In this introductory article for the 2020–2021 Annual Review of American Federalism, we review notable developments in U.S. politics and policy during the last year, with an emphasis on their intersections with and consequences for federalism. We focus in particular on the 2020 elections and the COVID pandemic, along with policy developments in the areas of criminal justice and police reform, health care, environment, immigration, and equality and religious liberty. The events of the past year, especially those related to the pandemic and the fallout of the presidential election, led to a resurgence of public interest in federalism and a focus on the importance of government decision-making of state and local governments. Events during the last year have not only reinforced partisan polarization but have also deepened the existing divide of Americans along partisan lines and perhaps in new ways. Partisan differences have increasingly become cultural differences, so that political and policy differences have saturated American culture in notable ways.
{"title":"The State of American Federalism, 2020–2021: Deepening Partisanship amid Tumultuous Times","authors":"David M. Konisky, Paul Nolette","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjab023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjab023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this introductory article for the 2020–2021 Annual Review of American Federalism, we review notable developments in U.S. politics and policy during the last year, with an emphasis on their intersections with and consequences for federalism. We focus in particular on the 2020 elections and the COVID pandemic, along with policy developments in the areas of criminal justice and police reform, health care, environment, immigration, and equality and religious liberty. The events of the past year, especially those related to the pandemic and the fallout of the presidential election, led to a resurgence of public interest in federalism and a focus on the importance of government decision-making of state and local governments. Events during the last year have not only reinforced partisan polarization but have also deepened the existing divide of Americans along partisan lines and perhaps in new ways. Partisan differences have increasingly become cultural differences, so that political and policy differences have saturated American culture in notable ways.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49295412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Citizenship Reimagined: A New Framework for State Rights in the United States, by Allan Colbern and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan","authors":"Margaret M. Commins","doi":"10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41800116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article considers the ways in which partisanship structured public attitudes about the United States’ multiple governments as each tried to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 during the spring and summer of 2020. The evidence shows that Democrats and Republicans both made distinctions among their local, state, and federal governments, assigning them different functional responsibilities. Yet, members of the two parties did not agree on that division of intergovernmental responsibility. Rather, across a variety of issues, polarized partisan identities structured beliefs about the operation and efficacy of the American federal system’s ability to contend with the spread of coronavirus. Moreover, these beliefs did not stem from prior ideological commitments or the different composition of Democratic or Republican communities. Instead, party leaders proved especially capable of shifting public attitudes on questions of federal versus state authority through their shifting rhetoric and strategic framing.
{"title":"Federalism, Polarization, and Policy Responsibility during COVID-19: Experimental and Observational Evidence from the United States","authors":"Nicholas J. Jacobs","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjab014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjab014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article considers the ways in which partisanship structured public attitudes about the United States’ multiple governments as each tried to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 during the spring and summer of 2020. The evidence shows that Democrats and Republicans both made distinctions among their local, state, and federal governments, assigning them different functional responsibilities. Yet, members of the two parties did not agree on that division of intergovernmental responsibility. Rather, across a variety of issues, polarized partisan identities structured beliefs about the operation and efficacy of the American federal system’s ability to contend with the spread of coronavirus. Moreover, these beliefs did not stem from prior ideological commitments or the different composition of Democratic or Republican communities. Instead, party leaders proved especially capable of shifting public attitudes on questions of federal versus state authority through their shifting rhetoric and strategic framing.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46413528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A form of power-sharing, territorial autonomy is essential for managing separatism. Indonesia provides two non-Western cases to illuminate what makes autonomy work. In Aceh, autonomy helped to overcome conflict and can be regarded as successful, while in Papua, autonomy has failed, evident in continued unrest. Within the same country, the same institutional response to violent separatism has generated divergent self-government outcomes. Why has autonomy succeeded in Aceh, but failed in Papua? Utilizing within-case and temporal comparisons, we suggest that the content of autonomy may be less important than the process through which it unfolds. The powers granted to Aceh and Papua are similar, although how self-government was negotiated and whom it empowered varied. Early in Aceh and in Papua, autonomy was essentially imposed, empowering corrupt leaders, and sidelining dissidents. Aceh’s ultimately successful autonomy was negotiated and saw popular former rebels take the reins of self-government.
{"title":"Indonesian Autonomies: Explaining Divergent Self-Government Outcomes in Aceh and Papua","authors":"S. Barter, Hipolitus Ringgi Wangge","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjab009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjab009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A form of power-sharing, territorial autonomy is essential for managing separatism. Indonesia provides two non-Western cases to illuminate what makes autonomy work. In Aceh, autonomy helped to overcome conflict and can be regarded as successful, while in Papua, autonomy has failed, evident in continued unrest. Within the same country, the same institutional response to violent separatism has generated divergent self-government outcomes. Why has autonomy succeeded in Aceh, but failed in Papua? Utilizing within-case and temporal comparisons, we suggest that the content of autonomy may be less important than the process through which it unfolds. The powers granted to Aceh and Papua are similar, although how self-government was negotiated and whom it empowered varied. Early in Aceh and in Papua, autonomy was essentially imposed, empowering corrupt leaders, and sidelining dissidents. Aceh’s ultimately successful autonomy was negotiated and saw popular former rebels take the reins of self-government.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48771127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article pursues a novel endeavor by anchoring the study of nation branding in the context of multinational federal systems. Through an examination of the manner in which international education strategies are used to cultivate images of “nation” in Canada and Quebec, the study underlines how the “politics of recognition” at the heart of Canada/Quebec relations play out in the international education sphere. The results point to the significance of policy effectiveness for the “politics of recognition,” contributing to the literature on majority–minority tensions, which tends to highlight the symbolic role of policy control as opposed to the realization of said policies. The research also sheds light on the potential interplay between the political autonomy of minority nations and their symbolic recognition, by highlighting how the provision of policy control can work to substantiate the (external) recognition of their distinct nation status.
{"title":"Projecting the Nation(s) in Multinational Federal Systems: International Education and Nation Branding in Canada/Quebec","authors":"H. Moscovitz","doi":"10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article pursues a novel endeavor by anchoring the study of nation branding in the context of multinational federal systems. Through an examination of the manner in which international education strategies are used to cultivate images of “nation” in Canada and Quebec, the study underlines how the “politics of recognition” at the heart of Canada/Quebec relations play out in the international education sphere. The results point to the significance of policy effectiveness for the “politics of recognition,” contributing to the literature on majority–minority tensions, which tends to highlight the symbolic role of policy control as opposed to the realization of said policies. The research also sheds light on the potential interplay between the political autonomy of minority nations and their symbolic recognition, by highlighting how the provision of policy control can work to substantiate the (external) recognition of their distinct nation status.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75562499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As Congress remains gridlocked on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, immigration policy debates, particularly with respect to interior immigration enforcement, are increasingly taking place at state and local levels. Scholarship on immigration federalism has focused on federal and local governments, while states are passing laws that tighten or delimit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (i.e., “sanctuary policies”). Simultaneously, cities are passing laws contradictory to state policy. We examine how these state and local enforcement ambiguities affect undocumented immigrants’ trust in the efficacy of sanctuary policies. Using California as a case, we embedded an experiment in a survey of undocumented immigrants and find trust in sanctuary policies decreases when cities seek to opt out of statewide sanctuary laws. Further, “opting out” has negative implications for the daily behavior of undocumented immigrants, like the chilling effects resulting from local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
{"title":"The Effect of Intergovernmental Policy Conflict on Immigrants’ Behavior: Insights from a Survey Experiment in California","authors":"T. Wong, Karina Shklyan, Andrea Silva","doi":"10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As Congress remains gridlocked on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, immigration policy debates, particularly with respect to interior immigration enforcement, are increasingly taking place at state and local levels. Scholarship on immigration federalism has focused on federal and local governments, while states are passing laws that tighten or delimit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (i.e., “sanctuary policies”). Simultaneously, cities are passing laws contradictory to state policy. We examine how these state and local enforcement ambiguities affect undocumented immigrants’ trust in the efficacy of sanctuary policies. Using California as a case, we embedded an experiment in a survey of undocumented immigrants and find trust in sanctuary policies decreases when cities seek to opt out of statewide sanctuary laws. Further, “opting out” has negative implications for the daily behavior of undocumented immigrants, like the chilling effects resulting from local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"2003 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87041932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
India’s post-colonial constitution introduced a new approach to federalism based on a substantial sphere of shared responsibility between Central and State governments, especially in the fields of social and economic policy, and a Central government with strong prerogatives to intervene in provincial affairs. This was qualified at the time as a diminished or “quasi” form of federalism. Existing explanations of the origins of India’s centralized federalism focus on efforts to curb further secession attempts in the aftermath of Partition or the need for a strong Center to consolidate democracy in a highly unequal society. This article draws on archival materials to demonstrate that distinctive elements of Indian federalism were shaped at their foundations by the desire to boost industrial development and lay the foundation for a national welfare state in a post-colonial future by preventing the consolidation of “race to the bottom” dynamics arising from unregulated inter-provincial economic competition.
{"title":"Building a National Economy: Origins of Centralized Federalism in India","authors":"Louise Tillin","doi":"10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAA039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAA039","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 India’s post-colonial constitution introduced a new approach to federalism based on a substantial sphere of shared responsibility between Central and State governments, especially in the fields of social and economic policy, and a Central government with strong prerogatives to intervene in provincial affairs. This was qualified at the time as a diminished or “quasi” form of federalism. Existing explanations of the origins of India’s centralized federalism focus on efforts to curb further secession attempts in the aftermath of Partition or the need for a strong Center to consolidate democracy in a highly unequal society. This article draws on archival materials to demonstrate that distinctive elements of Indian federalism were shaped at their foundations by the desire to boost industrial development and lay the foundation for a national welfare state in a post-colonial future by preventing the consolidation of “race to the bottom” dynamics arising from unregulated inter-provincial economic competition.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"224 1","pages":"161-185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75041797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many American states have adopted laws designed to prevent environmental agencies from regulating pollution emissions more stringently than is required by federal statute. This study leverages variation in the timing and breadth of state adoption of these “No More Stringent” (NMS) laws to examine the claim that interstate competition for mobile capital leads state governments to relax regulatory standards, resulting in an environmental race to the bottom. The results indicate that the diffusion of NMS laws is driven by two forms of interstate economic competition, a policy competition effect that operates primarily among contiguous neighbors and a cost competition effect that operates primarily among a broader set of economic peers. These findings provide new empirical support for the environmental race to the bottom argument, and suggest new challenges for the use of cooperative federalism arrangements that involve state implementation of federal programs.
{"title":"An Environmental Race to the Bottom? “No More Stringent” Laws in the American States","authors":"Neal D. Woods","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjaa031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Many American states have adopted laws designed to prevent environmental agencies from regulating pollution emissions more stringently than is required by federal statute. This study leverages variation in the timing and breadth of state adoption of these “No More Stringent” (NMS) laws to examine the claim that interstate competition for mobile capital leads state governments to relax regulatory standards, resulting in an environmental race to the bottom. The results indicate that the diffusion of NMS laws is driven by two forms of interstate economic competition, a policy competition effect that operates primarily among contiguous neighbors and a cost competition effect that operates primarily among a broader set of economic peers. These findings provide new empirical support for the environmental race to the bottom argument, and suggest new challenges for the use of cooperative federalism arrangements that involve state implementation of federal programs.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"108 1","pages":"238-261"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79387821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Handbook on Gender, Diversity and Federalism, edited by Jill Vickers, Joan Grace, and Cheryl N. Collier","authors":"C. Forster","doi":"10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83494171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Hybrid Regimes within Democracies: Fiscal Federalism and Subnational Rentier States, by Carlos Gervasoni","authors":"Michael Buehler","doi":"10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90219974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：