Discussion Thread 2: Overlapping Model of IGR Presentation Preparation
This section focuses on Deli Wright’s development of an overlapping model of intergovernmental
relations, which was the topic of this week's discussion thread. This review aims to reveal who Deli
Wright is. What was the aim of the overlapping models of IGR? Review the influence of the overlapping
models. The influence of the overlapping model: policy on development, program relationships, and
administrative practice. How far does the overlapping model of IGR level go? Are there multiple options
for the decision-making process? What future discussions are taking place?
Who is Deli Wright?
Deli Wright is an American political scientist accredited with 43 research works and 900
citations. He is known for his ability to research intergovernmental relations (IGR). His
Overlapping Model (OAM) of Intergovernmental Relations is one of his scholarly contributions
to public administration. As far as the intergovernmental relations of Korea are concerned, a
combination of models and units, plus the separation of government and local units of the
national, state, and international government. His more advanced work is the Overlapping Model,
which specializes in public administration. Burke (2014) argues that Wright included a Venn
diagram to visualize his advocacy of public administration. See Wright’s 1988 Model of National,
state, and Local Relationships Diagram 1 attached (Agranoff & Radin, 2015).
Diagram 1:
What is the aim of the overlapping models of Intergovernmental relations?
The overlapping model aims to depict relationships between the State, Local, and National
governments. Agranoff (2017) reports the Administrative Procedure Act requires that “interested
parties must be given an opportunity to say what they think concerning changes the executive
poses and gives consideration” (p.62).
The focus of Deli Wright’s Overlapping Model
The Deli Wright overlapping model focuses on the overlapping authority depicting
intergovernmental relationships. In 1978, Wright provided three IGR models. The Coordinate
Authority Model (IGR) portrays a separation between the units of government relationships at the
national, state, and local levels. Compared to the Inclusive Authority Model (IAM), the IGR
shows a system in which IGRs display a hierarchical set of relationships and maintain the
predominant role at the national level. The OAM is his way of illustrating intergovernmental
relationships.
Review the influence of the overlapping models.
In 1978, Deli Wright provided three intergovernmental relations (IGR) models: the Coordinate
Authority Model (CAM), the Inclusive Authority Model (IAM), and the Overlapping Authority Model
(OAM). Each model is different from the other. Wright (1948) argued that accentuating the role of
bargaining between models among the actors in each model (Agranoff and Radin, (2015). However,
students can relate to the coordinated and inclusive authority models in education. The model that depicts
a clear separation between governments is the coordinate authority model. In contrast, the inclusive
authority model presents a system in which the IGRs rely on a set of relationships by emphasizing a
predominant role at a national level. Indifference, the overlapping authority model, became a separate
way for intergovernmental relations. This model overlaps the international government and the national,
state, and local units. The relationship between the overlapping, inclusive, and coordinated models yields
a single authority of constraint power, leaving a role of bargaining between actors (Burke, 2014).
Wright was sure that the overlapping IGR model moved beyond the federalism classification. For
example, State relationships involved complex multiunit interactions that were nonhierarchical to develop
a stable concern in policy development. Several scholars described the models as “inseparable mingling
of functions throughout the system” (Agranoff and Radin, 2015, n.p.). Smith and Lipsky 1993, report that
‘Through some grants but predominantly through contracts, government-linked with nonprofit service
agencies and for-profit vendors of services' (p.5). Since the patronage of Wright’s models in 1979, “the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare’ has been divided into two units, ‘the Department of
Education and the Department of Health and Human Services” (Shafritz & Hyde, 2017, p.624).
From a biblical perspective
Exodus 32 records Aaron being pressured to create a golden calf for those who lost hope in
Moses's return. Instead of patiently waiting, they devised a plan by agreeing to create their deity by
overlapping golden earrings and creating a golden calve. Noticing that once the people's request was
recognized and culturally sound, Aaron requested, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons,
and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me” (Exodus 32:2, NIV). The administrative concern
is that Aaron is a priest at the national level, adhering to the request of a local governing body. According
to the Wright model, this is the policy of the IAM governing order, NOT the I AM order of Yahweh.
Salamon (1995) argues that this is a prime example of the public administration problem spreading well
beyond the borders of the government agency” (p.5). Preston Manning (1984) argues that a lesson that
one can glean from studying the law in the biblical record is that “whatever and wherever laws are just,
justly administered, and the benefits to individuals and society are many and abundant” (p.168). The
consequences of creating a governing body outside of overlapping authority for them were a separation of
beliefs and a plague awarded.
Reference
Burke Brendan F. (2015). Understanding intergovernmental relations, twenty-five years hence, State and
Local Government Review. 46 (1) 63-76.
Robert Agranoff, Beryl A. Radin, (2015). Deil Wright’s Winter Overlapping Model of Intergovernmental
Relations: The Basis for Contemporary Intergovernmental Relationships,IPublius: The Journal of
Federalism, 45(1), 139–159,Ihttps://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pju036
Salamon Lester M. (1995). Partners in public service. Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2016). Classics of public administration (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage.
Smith Steven R, Lipsky Michael. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of
contracting. Cambridge, MAHarvard University Press.
Reply 1
Good post-Albert,
In looking at the instructions for this week's discussion post, you have gone beyond
expectations. The outline of the presentation allowed me to follow along as if I were at the
presentation itself. An introductory is an effective way to start a presentation. For instance, who
is Deli Wright allows me, as part of the audience, to follow the uniqueness of the presentation
and learn more about you as a presenter and them as a follower (Belch & Belch, 2021). Also,
addressing his patronage or theory shows that he was committed to his work and took it very
seriously (Shafritz & Hyde, 2016). Several things I took away from your discussion post this
week, such as the key components of the overlapping model, bargaining relationships, and
shared functions. These components are essential when searching through Deli’s models. Deli's
understanding that there are levels of government that he addresses in his presentations
encourages me to become a public administrator. I enjoyed looking through the setup of the
presentations as it talks more about the IGR model than it does the author or the inventor. A
biblical example that comes to mind as I scroll through your post is presented in Exodus 4: 1-16;
Moses is giving a PowerPoint presentation on how to address the pharaoh when you meet him.
The Father show to Moses several PowerPoints:
What is that in thine hand? Cast it on the ground. Moreover, he cast it on the ground, and it
became a serpent, and Moses fled from before it.
Put Forth thy hand and take it by the tail. Moreover, he put forth his hand and caught it, and it
became a rod in his hand.
Great Post, sir!
Reference
Belch, G., & Belch, M. (2021). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing
Communications Perspective (12th ed., pp.156–200). McGraw Hill.
Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2016). Classics of public administration (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage.
Good Post, Edi!
Reading the discussion post you submitted took me back to my workplace. At TXU
Energy, we have overlapping authorities for the CEO, regional, district, and local management.
Each hierarchy is accessible when needed. We can reach out to either of these officers and talk
freely. One of those avenues is Team Chat. Team Chat is a virtual communication service that a
workplace, in this case, TXU Energy, uses to communicate with its employees. Deil Wright may
not have considered that his model would assist in the aftermath of COVID-19, but it has helped
in many ways. I noticed that in your post, you describe how Wright's model of overlapping
authority assisted when the country was attacked by a pandemic (Li et al., 2021). A good
viewpoint is the biblical principle you used to identify how a Christian lives spiritually. The
presentation steps to identify the use of the information given as a faculty member was a unique
take. I do want to address one statement you mentioned: “Employees of public agencies are held
to a higher standard than employees of private companies, and as such, we must be good
stewards of and act for the good of humanity.” (Edie Parker, 2024) Belch & Belch (2021) argue
that some presentations focus on the practical function of a presentation, and this discussion post
has not fallen short. Agranoff (2017) argues that a good ‘framing legal code’ is the better
interpretation (p.51). The PowerPoint presentation proves this theory and more.
Good Post,
Reference
Parker, E. (2024). Canvas Discussion Board Post: Overlapping model of intergovernmental
relations. Accessed 09/15/2024,
https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/684437/assignments/10705566/submissions/98180
Li, J. Y., Sun, R., Tao, W., & Lee, Y. (2021). Employees coping with organizational change in
the face of a pandemic: The role of transparent internal communication.IPublic relations
review,I47(1), 101984.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
