The federal government’s response the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been marked by a series of apparently disjointed, chaotic, and confusing statements and actions on the part of both the White House and federal agencies charged with coordinating the federal response. These actions have left many state governors (and citizens) in a position to address the effects of the pandemic in a haphazard and atomistic manner. In this essay, we contend that the actions of the Trump administration, and its relationships with states and local governments, can best be understood through a lens of what we refer to as “transactional federalism,” in which federalism relationships are governed by a set of exchanges between the president and states, and between states. We conclude by discussing the ramifications of this form of federalism.
AgranoffR.RadinB. A. (2015). Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations: The basis for contemporary intergovernmental relationships. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 45(1), 139–159.
2.
BassB. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
3.
BowlingC. J.PickerillJ. M. (2013). Fragmented federalism: The state of American federalism 2012-13. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(3), 315–346.
4.
BryantS. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32–44.
5.
Bulman-PozenJ. (2014). Partisan federalism. The Yale Law Journal, 127(4), 1077–1145.
6.
BurkeB. (2014). Understanding intergovernmental relations, twenty-five years hence. State and Local Government Review, 46(1), 63–76.
ConlanT. (2006). From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: Reflections on the half-century anniversary of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Public Administration Review, 66(5), 663–676.
11.
ConlanT.KimY. S.López-SantanaM.PosnerP. (2014, August28–September1). Unsafe at any speed? The emergence of variable speed federalism in the United States and the European Union [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, United States.
12.
ConlanT.PosnerP. (2011). Inflection point? Federalism and the Obama administration. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(3), 421–446.
FullmanN.Bang-JensenB.AmanoK.AdolphC.WilkersonJ. (2020). State-level social distancing policies in response to COVID-19 in the US. http://www.covid19statepolicy.org
18.
GamkharS.PickerillJ. M. (2012). The state of American federalism 2011-2012: A fend for yourself and activist form of bottom-up federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 42(3), 357–386.
19.
GerkenH. K. (2014). Federalism as the new nationalism: An overview. The Yale Law Journal, 123(6), 1889–1918.
20.
GerkenH. K. (2017). Distinguished scholar in residence lecture: A user’s guide to progressive federalism. Hofstra Law Review, 45(4), 1087–1096.
21.
KettlD. F. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and priavet markets. Washington, DC: Brookings.
22.
KettlD. F. (2003). Contingent coordination: Practical and theoretical puzzles for homeland security. American Review of Public Administration, 33(3), 253–277.
23.
KettlD. F. (2020). The divided states of America: Why federalism doesn’t work. Princeton University Press.
MorrisJ. C.MorrisE. D.JonesD. M. (2007). Reaching for the philosopher’s stone: Contingent coordination and the military’s response to Hurricane Katrina [Special issue]. Public Administration Review, 67, 94–106.
28.
NorthouseP. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE.
WrightD. S. (1988). Understanding intergovernmental relations (3rd ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing.
38.
WrightD. S. (2003). Federalism and intergovernmental relations: Traumas, tensions, and trends. Spectrum: The Journal of State Government, 76(3), 10–13.
