Despite widespread perceptions of a decline in teaching about federalism and/or intergovernmental relations in U. S. public administration and public affairs programs, this study finds that more than half of all such programs offer courses on these subjects. Such courses are more prevalent in public administration than in political science; interest in teaching such courses is higher in public administration than in political science; and such courses are viewed as valuable by department colleagues in both disciplines. The top four topics covered in such courses are intergovernmental administration, federal-state-local relations, policy issues, and fiscal matters. Moreover, the rise of popular terms such as collaborative, networked, and multilevel governance has not displaced federal, federalism, and intergovernmental relations in course titles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbonyiG.Van SlykeD. M. (2010). Governing on the edges: Globalization of production and the challenge to public administration in the twenty-first century.Public Administration Review, 70 (s1), s33–s45.
2.
AgranoffR. (2007). Intergovernmental policy management: Cooperative practices in federal systems. In PaganoM. A.LeonardiR., The dynamics of federalism in national and supranational political systems (pp. 248–283). Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2001). American federalism and the search for models of management.Public Administration Review, 61(6), 671–681.
4.
BartM. (2012). Preface. In BartM., Faculty focus: Online student engagement tools and strategies (pp. 1–2). Madison, WI: Magna Publications.
5.
BolleyerN. (2006). Federal dynamics in Canada, the United States, and Switzerland: How substates’ internal organization affects intergovernmental relations.Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 36(4), 471–502.
6.
BolleyerN. (2009). Intergovernmental cooperation: Rational choices in federal systems and beyond. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
7.
BoxR. C. (1995). Teaching intergovernmental relations and management.Journal of Public Administration Education, 1(1), 23–38.
8.
BrainerdJ. (2016, June 1). Taxed and spent: Does the sales tax have a future?. State Legislatures Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/bookstore/statelegislatures-magazine/taxed-spent.aspx.
9.
BurgessM. (2006). Comparative federalism: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
10.
CookeJ. E.. (1961). The Federalist. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
11.
DilgerR. J. (2014). Federal grants to state and local governments: An historical perspective. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
12.
ElazarD. J. (1970). Cities of the prairie: The metropolitan frontier and American politics. New York, NY: Basic Books.
13.
ElazarD. J. (1984). American federalism: A view from the States. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
14.
FarazmandA. (1999). Globalization and public administration.Public Administration Review, 59(6), 509–522.
15.
FarazmandA.PinkowskiJ.. (2006). Handbook of globalization, governance, and public administration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
16.
FeslerJ. W. (1964). Area and administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
GrodzinsM. (1966). The American system: A new view of government in the United States. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
19.
GulrajaniN.MoloneyK. (2012). Globalizing public administration: Today’s research and tomorrow’s agenda.Public Administration Review, 71(1), 78–86.
20.
HueglinT. O.AFenna. (2006). Comparative federalism: A systematic inquiry. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
21.
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2015. “State Health Facts.” Retrieved July 30, 2015, http://kff.org/statedata.
22.
KincaidJ. (2011). The U. S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: Unique artifact of a bygone era.Public Administration Review, 71(2), 181–189.
23.
KincaidJ. (2014). The Federalist and V. Ostrom on concurrent taxation and federalism.Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 44(2), 275–297.
24.
KincaidJ.ColeR. L. (2014). Is federalism still the “dark continent” of political science teaching? Yes and no.PS: Political Science and Politics, 47(4), 877–883.
25.
KincaidJ.StenbergC. W. (2011). Introduction to the Symposium on Intergovernmental Management and ACIR beyond 50: Implications for institutional development and research.Public Administration Review, 71(2), 158–160.
26.
KincaidJ.TarrG. A.. (2005). Constitutional origins, structure, and change in federal countries. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
27.
LevratN. (2015). The European Union: From international relations to intergovernmental relations. In PoirierJ.SaundersC.KincaidJ., Intergovernmental relations in federal systems: Comparative structures and dynamics. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
28.
LightP. C. (2001, December). The Federalist Papers revised for twenty-first century reality [Special issue]. Public Administration Review, 71 (s1).
29.
LovrichNicholas P.TaylorG. T. (1978). American federalism and the teaching of political science.Teaching Political Science, 5(2), 227–234.
30.
MarksG. (1996). An actor-centred approach to multilevel governance.Regional and Federal Studies, 6(2), 20–40.
31.
MarksG.HoogheL. (2003). Unraveling the central state. But how? Types of multi-level governance.American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.
32.
MarksG.HoogheL.BlankK. (1996). European integration since the 1980s: State-centric versus multi-level governance.Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(3), 343–378.
33.
McDowellB. D. (1997). Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1996: End of an era.Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 27(2), 111–127.
34.
MosherF. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
35.
O’LearyR.BinghamL. B. (2006). Symposium on collaborative public management.Public Administration Review, 66 (s1), 1–170.
36.
O’LearyR.VijN. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going?American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522.
37.
OstromV. (1989). The intellectual crisis in American public administration (2nd ed.). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2015, February 25). Federal funds provide 30 cents of each dollar of state revenue. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2015/02/25/federal-funds-provide-30-cents-of-each-dollar-ofstate-revenue.
40.
PiattoniS. (2009). Multi-level governance: A historical and conceptual analysis.European Integration, 31(2), 163–180.
41.
PoirierJ.SaundersC.KincaidJ.. (2015). Intergovernmental relations in federal systems: Comparative structures and dynamics. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
42.
SchechterS. L.. (1984). Teaching about American federal democracy. Philadelphia, PA: CSF Associates.
43.
StenbergC. W.WalkerD. B. (1969). Federalism and the academic community: A brief survey.PS: Political Science and Politics, 2(2), 155–167.
44.
U. S. Office of Management and Budget. (2015). Table 12.1. In The president’s budget for fiscal year 2016: Historical tables. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.
45.
WattsR. L. (2008). Comparing federal systems (3rd ed.). Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
46.
WhiteH. (2008, March). Transformation, internationalization and globalization of public administration. PA Times, 31 (International supplement), 3.
47.
WilsonW. (1908). Constitutional government in the United States. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
48.
World Bank. (1999). World development report 1999/2000. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
WrightD. S. (1988). Understanding intergovernmental relations (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
50.
WrightD. S.StenbergC. W.ChoC-L. (2009). American federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental management (Foundations of Public Administration series). Retrieved from ASPA: http://www.aspanet.org/PUBLIC/ASPADocs/PAR/FPA/FPA-FEDIGR-Article.pdf.
