenue-sharing were associated with Nixon’s “New Federalism” and were provided for
S
L
S
L whatever purpose the recipient government chooses; these afford the
Bounties Burdens recipient government the greatest discretion.
-block grants were associated with Reagan’s “New Federalism” give the recipient government a medium range of discretion by providing funds for a general policy area, such as education.

State National
National
State
Local
Local
The Coordinate Authority Model
• Independence, Autonomy
Given the emergence of grants-inaid during the 20th century, what is the proper way to characterize intergovernmental relations in the
American federal system? Political scientist Deil S. Wright has proposed the three possible models illustrated here. Wright contends that the Overlapping
Authority Model is the most realistic because it recognizes the dynamism and political nature of federalism today. Most public programs today are the product of substantial bargaining and compromise among the three levels of government.
National
N/L
N/S
N/S/L
Local
State
The Inclusive Authority Model
• Dependence, Hierarchy
S/L
The Overlapping Authority Model
• Interdependence, Bargaining