Respond to three of your classmates’ posts with additional research (scholarly sources), analysis, and citations to reflect upon their research efforts and provide helpful feedback.
350 Words each
REPLY TO BOTH DISCUSSION BOARD POSTS. 350 words each with their own citations and reference lists
CITATIONS AND SOURCES HAVE TO BE DONE IN TURABIAN AUTHOR-DATE. I do not need exponents. Citations should look like this (Smith 1992, pg. 25) at the end of the sentence. Need 3-5 citations per paragraph.
RESPOND TO EACH OF THE POSTS BELOW
Use this source:
Wright, Deil S. 2007. “Intergovernmental Relations: An Analytical Overview.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 416, no. 1: 1–16. doi:10.1177/000271627441600102.
Post 1
Understanding the concept of federalism is important to understanding the way in which governments operate. Federalism is comprised of a type of government and how the state’s powers are divided. In order to understand how the American intergovernmental system works, one must first be able to identify the theory of federalism that best represents it, as well as those that contrast it.
Dr. Emily Ferkaluk defines federalism as a compound type of government where a division of power exists and states are interdependent, which is different from unitary or confederal governments (2021). Federalism in American often refers to the power of the central or federal government. A federal form of government differs from unitary government as a general government maintains control over its constituents (Ferkaluk 2021). Additionally, federalism contrasts confederal government, as confederal governments’ constituents maintain control over the general government (Ferkaluk 2021). There are two theories that discuss the origins of American federalism. Ferkaluk states that compact theory, the idea that the federal government came into existence via a compact among sovereign states, and the national theory, which states the federal government came into existence by the people of a nation—the people have authority over the government (Ferkaluk 2021). According to editors Laurence J. O’Toole, professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia, and Robert K. Christensen, professor of public administration at Brigham Young University, “…federal-state-local collaboration is the characteristic mode of action” (2013, 39).
Daniel J. Elazar, former leading political scientist in the United States, writes about Deil Wright, former American political scientist who supported the idea of the term “intergovernmental relations” or IGR. He explains that Wright’s definition of IGR actually came from the William Anderson’s definition, which states, “an important body of activities or interactions occurring between governmental units of all types and levels within the [U.S.] federal system” (Elazar 1987, 14). Furthermore, Elazar goes on to say that American federalism in the modern sense is more so aligned with the idea of federated or constituent states, “which come together to form a larger state in which the question of sovereignty remains, at least in the initial stages, a principal or primary one in public discourse” (1987, 40-1). The American intergovernmental system is best defined as one of vertical federalism. Although there is a layered approach to the authorities, there is still a cooperative relationship between the federal government and state and local governments (Ferkaluk 2021). This is apparent by three supporting claims.
The first is that the laws of the federal government trump those of the state and local governments. There is a hierarchy that exists in order for the central or federal government to maintain an authoritative position in charge of passing laws that are for the betterment of the individual states and the nation as a whole. Secondly, this hierarchy exists so that the federal government can maintain a strong, centralized economy. Lastly, this is necessary for the safety and security of the nation, as the federal government maintains control of the military and other defense assets. This is unlike other theories, such dual federalism that states the federal government and state governments are co-equals (Ferkaluk 2021). Also, it differs greatly from creative federalism, where the federal government seems to act more like a source of economic support for the states to achieve objectives that are in line with federal objectives (Ferkaluk 2021).
Looking at the idea of federalism from a biblical worldview, there are numerous instances in the Bible that delineate the powers between authorities. Biblical authority describes three spheres of authority between scriptural institutions: family, government, and the Church (Ferkaluk 2021). One particular scripture reads, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’” (Gen. 1:26 [English Standard Version]).
My proposed research topic is still in the works, but the main focus will be national security related. This is an important aspect of the vertical form of intergovernmental relations, as the federal government bears most of the responsibility to protect and defend the nation. Because the federal government has control over the military and intelligence community, it is important to maintain this authority over the states. The military can conduct offensive and defensive operations overseas that will safeguard the security of the country. However, there is still room for state and local governments to cooperate. One prime example of this is fusion centers with federal and local law enforcement that promote information sharing and conducting joint operations.
POST 2
Federalism is concerned with the need for people and governments to band together for similar goals while remaining independent in order to maintain their different integrities (Elazar, 1987, 33). Federalism is founded on a unique constitutional structure. This framework is most readily apparent in the division of power between a general, or federal, government and constituent governments. (Elazar, 1987, 34). Providing goods and services to citizens in the United States necessitates the formation of laws, rules, policies, and processes. From a biblical perspective, God’s word is clear about the rule of law as noted in Proverbs 11:14, Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors, there is safety (Prov. 11:14 [English Standard Version]). As part of collaborative governance, all levels of government and citizens must be involved in the achievement of a common goal to be successful. The founding fathers were fully aware that the federal structure is a means, not an end in and of itself. The emphasis is on the objective of federalism, which is to distribute power between central and peripheral government units (O’Toole and Christensen 2013, 37).
There are three models of intergovernmental relations (IGR) that will be examined. Further analysis is necessary to discover which model best enables collaborative governance in policy development and public administration in the United States. The models represent three generic types of authority: coordinate authority (autonomy), dominant or inclusive authority (hierarchy), and equal or overlapping authority (bargaining). First and foremost, the Coordinate-authority model is defined by sharp, identifiable boundaries that distinguish between the national government and the state governments of the United States. Local governments are included in and are reliant on state governments for their operations (O’Toole and Christensen 2013, 47). Second, the Inclusive-Authority model indicates that national governments are in charge of state and local governments, which means that there is a hierarchical network structure. In other words, it is considered a centralized system in which the National Government, as opposed to the states and local governments, is the entity with the power. The fact that non-national political institutions such as governors, state lawmakers, and mayors are approaching a state of near-total atrophy is still another negative attribute. In addition to the behavior of any one participant, the outcomes are influenced by the replies of the other participants, as well. To assert categorically that this model is not being ushered in by court decisions, congressional legislation, or administrative regulations, there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support this assertion (O’Toole and Christensen 2013, 56). Third, the Overlapping-Authority model depicts the interdependent links that exist between all three levels of government in the United States. Another point to note is that, in the overlapping model, the authority pattern is dependent on negotiations between the national and state governments.
Since federalism is founded on a certain type of constitutional framework. While this division of powers is important, the constitutional framework goes further, incorporating the formation of the entire government structure of federal polities on a noncentralized basis, which is essential for a functioning government system. Because of the noncentralized nature of the federal structure of the United States, it has a general, or national, government that is powerful in many areas and serves many objectives, but it does not have a central government that has complete authority over all lines of political communication and decision making (Elazar, 1987, 34-35).
There are flaws with all three referenced models of intergovernmental relations (IGR). I selected the Overlapping-Authority model because in comparison to other areas of law, autonomy or single-jurisdiction independence, as well as full discretion, are rather limited. An individual jurisdiction’s (or individual official’s) ability to exert power and influence is severely restricted. In addition, it is the most representative model of IGR practice (O’Toole and Christensen 2013, 52-53). In contrast, the Coordinate-Authority model, on the other hand, is characterized by the independence and autonomy of national-state entities, which places the local entity at the mercy of the state. As a result, the ability of such citizens to get goods or services is impacted. The Inclusive-authority model is very restrictive in nature. Using the hierarchy principle, this model establishes a hierarchy in which one level has superiority over another. Governments at the state and local levels are solely reliant on decisions that are bigger in scope and formulated by the national government. Changes in the makeup of the Court or in the legal theory could make this model more relevant again (O’Toole and Christensen 2013, 52-53). In Public Administration to provide the required products and services to the population of the United States, it is vital for all levels of government to work together in harmony. The concept of teamwork as referenced in God’s Word in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, For if they fall, one will assist the other. But woe to him who falls alone and has no one to help him up! Again, if two people lie together, they stay warm; nevertheless, how can one person stay warm alone? And if a single man may prevail over another, two will resist him—a triple cord is not easily broken (Ecc 4:9-12 [English Standard Version Bible]).
POST 3
Federalism can be associated with different theories. Perceived as a model of a structured government, it can be explained with aspects taken from the U.S. Constitution. What best represents the United States of America’s intergovernmental system would be how within the lecture video by Dr. Emily and how she states the following, “Federalism is a compound form of government in which there is a division of powers between two or more equal sovereignties, which are interdependent” (Emily 2021, 0.20). This will help to justify a deeper sense of how federalism works. Presently, the United States of America is currently applying a Progressive Federalism style with Intergovernmental. This application can play with the ideals of demarcation of powers. Most importantly for the needs of autonomy. In particular for both central and regional governments. That will bring the aspects of co-ordination between governments as well. Take for instance how Daniel J. Elazar states the following, “One of the major recurring principles of political import which informs and encompasses all three themes is federalism an idea that defines political justice, shapes political behavior, and directs humans toward an appropriately civic synthesis of the two” (Elazar 1991, 1). The ideals of federalism can be associated with the principles of the viewpoints that free people. Especially when it comes to the philosophers, theologians, and the world of politics that impacted public policy. All due to the fact of social institutions, and relationships of basic human choices.
In the scope of a Biblical Perspective, federalism can be seen within multiple theories as well. One popular notion is that the government works for the betterment of the government, not the people as intended. How policies should be developed, through the influence of the majority, is a driving force to make it better and keep focused on the authority of the people for proper governance. With the establishment of justice, there are discussions about federalism and the spears in which process the function within the federal system. Reflecting how shared powers are a must for proper compliance when it comes to faith and society. Especially when it comes to policymakers and the accountability of decisions. This is so that the government applies federalism correctly and ethically. God states the following: “This shall be the boundary by which you shall divide the land for an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel; Joseph shall have two portions. “You shall divide it for an inheritance, each one equally with the other; for I swore to give it to your forefathers, and this land shall fall to you as an inheritance” (Ezekiel 47: 13-14, English Standard Version). Undoubtedly indicating the strong presence of the Biblical Perspective within the United States government systems and the Federalism style.
My first claim would be because of how it breaks down into two main components of regional authorities. Better known as central government, for the reason that classification is important from the national government within the association of geographics. O’Toole and Christensen discuss the ideals of federalism and how even in the early days that there was tension with levels of government (O’Tool and Christensen 2013, 6).
Secondly, there is another claim due to the reason behind federalism with the state and local government authority sectors. For example, when it comes to the development within public policy under the New Deals and New Federalism notions. Showcasing examples that would be measuring the centralization/decentralization within the federal government sector all on its own.
Lastly, there is a claim regarding the relevance of serving the Nation’s people first. Presenting there are positions within the public policy that serve large areas, and when it comes to functional equivalent should be apparent. Suggesting overall that it is important to be on the top, rather than the bottom as a majority.
A contrast to this research would be how it does not establish hierarchy. Especially when it comes to sovereignty, and when it comes to aspects of the unitary government, like advocating for popular self-government with the standards of commitment for the development of principles. Influencing not only present policies but helps to continue towards the future. Timing is everything when it comes to federalism. As well as the key element of preventing unethical doings with the abutment of power. This can impact results when it comes to deficiencies and other risk elements of public policy. The hierarchical arrangements need to be placed to see beyond the box because of the mixed traits of society.
