THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
PA 524, Summer 2009—Intergovernmental
Administrative Problems
Essentials of Federalism & IGR
Morris Bidjerano “The Metaphors of Federalism Revised: The
Web and Intergovernmental Relations”



The paper considers the way intergovernmental relations are structured
and carried out in practice, by proposing a metaphor suited to those
relations today. From “layer-cake” and “marble-cake” to “picket-fence”
federalism,” metaphors have been used to gain a better insight into the
ever-changing nature of IGR over the last century (Deil Wright 1988).
Recent trends in governance practices have increasingly indicated
substantially different structuring of intergovernmental operations,
commonly described as “network management” (Agranoff and McGuire
1999, 1998).
Based on a case study conducted under the auspices of the University at
Albany Intergovernmental Solutions Program, the paper examines the
manifestation of these network management trends in the governmental
response to the 1999 West Nile Virus outbreak in New York State. It uses
the metaphor of the web to capture conceptually and help visualize the
emergent characteristics of administrative practices in the federal system.
Robert Agranoff
“The era of the manager’s cross-boundary interdependency
challenge has arrived, as has the world of working in the network
of organizations. Public functions are no longer the exclusive
domain of governments.”
Types of Collaborative Management Activities:
 Information Sharing
 Adjustment Seeking
 Policy making and strategy making
 Resource Exchange
 Project Based
 “. . . the capacities required to operate successfully in
collaborative settings are different from the capacities needed to
succeed at managing a single organization

Intergovernmental Administrative Problems—Overview of
Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations

Federalism is a constitutional division of governmental
authority between a national government and regional
entities such as states. National and state governments
have both independent and shared powers over against
citizens and over given functional policy and
programmatic areas. Relatively few nations today have
federal governments. They include the United States,
Canada, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, and Mexico.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

In the U.S., the courts have arbitrated the allocation of power among
federal, state, and local governments since the early 19th Century. The
term intergovernmental relations, or IGR, has been used only since the
early 1930’s. IGR is characterized by mostly informal, continuous
contacts between officials at different levels of government who share
or exchange information and agree on the terms of sharing of program,
policy, and/or regulatory jurisdiction. The program and regulatory
frameworks are defined in policy and law, but the implementation
framework is characterized by less formal, networked patterns of
communication and collaboration. Officials involved in IGR are
elected, appointed, and administrative officials, in any combination.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

The doctrine of supremacy means that when laws passed
by a lower level of government conflict with those at a
higher level of government, the higher-level law
supersedes the lower-level one. The order of succession
with regard to such supremacy in the U.S. is first the
Constitution itself, then the national government, the
states, counties and parishes (in Louisiana), and finally,
municipalities. Homeland Security is a policy instance
where supremacy is crucially operative. The U.S.
Constitution includes a “Supremacy Clause” indicating,
reflexively, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the
land.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

Fiscal federalism, or the federalism of intergovernmental fiscal
transfers, has become more and more important over the past forty
years. Local governments, which rely primarily on inelastic sources
of revenue such as property taxes, are the least efficient at
generating revenue. At the same time, cities and counties are the units of
government most relied upon to provide basic services to the public. A
large proportion of the citizenry depends on government paychecks,
contracts, or entitlement programs. The national government is most
efficient at generating revenues, with the fewest direct service
responsibilities. This fiscal mismatch of revenues and expenditures has
led to increasing intergovernmental transfers, increased importance of
fiscal federalism, and increased indirect control by the national
government of state and local affairs.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

The two major forms of funding from the federal government to other
governments come in the form of grants-in-aid and block grants.
Grants-in-aid are fiscal transfers to be used for specified purposes and
subject to conditions spelled out in law or regulation. Categorical and
formula grants provide less administrative discretion, both in terms of
who is to receive funding and how much, because of their prescriptive
nature and strict eligibility criteria. Project grants provide more
administrative discretion, and state and local governments must apply
to receive these forms of assistance. Block grants provide state
governments the greatest spending and policy flexibility.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

Dual federalism represents government as layers that do not interact. This layer
cake analogy of federalism was the state of affairs in the early history of the
United States. IGR then evolved to marble cake federalism, where each layer
had separate concerns, but they were still interrelated. Today's federalism is
described as picket-fence federalism. Under the picket fence analogy, money,
authority, and subject-matter expertise and networks of collaboration run
vertically along programs from national to state and local levels of government,
while the legislative and executive branches of government, the horizontal
“slats,” do little to support the vertical slats, or programs. Deil Wright brought
focus to the interpersonal relationships of experts and practitioners along
vertical slats, for instance environmental policy experts and practitioners.
Similar or shared educational backgrounds, shared values and current
experiences (e.g., conferences), rotation among levels of government and
between advocacy groups and government.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

IGR issues historically include (1) the use of the promulgation of
regulations by federal administrative agencies as a vehicle for
intergovernmental control, (2) continuing fiscal constraints on all
levels of government, (3) continuing incidence of intergovernmental
conflict between national and state governments, (4) changes in
administrative autonomy at all levels of government, (5) renewed
calls for maintaining and increasing government accountability in the
federal system, and increasingly in state governments as well, and (6)
unfunded mandates.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

Richard Nixon undertook to change intergovernmental relations by
trying to shift power away from Washington to federal field offices and
state and local governments. Revenue sharing gave money to state and
local governments, to be spent at their own discretion. Some
categorical grants—money given to state or local governments for
specific purposes, such as construction of a road or school—were
replaced with block grants, which mandated that money be spent for a
general purpose but left the details of allocation to state and local
governments. Beginning in the early 1970’s, administrative reforms
were pushed to simplify and expedite the grant application and review
process. Federal government spending and its policy role actually grew
under Nixon.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

Ronald Reagan expanded Nixon’s “New Federalism,” on the premise
that the federal government had become too strong and that power
should be further shifted to the states. Reagan proposed shifting more
categorical grants into block grants, shifting power back to the states,
and breaking the “marble cake” form of federalism (the model of
cooperative federalism, or overlapping authority, where the federal
government had, on balance, a greater say in matters that had
previously been reserved to the states but where the implementation of
programs had become inseparably entwined). Reagan also proposed
reducing the burden of unfunded mandates. His successes came in
converting categoricals to blocks, and in cutting red tape in certain
areas; however, unfunded mandates continued to grow during his terms
in office.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

While “new federalism” initiatives have been the
hallmark of Republican administrations, neither of the
Bush presidential administrations emphasized
restructuring federal-state relations. They did stress,
however, the need (as they saw it) to reduce the size and
scope of government, particularly the federal government.
Ironically, under the younger Bush’s terms in office, the
“war on terror” and corresponding initiatives such as the
Patriot Act dramatically increased both the scope and
reach of federal power, over individual citizens and state
and local governments alike.
Overview of Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations

Historically, wars—from the Civil War to the Spanish-American War,
World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, the first and second Iraq wars,
and contemporary antiterrorism conflicts—have all strengthened the
Executive and established the preponderance of power of the federal
government over state and local governments. As the federal
government continues to gain ascendancy, the states are less able to
determine what works for them or how best to allocate scarce
resources; they are therefore often relegated to implementing and
administering federal policy, and to reporting outcomes to federal
agencies. Nonetheless, some states have taken an important role as
policy innovation laboratories of sorts—for example, the State of New
Mexico in its 2005 privatization of the management of behavioral
healthcare.
Models of Intergovernmental Relations (Deil Wright)
There are three generic types of authority relationships in American
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR):
1. The Coordinate Authority Model (Autonomy)
 State-local relationship framework or pattern, classic expression in
Dillon’s Rule, named after the Iowa judge who asserted it in the
1860’s:
 There is no recognition of a common-law right of self-government
 localities are “creatures of the state”
 localities may exercise only those powers expressly granted them by
state and federal governments
 localities are in effect “tenants at will” of state legislatures

Models of Intergovernmental Relations (Deil Wright)
In a dual, or coordinate system, the separate levels of government have
distinct, autonomous spheres of authority. (In unitary, centralized or national
systems, states are subordinate to the national government and the relationship
is hierarchical—e.g., Mexico.
2. Inclusive Authority Model: Centralized Federalism (Hierarchy)
 State and local governments and policymakers are dependent on national
decisions—they may tend to atrophy in some instances.
 Functions formerly performed by states are fused into hierarchical system and
preempted or appropriated by the federal government
 Also applies Dillon’s rule to national-state relations, but it is not any more
representative of intergovernmental relations than the Coordinate Authority
model. If IGR is a zero-sum game, then gain at one level equals loss at
another. However, Wright argues, it is often a nonconstant-sum (win-win)
game.

Models of Intergovernmental Relations (Deil Wright)
Compound” systems entail overlapping, interdependent governments
and are characterized by bargaining: cooperative or competitive. That
is Wright’s preferred model, for being closest to reality in his view:
Overlapping Authority Model (Bargaining)
• Limited and dispersed power
• Modest and uncertain areas of autonomy
• High degree of potential or actual interdependence
• Simultaneous cooperation and competition
• Bargaining and exchange relationships are authority pattern
• Negotiation as a strategy to reach agreement on boundaries
Inclusive Authority Model
National (Federal)
State
Local
Overlapping Authority (Bargaining) Model
National
(Federal)
State
Local