IGR and Intergovernmental Competition
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
IGR and Intergovernmental Competition
Introduction
Intergovernmental Relations refers to the processes and institutions created within a political system to regulate communications and interactions within the various administrative levels. All government systems, unitary or federal, develop administrative subsystems for greater service delivery to its citizenry. Depending on the interests and needs of a particular system, incorporating other levels into a distinct subsystem’s affairs is commonplace. Unfortunately, there is often too much tension between policymakers working for the various administrative levels. Coordination of functions and activities involving communication between the said governance levels is more like competitions than unions of governance. In contemporary governance, administrative structures’ developments continue to redefine boundaries since more centralized governments today embrace decentralization and take steps towards its implementation. Some federal states, however, are increasingly hovering towards centralization. Either way, IGR as the conflict is more prevalent in governments today and greatly detrimental to operations, as demonstrated herein.
IGR in Federalism
While IGR is a recurring phenomenon in all governance systems with a political background, its manifestations in a federal country are quite complex, and the competition therein more vicious. Unlike centralized governments that allow decentralized units as a policy or project, federalist countries have those subsystems entrenched in their laws. Consequently, the discomforts opinions raised by the constituent federations, i.e., states, are valid and politically legal. The national government could twist or try to maneuver from the situation, but the power lies with the units’ constitutionally mandated. Not only do they have a full government complete with its three branches enshrined in the constitution, but they also have a political constituency that makes them indispensable and the execution of drastic actions such as dissolution impossible. Federal countries, therefore, have to suffer complex IGR that entertains integrated policies that come from local government to state and finally federal government (in the case of the United States) (Gluck, & Huberfeld, 2018).
Picket Fence Federalism
Picket federalism in IGR refers to a situation whence the federal government exclusively hogs the policymaking process, deciding for the states what they need and providing the funds necessary for the achievement of those needs. Also called creative federalism, it became the concept of choice for the United States government in the period between 1960-1980, laying the foundation for a period of great service provision for the citizens of America. During the picket federalism of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, various government programs designed to improve American citizens’ social lives came afore. Healthcare reforms, labor, and immigration took center stage as the top leadership began with Johnson in 1963 and sought to deliver more to their citizens. Incidentally, the implementation of picket fence federalism also explicitly highlighted the competitive IGR between the various government levels of administration in the country (Duff, & Wohlstetter, 2019).
Through the president and congress, the federal government was the major policy drivers. They relied on state governors and legislatures to appropriately direct implementation procedures with local governments’ help through their councils, cities, and mayors who were involved in actual implementation. In addition to all these, the national caucuses for governors, senators, and state legislators and well as the one for mayors had to be extensively briefed on the ongoing projects, given their involvement in policy development as representatives their various levels of government. The execution of various government policies on social service, including health, welfare, education, urban planning, and transport, required massive logistical abilities for effective communications and interrelations (Downey, & Myers, 2020).
Conclusion
Intergovernmental competition is a phenomenon that’s embedded in the DNA of any democracy-based governance system. Each administration level wants to realize the best possible administrative benefits for its constituents and, therefore, push whatever aids them even at the expense of others and opposes whatever ails them even if it benefits other units. The primary reason for IGR competition, therefore, is a diversity of interests. Therefore, its solution lies in finding ways through which government policies and projects offer a little something for everybody seated at the table.
References
Downey, D. C., & Myers, W. M. (2020). Federalism, Intergovernmental Relationships, and Emergency Response: A Comparison of Australia and the United States. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7), 526-535.
Duff, M., & Wohlstetter, P. (2019). Negotiating intergovernmental relations under ESSA. Educational Researcher, 48(5), 296-308.
Gluck, A. R., & Huberfeld, N. (2018). The New Health Care Federalism on the Ground. Ind. Health L. Rev., 15, 1.