Federalism Challenges During COVID-19
Literature Review Assignment #4 for Week/Module Four
Patience Talley
Liberty University
PLCY 805 – Fall 2022
November 27, 2022
1
Abstract
This literature review provides an overview of the challenges faced during the COVID-19
pandemic. Historically, the United States has faced many challenges in managing crises due to
federalism. The COVID-19 pandemic reveals the failure of leadership and governing ability of
the Trump administration. Additionally, this paper will offer insight into how to manage future
pandemics. The first suggestion is that the United States mimic other countries that have
successfully managed pandemics, and the second suggestion is to follow a cooperative
federalism style. The finding suggests that federalism has played a role in challenging the
management of COVID-19 by the United States. This research seeks to answer the question, how
has federalism challenged the United States' ability to control the COVID-19 pandemic? The
variables within this literature review will detail how the challenges in federalism on the federal
and state level affected the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this literature
review is to evaluate federalism’s role in the pandemic and to provide insight into how the
government can manage future crises.
2
Introduction
The United States has faced several challenges with its federalism structures related to
COVID-19. These challenges play a critical role in the mitigation efforts of the deadly pandemic.
History has shown that crises have the greatest ability to test the sufficiency and durability of
political systems (Benton, 2020). Many scholars argue that the United States heavily failed to
govern effectively due to leadership and the division of power (Williamson, 2020). The federal
government’s method of managing the pandemic was not only ineffective, but it also contributed
to the increasing death toll within the United States. It is difficult to move forward with COVID-
19 research without highlighting the chaos and confusion created by President Donald Trump
and his administration. The nation’s administration left the American people’s lives in the hands
of state and local governing officials, with little to no direction from the federal government.
The United States government had several options for handling the COVID-19 pandemic,
one being to mimic the strategies of other countries, as they saw better success in managing the
virus. Another method that scholars have illustrated is utilizing cooperative federalism to manage
national disasters. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were larger than the health disparities
and revealed that the federalism style used within the United States needs to be reassessed.
The question posed for this literature review is, how has federalism challenged the United
States' ability to control the COVID-19 pandemic? Additionally, this literature review will
identify peer-reviewed sources that will assist in determining how the government can utilize
prevention strategies executed by other countries and adopt the cooperative federalism style of
governing to combat future global emergencies effectively. The variables within this literature
review will detail how the challenges in federalism on the federal and state level affected the
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this literature review is to evaluate
3
federalism’s role in the pandemic and to provide insight into how the government can manage
future crises.
Background
These issues affected federalism by restraining the nation's response to the COVID-19
crisis (Rocco, 2020). President Donald Trump, in a non-centralized method, presented federalism
during the pandemic. President Trump allowed the states to initiate policies and mandates across
the states, which many scholars will blame on the poor management of the pandemic.
Surprisingly, in 2019, the United States was ranked number 1 out of 195 other countries on the
Global Health Security Index. Then, in November 2020, the United States was amongst the top
10 worse cases of COVID-19 in the country, only falling under Belgium, Spain, Argentina,
Brazil, and Mexico. According to Gong, the United States needs crisis communication, which is
an exchange between a government intending to have better communication methods for
managing a crisis (Gong, 2021).
While highly researched, federalism still lacks a “global theory” in which a common
definition has been developed (Gamper, 2005). COVID-19 has been termed a ‘federalism event
of the century’ according to scholars (Goelzhauser, 2020). The United States political system has
emphasized every model of federalism needed to understand how intergovernmental relations
have affected the pandemic. Many scholars found that the government pushed the COVID-19
decision-making to the state and local governments. Due to the mere fact that the national
government was not providing answers to the state and local authorities promptly, the states took
measures into their own hands (Cigler, 2021). Cigler (2021)’s research contributes to the
literature review by providing evidence that the president has a significant role in pandemic
4
preparedness. He also providing knowledge regarding the limitations of the role of federalism in
responding to pandemics.
Agnew’s article on the failings of federalism highlighted the fact that COVID-19 exposed
the reality that federalism plays a critical role in emergency responsiveness (Agnew, 2022).
Agnew (2020)’s research sides strongly that federalism was the sole cause of the lack of
leadership during COVID-19, not only because of the failed government but also because the
style of federalism has historically failed over the years. His research also looks into the
outcomes of cases and deaths, while also considering cultural and demographic variances.
Birkland’s research continued with Agnew’s theme by illustrating the role that federalism plays
in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and shares a great deal of information related to the
challenges the United States faces by utilizing the current state of federalism (Birkland, 2021).
Agnew (2022) and Birkland (2021)’s article presented strong stances on the lack of properly
structured federalism within the US government. They both presented strong research designs by
defining the different types of federalism that can assist in understanding the strengths and
weaknesses of each type.
Throughout history, pandemics have tested the United States' ability to manage global
pandemics. Colbrook (2021) provided an in-depth review of how the federal government was
challenged several decades ago in managing the economy during the spread of a deadly virus. In
1918, a new strain of influenza attacked citizens all over the globe, killing 675,000 Americans
and exceeding the World War I death toll. Even then, the federal government was challenged to
decide how to handle the pandemic. The federal government left most of the decisions on how to
handle the virus up to the states, causing a disjoined and hyper-localized approach to a situation
that was much bigger than they could manage. With minimal federal guidance, the state
5
government paved its way, creating policies and adopting largely divergent strategies to flatten
the curve of cases within their economy. Like the COVID-19 pandemic, the efforts of the state
governments to mitigate the spread of the virus and decrease deaths related to the 1918 influenza,
were greatly uneven. During both pandemics, some states were equipped with resources to slow
the spread at a more rapid pace than others resulting in a profound challenge for the United
States as a whole (Colbrook, 2021). Additionally, Birkand (2021) wrote about federalism and its
role in the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Within the literature, the following questions
were asked: “were the failures in Hurricane Katrina a result of federalism or of a particular style
of federalism that characterizes disaster policy in the US? Or did these failures reflect the
inherent difficulties in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from catastrophes?”
(Birkland, 2021). The author shares that federalism was not the sole reason for failure, however,
the style of federalism used was a large contributing factor. My literature will reject that
argument.
History of federalism
Many authors believe cooperative federalism was used primarily in the 19th and 20th
centuries (Wright, 1990). Wright (1990) produced an analytical overview of the different phases
of federalism to better understand where the United States stands today. The author’s findings
show that to better understand how to successfully manage governmental relations, scholars must
break down the different federalism styles.
To provide some insight into the history of federalism, my literature review will look into
the research of Clarence Thomas’s Why Federalism Matters (Thomas, 1990). This article
presents the thoughts of Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Supreme Court of the United States
6
on federalism and why it’s just as important today as it was when it was created. Thomas
believes that defending the constitution is an act of defending the rights of the American people.
He shares in his speech that the constitution has shown grace to Americans by presenting a
steady political, economic, and social wealth for over twenty years. The foundation of what the
American Constitution stands on is inclusive and resilient. Thomas believes federalism was put
in place as the first step to work to mussel the federal government's powers. Federalism assists
with holding the national government accountable even when the simple separation of
governments can’t. Federalism may be problematic for those that believe that the majority rules,
however, the majority may not take up for the minorities. A strength of this article was that
Thomas was able to include many thoughts and ideas from not only the framers but also other
influential figures throughout our history to support his notion that federalism does matter.
Rubin (2001)’s article gathers a case against the notion that true federalism no longer
exists. He has termed the false portrayal of federalism, “Puppy Federalism” (Rubin, 2001).
According to Rubin, puppy federalism, appears to be the framer’s definition of federalism, but it
is not. Federalism was adopted to refrain from requiring subunits to report to a central
government. Federalism allows parties to have voices and take control over certain aspects of
governmental discussions. However, Rubin believes that federalism no longer exists, and the
United States is moving towards a more centralized governing style. Rubin argues that real
federalism doesn’t exist because, in the United States, there is superior and inferior
administration with a major lack of trust. Rubin believes that it’s important to dive into the
methods of federalism and decentralization because it will assist the governmental organization
with determining what degree of authority polities will maintain. (Rubin, 2001).
7
Failed to govern effectively due to leadership and the division of power
Several scholars have found that the United States' failure in governing is compounded
by a lack of leadership and division of power (Mariner, 2004). In the United States system, the
presidents are responsible for the decisions the federal government makes or fails to make,
creating a federal response to national disasters and implementing standard priorities. Ultimately,
when it comes to determining factors that contributed to the failing governing system, a great
deal of evidence points to the lack of leadership within the Trump administration. This research
assists this argument by sharing that the federal government has allowed the states to have a
sovereign power to implement laws of all sorts for centuries. Additionally, the states have taken
advantage of their powers by determining what they regulate because of the ongoing health
problems that continue to emerge.
With global pandemics, specifically those viral in nature, it’s essential to respond swiftly.
When investigating how the Trump administration reacted early on to the outbreak of COVID-
19, studies imply that they responded poorly due to managerial and political incompetence
(Birkland, 2021). In an attempt to investigate changes that may have occurred if the Trump
administration had acted more rapidly, scholars argued that if a central government had taken
charge early, there might have been fewer COVID-19 cases and related deaths (Ciglar, 2021).
Additionally, “The Lancet Commission recently concluded that the United States could have
averted 40 percent of its pandemic deaths had President Trump made different choices” (Cigler,
2021). The initial response had a lasting effect on the economy and did not successfully rebound
to meet the needs of the citizens.
A major challenge seen throughout the pandemic was the uncoordinated efforts between
the national, state, and local governments to follow the national preparedness and response
8
policies that were previously put in place for national emergencies. The policies in place for
pandemics weren’t centered around the core values established within cooperative federalism.
The federal-level supported the decisions made by the states, the states managed the decisions,
and the local level executed the plan. Every level of government has a role that is shared,
communicated, and executed to ensure the health and safety of the nation. When political
agendas and unreliable information overshadow disaster relief, there is an optimum opportunity
for disaster.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the tensions within the federal-state and local
relationship within the United States (Williamson, 2020). When the nation’s leadership refuses to
lead the lower governmental levels of leadership, the challenges will affect the citizens. Birkland
(2021) study provided evidence that the Trump administration pushed governing authority to the
state level by stating, “President Trump, therefore, abdicated his responsibility and the power of
his bully pulpit to influence positive behavior choices and left the states and career civil servants
at the state and federal levels to fill the vacuum of leadership and public communication”
(Birkland, 2021). Trump’s role as president would have allowed him to activate his power and
push the nation to act against the virus, however, according to many scholars, he did not act in
the best interest of the people and left many pertinent decisions up to the states (Cigler, 2021).
The Trump administration allowed governors and local leaders to determine social distancing
procedures, testing, mask mandates, and the administering of ventilators and health care services.
(Huberfeld, 2020). State governors also lacked direction in making decisions to lock down their
states. Their decisions ultimately were built on approaches centered around evidence from public
health experts and from the guidance of public policy decisions that were made throughout
history (Kettl, 2020). There were also opposing communications between the president,
9
governors, and local leaders regarding public safety that left the American people confused. This
form of federalism is comparable to transactional federalism, which has a more competitive
relationship between the state and national authority. Williamson (2020)’s research argued that
the Trump administration's use of transactional federalism caused a great deal of economic
deleterious on state infrastructure. Transactional federalism is defined by Williamson (2020) as
“represents a market-based model of intergovernmental relationships in which a core feature is a
form of market exchange”, (Williamson, 2020). Within this study, Williamson gave an example
of transactional federalism used by Donald Trump during the pandemic. According to
Williamson, New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo needed the federal government to issue a
supply of emergency ventilators to decrease the death rates; however, the response the governor
received was that “It’s a two-way street, they have to treat us well also” (Williamson, 2020). The
federal government wanted something in return for the ventilators.
This style of federalism was ineffective and did not adequately meet the state's needs
during the pandemic, needs that were continuing to grow as a result of the ongoing outbreaks.
The lack of cooperative federalism was due to the supreme governing authority of the Trump
administration. Later within this literature review, cooperative federalism will be examined by
scholars to determine its effectiveness in handling future pandemics.
Possible Solutions
Mimicking other countries
In investigating ways the United States can better manage national disasters, this
literature review will pull together comparative research on how other countries managed the
COVID-19 virus. In other countries, federalism has not had the negative effects as those seen in
10
America. According to Downey (2020), Australia, unlike the US, acted swiftly after hearing
about the COVID-19 outbreak in China on January 30, 2020. The country instituted a travel ban
from China and requested that all citizens return to Australia to self-quarantine. Australia created
a collective leadership team comprised of their leading authority and met weekly to work
together to implement responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. These efforts assisted Australia in
having much lower death rates than America. The US's different governments have operated
outside the realm of influence in creating policies and plans to mitigate the spread of COVID-19,
contributing to its failure. This article contributes to the growing conversation of federalism and
the pandemic by providing best practices that will inform federalist scholars, emergency
management practitioners, and state and local leaders may benefit from.
Kettl (2020) compared the initial approaches of South Korea and Germany to the United
States. South Korea took aggressive measures. There testing and alongside Germany created a
vigorous campaign against the virus while the United States government dodged establishing a
role for the federal government (Kettl, 2020). This literature supports the notion that the US
should consider mimicking the strategies of other countries to manage national disasters.
Additionally, Rozell (2020)’s article compared and contrasted how Australia, Canada,
Germany, and United States responded to the COVID-19 outbreak while also considering the
challenges federalism placed on each country. The literature shares the differences in how each
country's federal system varies in their strategies to distribute powers, provide health care
services and implement their policies. Rozell (2020)’s article research primarily focuses on the
early response by each country to the pandemic. The result shows that Australia, Canada, and
Germany responded well to the crisis, leaving the United States behind. This research contributes
11
to my research question by providing a great deal of knowledge about how the United States can
better manage national disasters.
Cooperative federalism
Cooperative federalism, which is the form of federalism that has been practiced since the
1980s, reflects a defined division of power between the federal government and the state. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, the two governmental systems disregarded the ‘cooperative’ piece, in
cooperative federalism. Instead of coming together, the national and state governments competed
against each other, which caused a formula for ultimate failure during the pandemic. According
to a survey presented to the United States and Australia, the divisiveness amongst the division of
powers is why many countries struggle with a more cooperative form of governing (Agnew,
2022). Several studies have attempted to determine if utilizing a cooperative style of federalism
has the ability to manage national disasters. According to Bowling, ‘power can be coordinated
where a state has authority within their borders, and a national government oversees affairs in
other arenas” (Bowling, 2020). In an emergency, the coordination and cooperation of
governments have been found to enhance governmental management. However, according to
Gordon, the lack of cooperative federalism was one of the sole reasons for failure (Gordon,
2020). There were no processes or procedures in place for state leaders to communicate with the
federal governmental leaders at the White House, which is why the findings have revealed that
there was a major disconnect that prevented the creation of policies during the pandemic
(Downey, 2020). While many may argue that dual federalism isn’t the ideal method of federalism
when managing a pandemic, its concept was seen often in the management of the 2020 COVID-
12
19 outbreak. Ciglar (2020) finds that the U.S. public health and emergency management system
does, however, work to avoid the dual federalism governing style.
According to Kincaid, the federal government utilized the layer-cake model of federalism by
allowing the “federal government to pass the buck to the states, and for the states to go their
ways, often in different directions” (Kincaid, 1990).
During the early onset of the pandemic, there was a lack of coordinated efforts between
the national, state, and local government leaders to assist with decreasing COVID-19 cases and
death counts (Knauer, 2022). Federalism was faced with a large challenge because many
Americans began asking, “Who is in charge?” (Cigler, 2021). The United States is filled with
diversity and an unusual division of political parties. There was no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution,
which is why Knauer, suggests that the bottom-up approach may have been the best option
(Knauer, 2022).
The United States had the highest level of conflict between the state and local
governments. Each state took completely different methods to handle the pandemic. There was
an apparent competition between federal-state-local relationships, which limited the
effectiveness of true federalism due to the lack of leadership and guidance (Williamson, 2021).
The lack of vertical federalism caused trials and reduced progressive actions that could have
resulted in meeting the needs of the entire nation for the good of the people. However, there is
hope for the future of cooperative federalism.
Conclusion
This literature review began by posing the question: How has federalism challenged the
United States' ability to control the COVID-19 pandemic? To explore this question, scholarly
13
literature was reviewed to assess federalism challenges. Historically, the state governments were
the primary governing authority, especially when dealing with health crises (Rocco, 2020). The
state government took control of the decision-making and managed the pandemic the best way
they knew how. In determining how to better manage future pandemics, the literature supports
mimicking other countries' strategies and utilizing a more cooperative style of federalism.
According to Steytler, the United States continued to follow a dualist structure of
federalism where the states were able to take action over the Covid-19 pandemic; however, the
author believes that if the federal government had taken on a cooperative-federalist style
response, more lives would have been saved (Steytler, 2020). The article presented by Steytler
provides a large amount of information that contributes to the conclusion section of my literature
review because of the detail and statistics. Steytler also does a great job in comparing other
countries' responses to the pandemic. Through this lived experience, the United States and its
governments should begin preparing for how it will deal with crises in the future. Habakkuk 2:2
says, “And the Lord answered me and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that
he may run that readeth it” (Hab. 2:2 NIV). The next national emergency may not come in the
form of a deadly virus; however, federalism guidelines should be established to follow the
cooperative approach, ensuring communication and cooperation between the governmental
leaders.
Benton (2020) found positive signs of horizontal federalism between the states and local
governments that did assist in encouraging the strength of federalism (Benton, 2020). Benton
(2020) discussed the pressures that the national, state and local levels faced in working together
while functioning as separate entities to promote and provide for the citizens impacted by
COVID-19 were investigated. The author shares information on how the national, state, and local
14
governments worked together during the early onset of the pandemic with reports of how they
functioned. Benton (2020) defined the dependent variable by providing background information
on how the different intergovernmental styles were graded. The author operationalizes other
major concepts in the study by determining the positive and negative takeaways in each
intergovernmental relationship. The conceptualization is properly carried out within this article.
Within the abstract, the author shared that he would assess “how national, state, and local
governments have worked together since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently
a “report card” of sorts on the functioning of intergovernmental relations in the U.S. at the
present time.”
Kettl (2020), investigated the United States' response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
author determined that many of the decisions made by the states regarding the pandemic were a
response to the emerging pattern of the disease, and others were due to the systematic variations
in the governor’s decisions. These decisions and patterns brought to light the increasingly
divided states of America, (Benton, 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic took every country across the world by surprise. The global
emergency brought to light that policies must be in place to combat unprecedented situations.
The Bible encourages readers to be watchful. Luke 12:35-36 shares, “Be dressed ready for
service and keep your lamps burning, like servants waiting for their master to return from a
wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks, they can immediately open the door for
him” (Luke 12: 35 – 36 NIV).
15
Future research
Finally, because the literature review desires to contribute to the existing knowledge, I
believe there is a need for more studies that compare how the lack of cooperative federalism
challenged pandemics and how the use of cooperative federalism may be able to contribute to the
effectiveness of managing national crises. Understanding cooperative federalism’s role in natural
disaster management will be beneficial in creating policies and assisting federal and state
governmental leaders with adequate resources during crises.
Within this literature review, research showed that the United States and its leaders failed
to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Managing an unprecedented pandemic requires
governmental leaders effectively communicating with each other to provide scientifically proven
information to the citizens they are governing (Herron, 2022). This failure was due to an
incompetent administration and a lack of leadership and guidance. The federal government was
slow to act toward flattening the curve and decreasing the number of COVID-19 cases. Heron’s
research contributes to the overall literature on federalism and COVID-19 by adding that ethical
considerations should be built into the actions of the decision-making, which is a great source of
future research.
Huberfield (2020)’s research also dives into the long-term health and economic impacts
the pandemic may have on the economy, highlighting two specific impacts: “First, federalism
exacerbates inequities, as some states have a history of underinvesting in social programs,
especially in certain communities. Second, many states with the deepest needs are poorly
equipped to respond to emergencies due to low taxes and distrust of government, leading to
inadequate infrastructure.” (Herberfield, 2020).
16
References:
Agnew, J. (2022). Failing federalism? US dualist federalism and the 2020–22 pandemic. Null,
9(1), 149-171. doi:10.1080/21681376.2022.2045214
Benton, J. E. (2020). Challenges to Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations and Takeaways
Amid the COVID-19 Experience. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–
7), 536–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020941698
Birkland, T. A., Taylor, K., Crow, D. A., & DeLeo, R. (2021). Governing in a polarized era:
Federalism and the response of U.S. state and federal governments to the COVID-19
pandemic. Publius, 51(4), 650-672. doi:10.1093/publius/pjab024
Bowling, C. J., Fisk, J. M., & Morris, J. C. (2020). Seeking Patterns in Chaos: Transactional
Federalism in the Trump Administration’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The
American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 512–518.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020941686
Cigler, B. A. (2021). Fighting COVID-19 in the united states with federalism and other
constitutional and statutory authority. Publius, 51(4), 673-692.
doi:10.1093/publius/pjab021
Downey, D. C., & Myers, W. M. (2020). Federalism, Intergovernmental Relationships, and
Emergency Response: A Comparison of Australia and the United States. The American
Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 526–535.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020941696
Gamper, A. (2005). A “Global theory of federalism”: The nature and challenges of a federal state.
German Law Journal, 6(10), 1297-1318. doi:10.1017/S2071832200014334
Goelzhauser, G., & Konisky, D. M. (2020). The state of american federalism 2019–2020:
Polarized and punitive intergovernmental relations. Publius, 50(3), 311-343.
doi:10.1093/publius/pjaa021
Gong, X., & Ye, X. (2021). Governors fighting crisis: Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic
across U.S. states on twitter. The Professional Geographer, 73(4), 683-701.
doi:10.1080/00330124.2021.1895850
Gordon, S. H., Huberfeld, N., & Jones, D. K. (2020). What federalism means for the US
response to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Health Forum, 1(5), e200510.
doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0510
Herron, T. L., & Manuel, T. (2022). Ethics of U.S. government policy responses to the COVID‐
19 pandemic: A utilitarianism perspective. Business and Society Review (1974), 127(S1),
343-367. doi:10.1111/basr.12259
Huberfeld, N., Gordon, S. H., & Jones, D. K. (2020). Federalism Complicates the Response to
the COVID-19 Health and Economic Crisis: What Can Be Done?. Journal of health
politics, policy and law, 45(6), 951–965. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-8641493
KINCAID, J. (1990). From Cooperative to Coercive Federalism. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 509(1), 139–152.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716290509001013
Kettl, D. F. (2020). States divided: The implications of american federalism for COVID‐19.
Public Administration Review, 80(4), 595-602. doi:10.1111/puar.13243
17
Knauer, N. J. (2020). The covid-19 pandemic and federalism: Who decides? New York
University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 23(1), 1.
Mariner, W. K., Annas, G. J., & Glantz, L. H. (2005). Jacobson v massachusetts: It’s not your
great-great-grandfather’s public health law. Am J Public Health, 95(4), 581-590.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.055160
Rocco, P., Béland, D., & Waddan, A. (2020). Stuck in neutral? federalism, policy instruments,
and counter-cyclical responses to COVID-19 in the united states. Policy & Society, 39(3),
458-477. doi:10.1080/14494035.2020.1783793
Rozell, M. J., & Wilcox, C. (2020). Federalism in a time of plague: How federal systems cope
with pandemic. American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7), 519-525.
doi:10.1177/0275074020941695
Rubin, Edward L. 2001. “Puppy Federalism and the Blessings of America.” The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 574, no. 1 (March): 37–51.
Steytler, N. (2021). Comparative federalism and covid-19 : Combating the pandemic Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781003166771 Retrieved from
https://openresearchlibrary.org/viewer/4b05042c-fa01-4344-9af7-da2589abe7d3
Thomas, Clarence. 2000 “Why Federalism Matters.” Drake Law Review 48, no. 2: 231–238.
Williamson, R. D., & Morris, J. C. (2021). Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic for
Federalism and Infrastructure: A Call to Action. Public Works Management & Policy,
26(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X20969165
Wright, D. S. (1974). Intergovernmental relations: An analytical overview. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 416(1), 1-16.
doi:10.1177/000271627441600102
18
