Main Content

The information contained on this page is designed to give students a representative example of material covered in the course. Any information related to course assignments, dates, or course materials is illustrative only. For a definitive list of materials, please check the online catalog 3-4 weeks before the course start date.

P ADM 557 Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations (3) Study of how a federal system of government affects the administration of public functions. National-state-local dimensions.



Overview

Intergovernmental relations among the U.S. national, state, and local governments are complex and often ambiguous. Power and authority relationships in the system are fragmented and often uncertain between institutions at different levels in the political environment. Roles and responsibilities are shared. Understanding the theories, debates, and basic tenets of intergovernmental relations is useful to grasp the concepts of the American governance systems as most public policy is intergovernmental in nature. Additionally, the ability of government to meet the demands and needs of citizens is facilitated by a strong intergovernmental system.

This course is a graduate seminar that surveys intergovernmental issues in governance and public policy. Specific topics explored include the legal origins and historical evolution of American federalism; theories and controversies concerning the appropriate roles of various levels of government; the intergovernmental context of U.S. policymaking and service delivery; the evolution and performance of the American intergovernmental system; fiscal federalism; and the politics of intergovernmental reform. The topics covered are done in the context of important policy areas, such as the environment, homeland security, emergency preparedness, assistance for low-income individuals, and education. Attention is devoted to vertical (national-state-local) relationships and also to interstate, state-local, county-municipal, and intermunicipal relationships, including regional approaches to governance and service delivery. Federalism is being shaped by diverse factors including tribal sovereignty, globalization, environmentalism, and terrorism, which are examined in the course.

Course Format

The course is divided into lessons, one for each week of the course. Each lesson consists of an introduction and objectives for the lesson, the readings and activities, background commentary that serves as a guide to the readings and lesson topics, details on the lesson assignments, a list of topics covered in the lesson, a summary, and a self-check exercise. Lesson content should be read first for each lesson, then the required readings, which are assigned articles from the required textbook or other articles and chapters linked to the lesson. In addition to readings found on the syllabus, lessons may add content from the Internet as the course progresses because of the changing nature of current events and ties to course content.

An important part of the course consists of interaction among all course participants, using Discussion Forums for posting materials and comments. At times, the professor instructor will post questions related to assigned readings and students will post comments. On occasion, longer commentary will be required of students in the form of short essays on assigned topics that will be placed in drop boxes for grading and, sometimes, also on Discussion Forums for comment. Each student will do additional readings on selected course topics and develop a literature review on a selected topics. The topic should be discussed with the instructor early in the course. An intergovernmental trends paper and an analysis of a recent president's intergovernmental policies will be completed by each student. The major papers are described in the Course Syllabus.


Course Objectives

By the end of this course, you should be able to

  • describe the complex interrelationships among governmental entities at various levels (international, national, state, regional, local), including interactions with the private and nonprofit sectors;
  • identify the legal, historical, theoretical, and policy framework for intergovernmental relations with the aim of distinguishing among the major recent and current trends;
  • explain fiscal federalism and mechanisms such as grants and mandates;
  • locate and use documents and other publications, as well as websites, to assist in relating to intergovernmental relations;
  • analyze and explain the intergovernmental dimensions of specific policy problems through a process of careful, rigorous, and systematic thinking at both abstract (theoretical) and concrete (practical) levels;
  • recognize when and how collaborative processes can be a useful approach to achieve better intergovernmental program management and results; 
  • demonstrate the use of models and concepts examined in the course; and
  • use knowledge about intergovernmental relations to analyze and identify possible ways to address problems or challenges confronting governmental entities.

Topics Covered in the Weekly Lessons

Lesson 1: Introduction to the Course and Each Other
Lesson 2: Legal and Historical Perspectives on Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations
Lesson 3: Constitutional Institutions and Federalism
Lesson 4: Intergovernmental Roles and Responsibilities
Lesson 5: Managing Intergovernmental Relations: Fiscal Federalism and Mandates
Lesson 6: Managing Intergovernmental Relations: Preemption, Devolution
Lesson 7: Managing Intergovernmental Relations: Collaboration
Lesson 8: Local/Regional Approaches to Intergovernmental Relations
Lesson 9: New Regionalism and Federalism
Lesson 10: International, Interstate, and Tribal Relations
Lesson 11: Economic Policy, States, and Federalism
Lesson 12: Social Policy, States, and Federalism
Lesson 13: Environmental Policy, States, and Federalism
Lesson 14: Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Lesson 15: Intergovernmental Management Challenges


Course Materials

Most World Campus courses require that students purchase materials (e.g., textbooks, specific software, etc.). To learn about how to order materials, please see the Course Materials page. You should check LionPATH approximately 3–4 weeks before the course begins for a list of required materials.

Additional Materials

  • Assigned journal articles and book chapters, as well as monographs from government agencies and think tanks.
  • Each student must read a major daily newspaper such as the New York Times or  The Washington Post and track intergovernmental issues.
  • Class members are expected to make extensive use of academic journals and Internet sites. Information on web sites and journals is provided below. Additional websites may be provided to you via e-mail when appropriate as the course proceeds, depending on current events and your expressed interests.

Useful websites

The U.S. Census Bureau is the primary depository of data on governments at every level. The site is especially useful for accessing the Statistical Abstract of the United States.

The Council of State Governments provides information to officials working in all branches (executive, legislative, judicial) of the U.S. government.

The National Conference of State Legislatures represents state legislators, staff, and specialized legislative units.

The National Governors Association lobbies for governors and does research for governors. It includes affiliates, such as the policy advisers to governors.

The National Association of County Officials is the lobby organization for counties at the national level and also provides research and other support to its member counties.

The National League of Cities is comprised of small and medium-sized cities.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the lobby and research organization of the largest U.S. cities, although members include medium-sized cities.

The International City/County Association does not lobby, but provides research and numerous services to 10,000 professional managers.

Governing magazine is "written" for those working at all levels of government. The website provides links to thousands of governmental organizations at all levels.

Stateline is a nonpartisan daily update on news affecting the states, including a great deal of information that is intergovernmental nature.

This is maintained by the Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Section of the American Political Science Association. It provides links to conferences and panels and publications, as well as to various governmental and private data relevant to American intergovernmental issues.

The site is maintained by the Forum of Federations, an international network of federations. The site contains an online library with more than 600 studies, papers, and articles on federal issues in a comparative context.

Major federalism and intergovernmental journals

There are two major intergovernmental journals from which the course will include many required readings:

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

This journal has an annual review issue of developments in federalism that should be useful to you in making topic selections for papers in this class.

State and Local Government Review

A number of other major public administration journals devote attention to intergovernmental issues, including

          Public Administration Review

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

American Review of Public

Administration & Society

Dozens of other public administration, public policy, urban policy journals, and other specialized topical journals also publish intergovernmental articles.

Library Resources

Many of the University Libraries resources can be utilized from a distance. Through the Libraries website, you can

  • access magazine, journal, and newspaper articles online using library databases;
  • borrow materials and have them delivered to your doorstep—or even your desktop;
  • get research help via email, chat, or phone using the Ask a Librarian service; and
  • much more. 

You must have an active Penn State Access Account to take full advantage of the Libraries' resources and service.  The Off-Campus Users page has additional information about these free services.

e-Reserves

Some of the required and additional journal articles are accessible through Penn State Library Reserves. To access these materials, click the Student Resources link in the left menu. In the new window, select Library Reserves link. Another window will pop up with the Item Details in title. Choose "Click Here for Full-text" to read the article in PDF.


Course Requirements and Grading

Graded Course Assignments
AssignmentTotal Weight
Weekly Discussion Forum Participation25%
Trends in Intergovernmental Relations and Federalism Essay20%
Strong vs. Weak National Government Essay5%
Collaborative Intergovernmental Relations Essay5%
Future of Intergovernmental Relations Essay5%
Paper on Intergovernmental Performance of Recent Presidents20%
Literature Review on a Selected Course Topic20%

Weekly Discussion Forum (25%)

This assignment consists of two types of Discussion Forums.

Follow-Up to Class Sessions: This discussion forum is used both by students and the instructor throughout the course to post news or other articles relevant to course topics. Comments on contemporary events or follow-up questions from the previous week's lesson readings and assignments are also appropriate. Students are expected to participate in the "Follow-Up to Class Sessions" Discussion Forum throughout the semester.

Weekly Discussion Forum: Lesson 1 through 15 each have a Discussion Forum at the lesson level. Each week, each student will post three to four summary comments or questions related to that week's readings. One objective is to stimulate interactive discussions among students in the course. Another objective is to show a grasp of course readings. For some of the weekly lessons, the instructor will pose a question or questions for class members to discuss. Use your own creativity in approaching the weekly Discussion Forums. Pick one or more topics or concepts from required readings to reflect upon. Critique material by adding something you can justify, showing how an author missed a point. Validate something based on your own experience or other reading. Relate readings to contemporary events or news.

Note: Although everyone will post on the Discussion Forums each week, you are expected to participate in eight threaded discussions and every essay. That is, during a minimum of eight weeks you must not only post but also respond to other posts.

Trends in Intergovernmental Relations and Federalism Essay (20%)

Prepare a 10–12 page essay on recent trends in intergovernmental relations and federalism that draws on the major intergovernmental, federalism and public administration journals, as well as on the issues of concern to the major intergovernmental organizations examined in Lesson 1. Submit the essay in the "Trends Essay" Drop Box no later than the 4th week of the semester.

Your information sources are the key journals in the field and the websites of the major intergovernmental associations. Both are listed in this Course Syllabus and the associations are discussed in depth in required reading for Lesson 1.

Paper on Intergovernmental Performance of Recent Presidents (20%)

Research and write a 10–12 page essay on the intergovernmental performance of one recent U.S. president: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama. Use journal articles, government or think tank reports, and other reputable sources. News articles can be used to provide examples but should not be the primary sources of your information. It would be helpful to use several of the course topics, such as grants in aid or regionalism, or a particular policy (economic, social welfare, education, etc.) as a way to organize your essay. This paper is due in Lesson 9.

Examples of articles applicable to the presidency paper:

Gais, T. L. (May 7, 2010). Federalism during the Obama administration.

Conlan, T., & Dinan, J. (2007). Federalism, the Bush administration, and the transformation of American conservatism. Publius, 37(3), 279–303.

Posner, P. (2007). The politics of coercive federalism in the Bush era. Publius,37(3), 390–412.

Benton, J. E. (2007). George W. Bush's federal aid legacy. Publius,37(3), 371–389.

Milkis, S. M., & Rhodes, J. H. Rhodes (2007). George W. Bush, the party system, and American federalism. Publius,37(3), 478–503.

Bowman, A. O'M. (2002). American federalism on the horizon. Publius,32(2), 3–22.

Krane, D. (2007). The middle tier in American federalism: State government policy activism during the Bush presidency. Publius, 37(3), 453–477.

Literature Review on a Selected Course Topic (20%)

The weekly lessons for the course include lists of required readings drawn from the textbook, journal articles, and/or material on the Internet. Beginning with Lesson 2, the lessons also include a list of "Additional Readings" that are not required but may be of interest to those wanting to pursue a topic in more depth. The literature review assignment involves writing an essay of 15–20 pages that reviews a topic of the student's choice, using the "Additional Readings" listed for that topic as a source bibliography but allowing for other readings that the student finds on the topic.

Your review of the literature reviews the topic by summarizing what is known from the existing literature. Read at least eight articles on the topic and develop a synthesis and evaluation of what is known, not simply a descriptive summary of each article. Information about the credentials of the authors, their research methodology or logic of argument, and findings and conclusions should be reviewed, with comparisons and contrasts among the articles.

The paper is due to the instructor via the appropriate Drop Box during the 12th week of the course.

Grading

Please refer to the University Registrar's information about University grading policies.

Written Work:Your papers and essays will be evaluated on content, clarity, comprehensiveness, and creativity.

  • Content: Develops and supports a central thesis. Provides a focused argument throughout the essay/paper.
  • Clarity: Writes clearly by developing a coherent, well-organized paper; arranges sentences in a logical and coherent manner; uses correct punctuation, spelling, and grammar; and provides correct citations.
  • Comprehensiveness: Has reviewed the relevant literature and material, shows an in-depth understanding of the topic, and uses multiple bibliographic sources (books, journal articles, interviews, web-based information). Does not use strictly web-based sources. Able to critique differing points of view on the topic.
  • Creativity: Draws the reader in and engages him and/or her in the topic. Attempts to make an original contribution to the topic. Presents material in an interesting and unique way.
Written Work Grading Table
Grade of AGrade of BGrade of CGrade of DGrade of F

Exemplary work in all aspects of content, clarity, comprehensiveness, and creativity; consistent with expectations associated with a professional written product; shows extra effort and initiative.

Work is better than average quality; demonstrates initiative and extra effort.

Meets the minimal specifications of the assignment.

Below minimal assignment specifications.

Extremely poor quality content and presentation.

Failure to complete a required assignment.

Discussion Forum Participation:Your Discussion Forum Participation is evaluated on content, clarity, comprehensiveness, creativity, plus whether the participation is interactive. Commenting once is not really conversing; instead, it's mostly a declaration. You need to check into each discussion several times, reading, thinking about, and then responding to what you have learned from others in the conversation. Use what you have learned from your reading to inform your thinking and your discussion. That is the purpose for the reading and the Discussion Forum is a good way to share learning.

The class is not a group of private individuals who have obligations only to the instructor. Our virtual classroom attempts to create a learning community in which interactive discussions are is crucial to the dynamics of the learning process in creating a community for inquiry, receptivity, and discussion.

Discussion Participation Grading Table
Grade of AGrade of BGrade of CGrade of DGrade of F

Consistent postings of insightful comments and questions that promote on-topic discussion.

Helps in clarifying or synthesizing others' ideas.

Disagreements with others are handled politely.

"First Post" deadlines are met; follow-up threads occur frequently enough to keep up to date; multiple posts on separate days during a threaded discussions occur.

Participant was lacking in one or two of the items listed for A-level participation.

Participant usually, but not always, expresses himself or herself clearly.

"First Post" deadlines are met; student is online on the discussion thread on multiple days and long enough to keep up to date on new posts; multiple posts are submitted on two or more separate days during threaded discussions.

Participant is consistently lacking in two or more of the items listed for A-level participation.

Participant seemed reluctant to participate, even when prompted.

Participant rarely expressed herself or himself clearly.

Participant met the "First Post" deadline and was online on the discussion thread on multiple days and for long enough to keep up to date on all new posts and submitted multiple posts on at least two separate days during the threaded discussions.

All weaknesses of C-level participation and

Participant attempted to draw discussion off-topic, even if her/his participation was otherwise of high quality.

Participant missed the "First Post" deadline, was online on the discussion thread on at least two days and for long enough to keep up to date on all new posts on those days; and submitted two or more posts on two or more separate days during the threaded discussions.

All weaknesses of D-level and

Rude or abusive to other course members.

Consistently failed to participate at all, even when specifically prompted or questioned.

Missed the "First Post" deadline; failed to be online on the discussion thread on at least two days and for long enough to keep up to date on all new posts on those days; failed to submit posts on two or more separate days during the threaded discussions.

 

Deferred Grades
If, for reasons beyond the student's control, a student is prevented from completing a course within the prescribed time, the grade in that course may be deferred with the concurrence of the instructor. The symbol DF appears on the student's transcript until the course has been completed. Non-emergency permission for filing a deferred grade must be requested by the student before the beginning of the final examination period. In an emergency situation, an instructor can approve a deferred grade after the final exam period has started. Under emergency conditions during which the instructor is unavailable, authorization is required from one of the following: the dean of the college in which the candidate is enrolled; the executive director of the Division of Undergraduate Studies if the student is enrolled in that division or is a provisional student; or the campus chancellor of the student's associated Penn State campus.

For additional information please refer to the Deferring a Grade page.


Technical Specifications

Technical Requirements
Operating System Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8*; Mac OS X 10.5 or higher
*Windows 8 support excludes the tablet only RT version
Processor 2 GHz or higher
Memory 1 GB of RAM
Hard Drive Space 20 GB free disk space
Browser We recommend the latest ANGEL-supported version of Firefox or Internet Explorer. To determine if your browser fits this criterion, and for advice on downloading a supported version, please refer to the following ITS knowledge base article: Supported Browsers and Recommended Computers.
Note: Cookies, Java, and JavaScript must be enabled. Pop-up blockers should be configured to permit new windows
from Penn State websites.

Due to nonstandard handling of CSS, JavaScript and caching,
older versions of Internet Explorer (such as IE 6 or earlier) do not work with our courses.
Plug-ins Adobe Reader [Download from Adobe]
Flash Player (v7.0 or later) [Download from Adobe]
Additional Software Microsoft Office (2007 or later)
Internet Connection Broadband (cable or DSL) connection required
Printer Access to graphics-capable printer
DVD-ROM Required
Sound Card, Microphone, and Speakers Required
Monitor Capable of at least 1024 x 768 resolution

If you need technical assistance at any point during the course, please contact the Service Desk.

For registration, advising, disability services, help with materials, exams, general problem solving, visit World Campus Student Services!


Course Schedule

The schedule below outlines the topics we will be covering in this course, along with the associated time frames and assignments.

Note: All due dates reflect North American eastern time (ET).

This schedule ensures that all students have the same deadlines regardless of where they live.

Course Schedule
Lesson 1
Lesson 1Introduction to the Course and Each Other

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.

Assignments:

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

 

Lesson 2
Lesson 2Legal and Historical Perspectives on Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

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

 

Lesson 3
Lesson 3Constitutional Institutions and Federalism

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Strong vs. Weak National Government Essay
  • Discussion Forums

 

Lesson 4
Lesson 4Intergovernmental Roles and Responsibilities

Readings:

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.

Assignments:

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

 

Lesson 5
Lesson 5Managing Intergovernmental Relations: Fiscal Federalism and Mandates

Readings:

Required:

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
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Discussion Forum

 

Lesson 6
Lesson 6Managing Intergovernmental Relations: Preemption, Devolution

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Discussion Forums

 

Lesson 7
Lesson 7Managing Intergovernmental Relations: Collaboration

Readings:

Required:

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
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Collaborative Intergovernmental Relations Essay
  • Discussion Forums

 

Lesson 8
Lesson 8Local/Regional Approaches to Intergovernmental Relations

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

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

 

Lesson 9
Lesson 9Getting Started

Readings:

Required:
  • 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
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Class Introductions Discussion Forum

 

Lesson 10
Lesson 10International, Interstate and Tribal Relations

Readings:

Required:

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

Assignments:

  • Discussion Forums

 

Lesson 11
Lesson 11Economic Policy, States, and Federalism

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Discussion Forum

 

Lesson 12
Lesson 12Social Policy, States, and Federalism

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Submit literature review essay
  • Discussion Forum

 

Lesson 13
Lesson 13Environmental Policy, States, and Federalism

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.
Additional Readings:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Discussion Forum

 

Lesson 14
Lesson 14Homeland Security & Emergency Management

Readings:

Required:
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Discussion Forum

 

Lesson 15
Lesson 15Intergovernmental Management Challenges

Readings:

Required: (all in Networked Governance)
  • 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.

Assignments:

  • Future of Intergovernmental Relations Essay
  • Discussion Forums

Note: If you are planning to graduate this semester, please communicate your intent to graduate to your instructor. This will alert your instructor to the need to submit your final grade in time to meet the published graduation deadlines. For more information about graduation policies and deadlines, please refer to Graduation at the Chaiken Center for Student Success.

Formal instruction will end on the last day of class. Provided that you have an active Penn State Access Account user ID and password, you will continue to be able to access the course materials for one year, starting from the end date of the academic semester in which the course was offered (with the exception of library reserves and other external resources that may have a shorter archival period). After one year, you might be able to access the course based on the policies of the program or department offering the course material, up to a maximum of three years from the end date of the academic semester in which the course was offered. For more information, please review the University Course Archival Policy.

 

Please refer to the University Registrar's information about University grading policies.


Academic Integrity

According to Penn State policy G-9: Academic Integrity (for undergraduate students in undergraduate courses) and policy GCAC-805 Academic Integrity (for graduate students and undergraduate students in graduate courses), an academic integrity violation is “an intentional, unintentional, or attempted violation of course or assessment policies to gain an academic advantage or to advantage or disadvantage another student academically.” Unless your instructor tells you otherwise, you must complete all course work entirely on your own, using only sources that have been permitted by your instructor, and you may not assist other students with papers, quizzes, exams, or other assessments. If your instructor allows you to use ideas, images, or word phrases created by another person (e.g., from Course Hero or Chegg) or by generative technology, such as ChatGPT, you must identify their source. You may not submit false or fabricated information, use the same academic work for credit in multiple courses, or share instructional content. Students with questions about academic integrity should ask their instructor before submitting work.

Students facing allegations of academic misconduct may not drop/withdraw from the affected course unless they are cleared of wrongdoing (see G-9: Academic Integrity or GCAC-805 Academic Integrity as appropriate). Attempted drops will be prevented or reversed, and students will be expected to complete course work and meet course deadlines. Students who are found responsible for academic integrity violations face academic outcomes, which can be severe, and put themselves at jeopardy for other outcomes which may include ineligibility for Dean’s List, pass/fail elections, and grade forgiveness. Students may also face consequences from their home/major program and/or The Schreyer Honors College.

How Academic Integrity Violations Are Handled
World Campus students are expected to act with civility and personal integrity; respect other students' dignity, rights, and property; and help create and maintain an environment in which all can succeed through the fruits of their own efforts. An environment of academic integrity is requisite to respect for oneself and others, as well as a civil community.

In cases where academic integrity is questioned, procedures allow a student to accept or contest/appeal the allegation. If a student chooses to contest/appeal the allegation, the case will then be managed by the respective school, college or campus Academic Integrity Committee. Review procedures may vary by college, campus, or school, but all follow the aforementioned policies.

All academic integrity violations are referred to the Office of Student Accountability and Conflict Response, which may assign an educational intervention and/or apply a Formal Warning, Conduct Probation, Suspension, or Expulsion.

Information about Penn State's academic integrity policy is included in the information that students receive upon enrolling in a course. To obtain that information in advance of enrolling in a course, please contact us by going to the Contacts & Help page.


Accommodating Disabilities


Additional Policies

For information about additional policies regarding Penn State Access Accounts; credit by examination; course tuition, fees, and refund schedules; and drops and withdrawals, please see the World Campus Student Center website.


Disclaimer:Please note that the specifics of this Course Syllabus are subject to change, and you will be responsible for abiding by any such changes. Your instructor will notify you of any changes.


Top of page