Government The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Assignment

E2025

Kincaid-IntroductionSymposiumIntergovernmental-2011.pdf

Home >Government homework help >Government The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Assignment

Introduction to the Symposium on Intergovernmental Management and ACIR Beyond 50: Implications for Institutional Development and Research Author(s): John Kincaid and Carl W. Stenberg Source: Public Administration Review, March | April 2011, Vol. 71, No. 2 (March | April 2011), pp. 158-160 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41061174 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and .facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review

This content downloaded from ��73.85.161.15 on Sun, 20 Jul 2025 12:48:57 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Intergovernmental Management Symposium

John Kincaid

Lafayette College Carl W. Stenberg University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Introduction to the Symposium on Intergovernmental

Management and ACIR Beyond 50: Implications for

Institutional Development and Research

the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009, federal involvement in state

and local affairshas been bold and wide ranging.

Through the massive $787.2 billion American Rein- vestment and Recovery Act of 2009 in particular, the

president and Congress sought to counteract state and local tax increases and spending cuts that could retard

economic recovery. However, the administration's eco- nomic stimulus, health care, immigration, energy con-

servation, transportation, infrastructure, housing, and financial services regulation initiatives, among others, rekindled debates over big versus small government, liberalism versus conservatism, and centralization versus decentralization. These initiatives also sparked

significant backlashes, including, forexample, the rise

of the Tea Party advocating limited government, law-

suits filed by 21 state attorneys general challenging the

constitutionality of provisions of the Patient Protec-

tion and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and substantial

losses forDemocrats in the 2010 congressional and state elections.

Although media and public attention have focused

mostly on national policy making, program devel-

opment, and funding decisions, intergovernmental relations and management remain vital to virtually all initiatives emanating from Washington, D.C. Yet a lack of adequate attention to intergovernmental matters- from policy formulation through policy im-

plementation and evaluation- imperils effective and efficient governance in ways that are readily evident

today. The intergovernmental confusion and clashes

that attended governments' responses to the 2010 oil

spill in the Gulf ofMexico suggested, forinstance, that key government actors had not fully learned the

lessons of the horribly bungled responses to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Hence, forces of coercion, coopera- tion, competition, and contestation continue to vie

forintergovernmental preeminence.

The capacity- especially the federal government's

capacity- to even recognize, let alone address, the

intergovernmental sinews of our federal democracy

has atrophied severely since the 1980s. This symposi- um focuses on the loss in 1996 of one element of such an institutional capacity- the U.S. Advisory Com- mission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR)- but

intergovernmental deinstitutionalization occurred across the board during the 1980s and 1990s. The

president's Office ofManagement and Budget no

longer has an explicit intergovernmental shop; the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

(called the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement under President Obama) is more

pertinent to politics than to policy; the U.S. House and Senate no longer have subcommittees on inter-

governmental relations; and the U.S. Government

Accountability Office no longer has a formal intergov- ernmental unit. At the same time, partisanship, inter-

est group advocacy, and confrontational politics have

eroded support forthe kinds of impartial research,

objective data collection, bipartisan policy develop- ment, and collaborative performance produced by the

ACIR and itsformer institutional cousins in Congress and the executive branch.

This symposium looks mainly at the trends and issues

associated with the creation and demise of the ACIR, and assesses prospects forrecreating lost capacities. These include monitoring intergovernmental trends,

convening key stakeholders, conducting impartial re- search and data analysis, and recommending practical

policies and management practices. The symposium also surveys the state ACIRs.

This symposium stems from a panel on the ACIR held at the Annual Meeting of the American Political

Science Association in 2009. The panel was organized by Richard L. Cole and sponsored by the Center for the Study of Federalism at the Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Center forthe Study of State and Local Government at Lafayette College.

The Symposium Papers Why was the creation oftheACIR important, and what did theACIR accomplishfin the firstarticle,

158 Public Administration Review • March |April 2011

Intergovernmental Management Symposium

John Kincaid

Lafayette College Carl W. Stenberg University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Introduction to the Symposium on Intergovernmental

Management and ACIR Beyond 50: Implications for

Institutional Development and Research

the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009, federal involvement in state

and local affairshas been bold and wide ranging.

Through the massive $787.2 billion American Rein- vestment and Recovery Act of 2009 in particular, the

president and Congress sought to counteract state and local tax increases and spending cuts that could retard

economic recovery. However, the administration's eco- nomic stimulus, health care, immigration, energy con-

significant backlashes, including, forexample, the rise

of the Tea Party advocating limited government, law-

suits filed by 21 state attorneys general challenging the

constitutionality of provisions of the Patient Protec-

tion and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and substantial

losses forDemocrats in the 2010 congressional and state elections.

Although media and public attention have focused

mostly on national policy making, program devel-

plementation and evaluation- imperils effective and efficient governance in ways that are readily evident

today. The intergovernmental confusion and clashes

that attended governments' responses to the 2010 oil

spill in the Gulf ofMexico suggested, forinstance, that key government actors had not fully learned the

lessons of the horribly bungled responses to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Hence, forces of coercion, coopera- tion, competition, and contestation continue to vie

forintergovernmental preeminence.

The capacity- especially the federal government's

capacity- to even recognize, let alone address, the

intergovernmental sinews of our federal democracy

intergovernmental deinstitutionalization occurred across the board during the 1980s and 1990s. The

president's Office ofManagement and Budget no

longer has an explicit intergovernmental shop; the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

(called the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement under President Obama) is more

pertinent to politics than to policy; the U.S. House and Senate no longer have subcommittees on inter-

governmental relations; and the U.S. Government

Accountability Office no longer has a formal intergov- ernmental unit. At the same time, partisanship, inter-

est group advocacy, and confrontational politics have

eroded support forthe kinds of impartial research,

objective data collection, bipartisan policy develop- ment, and collaborative performance produced by the

ACIR and itsformer institutional cousins in Congress and the executive branch.

This symposium looks mainly at the trends and issues

associated with the creation and demise of the ACIR, and assesses prospects forrecreating lost capacities. These include monitoring intergovernmental trends,

convening key stakeholders, conducting impartial re- search and data analysis, and recommending practical

policies and management practices. The symposium also surveys the state ACIRs.

This symposium stems from a panel on the ACIR held at the Annual Meeting of the American Political

The Symposium Papers Why was the creation oftheACIR important, and what did theACIR accomplishfin the firstarticle,

158 Public Administration Review • March |April 2011

This content downloaded from ��73.85.161.15 on Sun, 20 Jul 2025 12:48:57 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

"Reflections on the Spirit and Work of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations," 24-yearACIR senior staffveteran Bruce D. McDowell reviews the origins and evolution of the commis-

sion and the rationale foritsorganization and operation. Five areas of

accomplishment are discussed: new knowledge sources forpublic offi- cials and the academic community; better-informed dialogues among federal, state, and local officials; stronger state and local partnerships; support forboundary-crossing institutions; and increased federal gov- ernment awareness of overall intergovernmental relations.

The lessons learned from the life and death of the ACIR relate to

needs forbuilding networks of intergovernmental advocates in the

federal legislative and executive branches, strengthening cross-

boundary institutions, and identifying new opportunities and information technology tools to address the performance outcomes of government functions. The author proposes an agenda to recreate

the federal government's infrastructure forimproving intergovern- mental relations and management.

What initiatives have been taken to re-create theACIR? In "An

ACIR Perspective on Intergovernmental Institutional Development," former ACIR acting executive director, assistant director forpolicy implementation, and research analyst Carl W. Stenberg describes recent initiatives by the National Academy of Public Administra-

tion, the Big 7 state and local government associations, and mem- bers of Congress to restore an ACIR-like capability to the federal

government. The facilitating and inhibiting forces associated with

intergovernmental institutional development are analyzed in light of the factors responsible forthe ACIR's creation and growth, and key

design features of a new intergovernmental organization are noted.

Three major challenges confront intergovernmental institutional

redevelopment: identifying congressional champions, creating a sense of urgency, and doing the "homework and spadework" with the

White House, the Big 7, and potential conservative and liberal back- ers. Much work would need to be done to convert these challenges into viable opportunities. The absence of political credit or other rewards forintergovernmental relations proponents, lack of collective

Big 7 agreement on structure and strategy,and absence of other inter-

governmental institutional support sources are significant hurdles.

What should a reconstitutedACIR do? In "Reflections of a Member of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations," former ACIR member Richard P.Nathan discusses the

strengths and weaknesses of the ACIR's structure and work in the context of the intergovernmental players of the 1990s. He takes is-

sue with those who believe there has been a vacuum in the inter-

governmental relations field since the ACIR's demise, even though many of the replacements are advocacy organizations.

Like some of the proponents and skeptics mentioned in Stenberg's article, Nathan does not agree that the ACIR model should be

replicated fully.He distinguishes between two organizational prin- ciples: federalism (1) as an idea, emphasizing separation between the national government and the state and local governments, and (2) as an interest, focusing on the stakeholders who make and

implement intergovernmental policy. He argues that a newACIR should engage only the former, and should emphasize neutrality and

independence and serve as a convener, educator, and information

disseminator. Such an ACIR would not seek to represent interests

engaged in intergovernmental policy making.

Is thepolitical climate conducive to resurrecting anACIR? In

"The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations:

Unique Artifact of a Bygone Era," former ACIR executive direc-

tor and research director John Kincaid discusses the bipartisan political climate that facilitated the creation of the commission and enabled members to reach consensus on policies that crossed

party, philosophical, and jurisdictional lines. By the mid-1980s, however, contestation over issues associated with civil rights, social

welfare, environmental protection, and other regulatory policies had transformed the intergovernmental agenda, while the politi- cal world experienced rising party polarization. Compromise and consensus were legacies of the intergovernmental past. While

intergovernmental management continued to be largely coopera- tive, intergovernmental relations had become coercive. Governance

eclipsed government, and nongovernmental stakeholders and rent

seekers multiplied and invaded the intergovernmental arena, render-

ing policy making more complex, contentious, and disadvantageous to state and local governments. In academe, "interorganizational" largely displaced "intergovernmental" relations and management. These trends continue and make a revival of the ACIR unlikely.

The state ofthe stateACIRs. During the 1970s and 1980s, about half of the states created a state ACIR modeled on the federal body.

According to Richard L. Cole in "The Current Status and Roles of State Advisory Commissions on Intergovernmental Relations in

the U.S. Federal System," the state ACIRs collected data, served as

clearinghouses forinformation on grants-in-aid and intergovern- mental issues, prepared research reports, made recommendations to

improve relationships, acted as forums for discussing and addressing problems (especially state-local matters), and provided technical assistance. At one time, 25 state AC^Rs existed, but by 2009, just 10 were active, and only one has been created in the last 10 years.

This article surveys the organizational, financial, and staffing aspects of the extant state ACIRs and examines factors related to institu-

tional terminations, many ofwhich parallel the factors associated with the federal ACIR's demise. Although the need foran ongo- ing intergovernmental institutional capacity exists in many state

capitals, several of the conditions and trends adversely affecting the

revival of a national ACIR also impede the states' development of more intergovernmental capacity.

What are some ofthe "big questions" about intergovernmental relations andmanagement? In the concluding article, the sym-

posium editors, abstracting from the contributions here and other

literature, identify 15 questions that affect the health of the federal

system and reflect on the difficulty of addressing these questions without an ACIR-type capacity. Some of the questions focus on

policy and relationships; others deal with management and finances.

Conclusion In the absence of a permanent intergovernmental institutional pres- ence, the "big questions" likely will languish foradequate attention. The fiscal execution of the ACIR has been lamented by scholars and

practitioners, but the political prospects forrecreating this insti-

tutional capacity are low. The Big 7, the Obama administration,

Introduction to the Symposium 159