PADM557:

• Course syllabus
• Cigler, B. A. (2012). Not just another interest group: The intergovernmental lobby revisited. In Allan J. Cigler & Burdett A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics, 8 thed., (264-296). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
• Wright, D. S., Stenberg, C. W., & Cho, C-L. (2011). Historic relevance confronting contemporary obsolescence? Federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental management. In Donald C. Menzel & Harvey L. White (Eds.), The state of public administration: Issues, challenges, and opportunities (297-315).Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• Cigler, B. A. (2011). Neglected aspects of intergovernmental relations and federalism. In Donald C. Menzel & Harvey L. White (Eds.), The State of public administration: Issues, challenges, and opportunities (316-324). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

• Getting Started Lesson assignments
• Start Trends in Intergovernmental Relations and Federalism Essay
• Discussion Forum

• U.S. Constitution
• Federalist Papers #9, 10, 39, 44, 45, 51
• Antifederalist 17
• Rubin, E. L. (2001). Puppy federalism and the blessings of America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 574(3), 37-51.

• Rosenthal, D. B., & Hoefler, J. M. (1989). Competing approaches to the study of American federalism and intergovernmental relations. Publius,19(1), 1-23.
• Kincaid, J. (1995). Values and value tradeoffs in federalism. Publius, 25(2), 29-44.
• Diamond, M. (1973). The ends of federalism. Publius,3(2), 129-152.
• Kreimer, S. F. (2001). Federalism and freedom. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 574, 66-80.
• Mooney, C. Z. (2000). The decline of federalism and the rise of morality-policy conflict in the United States." Publius, 30(1), 171-188.
• Wright, D. S. (1974). Intergovernmental relations: An analytical overview. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Intergovernmental Relations in America Today, 416. 1-16.

• Discuss literature review on a selected course topic with the course instructor.
• Discussion Forums

• Tarr, G. A. (1994). The past and future of the new judicial federalism. Publius, 24(2), 63-79.
• Hero, R. E. (1989). The U. S. congress and American federalism: Are "subnational" governments protected? The Western Political Quarterly, 42(1), 93-106.

• Volden, C. (2005). Intergovernmental political competition in American federalism. American Journal of Political Science,49(2), 327-342.
• Tolley, M. C., & Wallin, B. A. (1995). Coercive federalism and the search for constitutional limits. Publius,25(4), 73-90.
• Kilwein, J. C., & Brisbin, R. A. Jr. (1997). Policy convergence in a federal judicial system: The application of intensified scrutiny doctrines by state supreme courts. American Journal of Political Science,41(1), 122-148.
• Arceneaux, K. (2005). Does Federalism Weaken Democratic Representation in the United States? Publius, 35(2), 297-311.
• Howard, R. M., & Segal, J. A. (2004). A preference for deference? The Supreme Court and judicial review. Political Research Quarterly,57(1), 131-143.

• Strong vs. Weak National Government Essay
• Discussion Forums

Required:

• Kincaid, J. Contemporary U.S. federalism: Coercive change with cooperative continuity.
• National Governors Association (NGA), Permanent Policy. Principles for State-Federal Relations, 7/20/05.

Additional Readings:

• Congressional Budget Office. (1997). Executive summary. In Federalism and Environmental Protection: Case Studies for Drinking Water and Ground-Level Ozone(pp. 1-16). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (At the website, click on the PDF circle that is shown on the top right-hand side and you will then be able to more easily identify Chapter One, pages 1-16.)
• Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Supporting Urban Prosperity,
• The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (July 13, 2009). Remarks by the President at Urban and Metropolitan Policy Roundtable.

• Submit Trends in Intergovernmental Relations and Federalism Essay
• Discussion Forums

All in Networked Governance

• The Rise of Social Welfare and Onward March of Coercive Federalism 8
  • John Kincaid
• Social Welfare Spending Dominates 34
  • Raymond C. Scheppach
• State-City and State-County Fiscal Relations: A Look at the Past and Present, and a Glimpse at
  • the Future 39
  • J. Edwin Benton
• Making Crisis an Opportunity 63
  • Raymond C. Scheppach

• Krane, D., Ebdon, C., & Bartle, J. (2004). Devolution, fiscal federalism, and changing patterns of municipal revenues: The mismatch between theory and reality." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 14(4), 513-533.
• Gold, S. D. (1992). The federal role in state fiscal stress. Publius,22(3), 33-47.
• Pagano, M. A., & Johnston, J. M. (2000). Life at the bottom of the fiscal food chain: Examining city and county revenue decisions. Publius,30(1), 159-170.
• Collins, B. K., & Gerber, B. J. (2006). Redistributive policy and devolution: Is state administration a road block (grant) to equitable access to federal funds? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,16(4), 613-632.
• Claus, L. (2002). Budgetary federalism in the United States of America. The American Journal of Comparative Law,50, 581-592.
• Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2004). Goal conflict and fund diversion in federal grants to the states. American Journal of Political Science,48(1), 110-122.
• Rodden, J. (2003). Reviving Leviathan: Fiscal federalism and the growth of government. International Organization,57(4), 695-729.
• Bickers, K. N., & Stein, R. M. (2004). Interlocal cooperation and the distribution of federal grant awards. The Journal of Politics,66(3), 800-822.
• Reschovsky, A. (2004). The impact of state government fiscal crises on local governments and schools. State & Local Government Review,36(2), 86-102.

• Discussion Forum

• National Academy of Public Administration. Beyond Preemption: Intergovernmental Partnerships to Enhance the New Economy, pp. 19-47 (plus look at the definition of pre-emption on p. x) Beyond_Preemption
• Bowman, A. O'M., & Krause, G. A. (2003). Power shift: Measuring policy centralization in U.S. intergovernmental relations, 1947-1998. American Politics Research, 31(5), 301-325.
• Deller, S. C. (1998). Local government structure, devolution, and privatization. Review of Agricultural Economics,20(1), 135-54.
• Zimmerman, J. F. (1993). Preemption in the U.S. federal system. Publius,23(4), 1-13.
• Posner, P. L. (1997). Unfunded mandates reform act: 1996 and beyond. Publius,27(2), 53-71.

• Shaw, G. M., & Reinhart, S. L. (2001). Trends: Devolution and confidence in government. The Public Opinion Quarterly,65(3), 369-388.
• Dinan, J. (2004). Strengthening the political safeguards of federalism: The fate of recent federalism legislation in the U.S. congress. Publius,34(3), 55-83.
• Zimmerman, J. F. (2007). Congressional preemption during the George W. Bush administration. Publius,37(3), 432-452.
• Kettl, D. F. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review,60(6), 488-497.
• Thompson, L., & Elling, R. C. (2000). Mapping patterns of support for privatization in the mass public: The case of Michigan. Public Administration Review,60(4), 338-346.

• Discussion Forums

From Interjurisdictional Cooperation to Collaboration (all in Networked Governance)

• Administrative Strategies for a Networked World: Intergovernmental Relations in 2020 70
  • Christopher Koliba
• Information and Power in a Networked Administrative State 94
  • Keith Schildt

• Agranoff, R. (2001). Managing within the matrix: Do collaborative intergovernmental relations exist? Publius,31(2), 31-56.
• Stever, J. A. (1993). The Growth and decline of executive-centered intergovernmental management. Publius,23(1), 71-84.
• Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2004). Another look at bargaining and negotiating in intergovernmental management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART,14(4), 495-512.
• O'Toole, Jr., L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2004). Public management in intergovernmental networks: Matching structural networks and managerial networking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART,14(4), 469-494.
• Cho, C-L., & Wright, D. S. (2001). Managing carrots and sticks: Changes in state administrators' perceptions of cooperative and coercive federalism during the 1990s. Publius,31(2), 57-80.
• Pandey, S. K., & Wrightm B. E. (2006). Connecting the dots in public management: political environment, organizational goal ambiguity, and the public manager's role ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,16(4), 511-533.

• Collaborative Intergovernmental Relations Essay
• Discussion Forums

• Caraley, D. (1992). Washington abandons the cities. Political Science Quarterly,107,1-30.
• Barnes, W. (2005). Beyond federal urban policy. Urban Affairs Review,40,575-589.
• Kettl, D. F. (1981). The fourth face of federalism. Public Administration Review,41(3), 366-371.
• Swanstrom, T. (2001). What we argue about when we argue about regionalism. Journal of Urban Affairs,23(5), 479-496.

• Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy,64(5), 416-424.
• Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. The American Political Science Review,55(4), 831-842.
• Ostrom, V. (1973). Can federalism make a difference? Publius,3(2), 197-237.
• Oakley, D. (2002). Housing homeless people: Local mobilization of federal resources to fight NIMBYism. Journal of Urban Affairs,24(1), 97-116.
• Magleby, D. (1998). Ballot initiatives and intergovernmental relations in the United States. Publius, 28(1), 147-163.
• Clarke, S. E., & Gaile, G. L. (1997). Local politics in a global era: Thinking locally, acting globally. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,551,28-43.
• Carr, J. B. (2006). Local government autonomy and state reliance on special district governments: A reassessment. Political Research Quarterly,59(9), 481-492.
• Lovrich, N. P., & Newman, M. A. (2004). The hearing of local government interests in state legislatures: The effects of prior service in city or county government. State & Local Government Review, 36(1), 67-77.
• Pierce, J. C., Lovrich, N. P., Jr., & Moon, C. D. (2002). Social capital and government performance: An analysis of 20 American cities. Public Performance & Management Review,25(4), 381-397.
• Tavits, M. (2006). Making democracy work more? Exploring the linkage between social capital and government performance. Political Research Quarterly,59(2), 211-225.
• Dowding, K., & Mergoupis, T. (2003). Fragmentation, fiscal mobility, and efficiency. The Journal of Politics,65(4), 1190-1207.
• Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. W. (2001). The sprawl debate: Let markets plan. Publius,31(3), 131-149.
• Lynch, G. P. (2004). Protecting individual rights through a federal system: James Buchanan's view of federalism. Publius,34(4), 153-167.
• Buchanan. J. M. (1995). Federalism as an ideal political order and an objective for constitutional reform. Publius,25(2), 19-27.
• Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. The American Political Science Review,97(2), 233-243.
• Bohte, J., & Meier, K. J. (2000). The marble cake: Introducing federalism to the government growth equation. Publius,30(3), 35-46.

• Discussion Forums
• Prepare to submit the paper on Intergovernmental Performance of Recent Presidents, which is due in Lesson 9.

• Norris, D. F. (2001). Prospects for regional governance under the new regionalism: economic imperatives versus political impediments. Journal of Urban Affairs,23(5), 557-571.
• Thurmaier, K., & Wood, C. (2002). Interlocal agreements as overlapping social networks: Picket-fence regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review,62(5), 585-598.

All in Networked Governance:

• Reframing the Political and Legal Relationship between Local Governments and Regional
  • Institutions 97
  • David Y. Miller
  • Raymond W. Cox III
• Home Rule and Regional Governance—Shall the "Twain" Ever Meet? 120
  • Stephen G. Harding

• Gainsborough, J. F. (2001). Bridging the city-suburb divide: States and the politics of regional cooperation. Journal of Urban Affairs,23(5), 497-512.
• Savitch, H. V., & Vogel, R. K. (2004). Suburbs without a city: Power and city-county consolidation. Urban Affairs Review,39(7), 758-790.
• Eisinger, P. (2000). Globalization and metropolitan well-being in the United States. Social Science Quarterly,81(2), 634-644.
• Katz, B. (2000). The federal role in curbing sprawl. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,572,66-77.
• Steinacker, A. (2004). Metropolitan governance: Voter support and state legislative prospects. Publius,34(2), 69-93.
• Olberding, J. C. (2002). Does regionalism beget regionalism? The relationship between norms and regional partnerships for economic development. Public Administration Review,62(4). 480-491.

• Class Introductions Discussion Forum

All in Networked Governance

• International Intergovernmental Relations and Impacts on American Federalism 227
  • Beverly A. Cigler
• The Challenges of Interdependence and Coordination in the Bilateral Agenda: Mexico and the United States 249
  • Mauricio Covarrubias
• Hidden Tiger: The View from the State and Local Government Lair 273
  • Elizabeth K. Kellar

Interstate and Tribal Relations (Select one interstate and one tribal article from the list)

• Florestano, P. S. (1994). Past and present utilization of interstate compacts in the United States. Publius,24(4), 13-25.
• Nice, D. C. (1987). State participation in interstate compacts. Publius, 17(2), 69-83.
• Zimmerman, J. F. (1998). Interstate cooperation: The roles of the state attorneys general. Publius,28(1), 71-89.
• Weissert, C. S., & Hill, J. S. (1994). Low-level radioactive waste compacts: Lessons learned from theory and practice. Publius,24(4), 27-43.
• Bowman, A. O'M. (2004). Horizontal federalism: Exploring interstate interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART,14(4), 535-546,
• Ortiz, J. (2002). Tribal governance and public administration. Administration & Society,34(11), 459-481.
• Steinman, E. (2004). American federalism and intergovernmental innovation in state-tribal relations. Publius,34(2), 95-114.
• Jarding, L. J. (2004). Tribal-state relations involving land and resources in the self-determination era. Political Research Quarterly,57(2), 295-303.
• McCulloch, A. M. (1994). The politics of Indian gaming: Tribe/state relations and American federalism. Publius,24(3), 99-112.
• Mason, W. D. (1998). Tribes and states: A new era in intergovernmental affairs. Publius,28(1), 111-130.

• Any articles not read from the listing of tribal and interstate articles above.

• Discussion Forums

• Agranoff, R. & McGuire, M. (1998). The intergovernmental context of local economic development. State & Local Government Review,30(3), 150-164.
• Gerber, B. J., & Teske, P. (2000). Regulatory policymaking in the American states: A review of theories and evidence. Political Research Quarterly,53(12), 849-886.
• Megaregions - Read the section on megaregions that extends to another page on the website. In the left column of the opening page, click on each megaregion to view the areas of economic development across the U.S.

• Reese, L. A. (2006). Economic versus natural disasters: If Detroit had a hurricane." Economic Development Quarterly,20(8), 219-231.
• Blomley, N. K. (1990). Federalism, place, and the regulation of worker safety. Economic Geography,66(1), 22-46.
• Spill, R. L., Licari, M. J., & Ray, L. (2001). Taking on tobacco: Policy entrepreneurship and the tobacco litigation. Political Research Quarterly,54(3), 605-622.
• Ardoin, P. J., & Grady, D. (2006). The politics of electricity restructuring across the American states: Power failure and policy failure. State & Local Government Review, 38(3), 165-175.
• Boehmke, F. J., & Witmer, R. (2004). Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly,57(1), 39-51.
• Jensen, J. L. (2003). Policy diffusion through institutional legitimation: State lotteries. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 13(4), 521-54.

• Discussion Forum

• Wong, K. K. (January 2010). Toward federalizing education policy? Publius, 40(1), 226-233.
• Education Reform ECW-02 2/22/10
• This is on No Child Left Behind
• This is both an article and a video on Medicaid
• This is on TANF

Additional Readings:

• Wood, B. D., & Theobald, N. A. (2003). Political responsiveness and equity in public education finance. The Journal of Politics,65(3), 718-738.
• Keiser, L. R., Mueser, P. R., & Choi, S-W. (2004). Race, bureaucratic discretion, and the implementation of welfare reform. American Journal of Political Science,48(2), 314-327.
• Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2008). The color of devolution: Race, federalism, and the politics of social control. American Journal of Political Science,52(3), 536-553.
• Bailey, M. A., & Rom, M. C. (2004). A wider race? Interstate competition across health and welfare programs. The Journal of Politics,66(2), 326-347.
• McGuinn, P. (2005). The national schoolmarm: No Child Left Behind and the new education federalism. Publius, 35 (1), 41-69.
• Volden, C. (2006). States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children's health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science,50(2), 294-312.
• Provost, C. (2006). The politics of consumer protection: Explaining state attorney general participation in multi-state lawsuits. Political Research Quarterly,59(4):609-618.
• Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2006). Bottom-up federalism: The diffusion of antismoking policies from U.S. cities to states. American Journal of Political Science,50(4), 825-843.

• Submit literature review essay
• Discussion Forum

• Gerlak, A. K. (2006). Federalism and U.S. water policy: Lessons for the twenty-first century. Publius,36(2), 231-258.
• Scheberle, D. (2005). The evolving matrix of environmental federalism and intergovernmental relationships. Publius,35(1), 69-87.
• Engel, K. H. (2009). Whither subnational climate change initiatives in the wake of federal climate legislation? Publius, 39 (3), 432-454.

• Tarlock, D., & Van de Wetering, S. B. (2007). Water and western growth. Planning & Environmental Law, 59(5), 3-14.
• Davis, C. (2001). The west in flames: The intergovernmental politics of wildfire suppression and prevention. Publius,31(3), 97-110.
• Davis, C., & Davis, S. K. (1999). State enforcement of the federal hazardous waste program. Polity,31(3), 451-468.
• Rabe, B. (2007). Environmental policy and the Bush era: The collision between the administrative presidency and state experimentation. Publius,37(3), 413-432.
• Potoski, M. (2001). Clean air federalism: Do states race to the bottom? Public Administration Review,61(3), 335-342.
• Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006). Racing to the bottom? Trade, environmental governance, and ISO 14001. American Journal of Political Science,50(2), 350-364.

• Discussion Forum

• Roberts, P. S. (2008). Dispersed federalism as a new regional governance for homeland security. Publius,38(3): 416-443.
• Birkland, T. (2008). Is federalism the reason for policy failure in Hurricane Katrina? Publius, 38(4), 692-714.
• Cigler, B. A. The State Role in Emergency Manageme nt: Significant Challenges. Commonwealth: A Journal of Political Science, 15-7 (May 2009): 75-87.

Additional Readings:

• Chamberlain, R., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2005). Lien on me: State policy innovation in response to paper terrorism. Political Research Quarterly,58(3): 449-460.
• Peter Eisnger. 2004. "The American City The Age of Terror." Urban Affairs Review. 40(1): 115-130 8 9.
• Gerber, B. J., Cohen, D. B., Cannon, B., Patterson, D., & Stewart, K. (2005). On the front line: American cities and the challenge of homeland security preparedness. Urban Affairs Review,41(11), 182-210.
• Stever, J. A. (2005). Adapting intergovernmental management to the new age of terrorism. Administration & Society,37(9), 379-403.
• Kincaid, J. & Cole, R. L. (2002). Issues of federalism in response to terrorism. Public Administration Review,62, 181-192.
• Wise, C. R., & Nader, R. (2002). Organizing the federal system for homeland security: Problems, issues, and dilemmas. Public Administration Review,62,44-57.
• Kline, J. M. (1999). Continuing controversies over state and local foreign policy sanctions in the United States. Publius,29(2), 111-134.
• U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. (2006). Executive summary. In Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared(pp. 1-19). Washington, D.C.: Senate Report 109-322.
• National Governors Association, Policy Position EC-05. Homeland Security Policy.

• Discussion Forum

• Agency Forms and Reforms: Institutional Design for State-Centric Networks and Block Grant
  • Administration 127
  • Brian K. Collins
• The Promise of Reform and Local Agency Capacity 146
  • Terrell E. Ford
• Disaster Response 2020: A Look into the Future 150
  • William Lester
• The New Intergovernmental Role and the Necessity for Organizational Duality 172
  • R. Leon Churchill Jr.
• Performance Measurement and Accountability in the Intergovernmental System in 2020 175
  • Beryl A. Radin
• The Promise and Realities of Performance Measurement and Accountability 192
  • Elizabeth G. Hillt
• Managing Externalization: New Intergovernmental Roles for Public Managers 196
  • Robert Agranoff
• Networks and Hierarchies Can Coexist 224
  • R. Leon Churchill Jr

Additional Readings:

• Bowman, A. O'M. (2002). American federalism on the horizon. Publius,32(2): 3-22.
• Gibbins, R. (2000). Federalism in a digital world. Canadian Journal of Political Science,33(4), 667-689.
• Krane, D. (2007). The middle tier in American federalism: State government policy activism during the Bush presidency. Publius,37(3), 453-477.

• Future of Intergovernmental Relations Essay
• Discussion Forums