Essay on Intergovernmental Interactions Impacting Federal System Operations

The changes that have happened in the federal system of the United States requires managers to take into account several interactions between organizations that are governments and non-governmental as the interactions affect their operations during the process of dealing with various programs ranging from the federal and State headquarters, and also in participating in multiple transactions that involve intergovernmental system through use of growing number of instruments utilized in intergovernmental relations (Agranoff and McGuire, American federalism 672). Within this changing system, four models of management are identified; the first is the top-down model which focuses on control of executive branch, and it is mostly embedded in exchange and enforcements that relates to regulations, funding rules, laws, federal-States grants guidelines, program standards, regulations program, and procurement procedures. The second model is the donor-recipient model that focuses mostly on shared programs or mutual dependence administration, where the norm is reciprocal interactions among officials of a government or bargaining involving two parties (Kettl 488). The third is the jurisdiction- based model, which is defined by actions that are initiated by managers and local officials who are seeking resources to help them serve the government's strategic aims and also who seek an adjustment in programs. The fourth model is the network model, which highlights actions that are taken by governments, and non-governmental organizations have independence among each other and pursue intergovernmental adjustment and joint effort.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Public administration and federalism in the current setting have merged to a nearly indistinguishable point. The government authority has now overlapped across various levels to a point where the government actors are simultaneously involved to a different level of degree, and the policy responsibilities between the federal and State governments have evolved at a higher base (Posner 259). The model that represents the best way that the federal government enforces mandates and regulations negotiates and bargains, and responds to governance internationally is the jurisdiction-based model. The model is consistent with the diversity that is growing in the federal government and with changing models of public management, and it responds to jurisdictions involving international governance. The model raises more concerns on the practice and theory of public administration and it illustrates the priority attached to governance and policymaking in the federal system as it is aimed at achieving the paramount goals of the national government.

The jurisdiction-based model has present some challenges to the federal system. The national system in America has undergone an unnoticed and steady transformation in which the fundamental debates focus mainly on the traditional institutions and processes, as in most cases, new institutions and methods have emerged to become central to public policy, especially the non-governmental ones. Responsibility is shared among the federal government, the States government, nonprofit organizations, and private companies (Kettl 489). The transformation has resulted in two effects, the first one being straining the roles of all the players that were held earlier in the traditional setting. For many decades there have been debates to shrink and privatize government, and relevant policy decisions were made when the debates raged as the American government has relied mostly on both for-profit and nonprofit organizations in the process of delivering both goods and services. Through the changes, the local and State governments have become livelier. The second challenge caused by transformation is the issue of the strained capacity of different levels of governments and the nongovernment organizations in the process of delivering high-quality services to the public (Kettl 492). Also, the governments at the federal, State and local levels have found themselves through the new system with responsibilities that are new but cannot effectively manage those responsibilities.

The new intergovernmental regulation is characterized by the element of compulsion which differentiates it with the usual conditions in the grant-in-aid, as the assistance programs requirements in traditional setting were viewed to be a section of a contractual agreement that existed between coequal and independent levels of governments (Agranoff and McGuire, The Intergovernmental Context 150). However, in the new intergovernmental regulation, there are mandatory policies imposed on the State and local governments, making it challenging to avoid compliance. The national government has employed several legal and fiscal techniques to encourage the State and local governments to accept its regulatory standards, some of the strategies used by the federal government are crossover sanctions, direct orders, partial preemption, and crosscutting requirements. Congress and other levels of government struggle to get a portion of the government programs. The transformation process has occurred through globalization and devolution. States and local governments are working on the international level with other nations to attract foreign investment and promote trade.

Federalism has continually presented various problems to public administrators as it creates several layers of redundant service mechanisms that must be managed efficiently. Generally, the federal government has initiated a program that is mirrored at the State government and which is re-created at the local government (Agranoff and McGuire, The Intergovernmental Context 152). The redundancy in the process of offering services is always manifested in bureaucratic red tape and perceived inefficiencies while such traits of the governance system cannot be made in public administration which is charged with the work of finding more efficient ways of making the current system to a better job for the common good. The considerable vertical and horizontal overlap mostly leads to problems of power, control, performance, coordination, and accountability as programs are often initiated at the federal government, but the funding must happen partly or wholly in the State and local governments. Modification of some policies at different levels of governments usually results in conflicts between the government levels, which sometimes feel they have jurisdiction over implementing some issues. In the implementation of public policy, public administrators have to balance concerns such as jurisdiction autonomy and separation of powers.

Mandates have experienced several reforms as in the 1970s and 1980s; parties embraced them as a tool that is efficient in the attainment of national objectives that were promoted by leaders (Posner 261). The significant departure in the federal system was marked by the shift that occurred in the tools of the governmental action, which moved from voluntary to coercive tools. In the 1990s, mandate reform was passed, which became a collective expression and presaged a period in which federalism cast an enormous shadow over policy debates (Posner 262). The political system in the country today has mandated as most factors behind the earlier shift from voluntary to coercive federalism are present today, some being the pressure on leaders to advocate for new national initiatives that implicate local and State governments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the United States' distinguished policy strategies have tended to develop to the linkages with international organizations beyond the nation-state. More focus is on the creation of partnerships with organizations that are subnational, which are for-profit and nonprofit. Subnational partnerships have transformed the role of the State, and local governments were mostly the institutions of the federal government and political, administrative experience more challenge in shaping the national interest and orchestrating the partnerships.

Bibliography

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. "American federalism and the search for models of management." Public Administration Review 61, no. 6 (2001): 671-681. DOI/abs/10.1111/0033-3352.00138

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. "The intergovernmental context of local economic development." State and Local Government Review 30, no. 3 (1998): 150-164. DOI/abs/10.1177/0160323X9803000301

Kettl, Donald F. "The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government." Public administration review 60, no. 6 (2000): 488-497. DOI/abs/10.1111/0033-3352.00112

Posner, Paul L. The politics of unfunded mandates: Whither federalism?. Georgetown University Press, 1998.