Strong forces for centralization continue to operate in the American federal system; however, especially since the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980, countervailing forces have worked to promote decentralization and even restore noncentralization in the federal system. Furthermore, the states have reasserted themselves as polities, becoming stronger and more vigorous than ever. The potential for greater noncentralization is being reinforced by changing socioeconomic conditions that place a greater emphasis on networks of relationships rather than on traditional hierarchies. The condition of American federalism today, therefore, is ambiguous but promising.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Daniel J. Elazar, “The Shaping of Intergovernmental Relations in the Twentieth Century,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 359:10-22 (May 1965).
2.
Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., and George Packard, eds., Government Reorganization and the Federal System, vol. 8, Publius: The Journal of Federalism (Spring 1978).
3.
Cf. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Federalism and the Constitution: A Symposium on Garcia (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1988).
4.
4. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Regulatory Federalism (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1984).
5.
5. Daniel J. Elazar, “Is Federalism Compatible with Prefectorial Administration?”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 11:3-22 (Spring 1981).
6.
Hedrick Smith , The Power Game (New York: Random House, 1988).
7.
Robert B. Hawkins, Jr. , ed., American Federalism: A New Partnership for the Republic (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1982).
8.
John Kincaid, ed., State Constitutions in a Federal System, vol. 496, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Mar. 1988).
9.
9. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976).
10.
David A. Caputo, Richard L. Cole, and Delbert A. Taebel, eds., Assessing New Federalism, vol. 16, Publius: The Journal of Federalism (Winter 1986).
11.
11. Daniel J. Elazar, “Cursed by Bigness or Toward a Post-Technocratic Federalism,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 3:239 (Fall 1973).
12.
John Naisbit , Mega-trends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives, 6th ed. (New York: Warner, 1983).
13.
John Kincaid , “State Offices in Europe,”Comparative State Politics Newsletter, 6:22 (Aug. 1985).
14.
14. Cf. John Herbers, The New American Heart-land (New York: New York Times Books, 1986).
15.
15. Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1987).
16.
16. Daniel J. Elazar, “The Rebirth of Federalism: The Future Role of the States as Polities in the Federal System,”Commonsense, 4:1-8 (1981).
17.
17. Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States, 3d ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1984).
18.
Morton Grodzins , The American System, ed. Daniel J. Elazar (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966).
19.
19. Cf. Norton E. Long, “The Three Citizenships,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 6:13-32 (Spring 1976).
20.
20. John Kincaid, “A Proposal to Strengthen Federalism,”Journal of State Government, 62:36-45 (Jan.-Feb. 1989).
