{"title":"The State of American Federalism: 1983","authors":"S. Schechter","doi":"10.2307/3329910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329910","url":null,"abstract":"If the New Federalism had been made into a movie, its sequels could have run under one classic title after another. First there might have been The Honeymoon of the New Federalism, a 1981 springtime release starring David Stockman and Alice Rivlin, followed by Sons of the New Federalism, a congressional conference release in the fall of 1981. The spate of 1982 sequels might have begun with The Big Swap or New Federalism II, starring Richard S. Williamson, the talk of the early 1982 season, followed by The New Federalism Meets the Recession, Bedtime for the New Federalism (screenplay by Rochelle Stanfield and John Herbers), and The Downing of the New Federalism, produced by the Lame Duck Congress. While critics continued to debate whether the New Federalism theme had played itself out, the 1983 season might have been captured by any one of three sequels, ranging in scope from the low-budget sleeper to the epoch of Homeric Americana. The low budget version, The New Federalism Rides Again or New Federalism III, could be patterned after the old cliff-hangers, in which the hero, battered and bruised, makes his comeback, albeit on the quieter regulatory front. In the second version, The Children of the New Federalism, the focus would be on the role of the states, now fully grown, in carrying out the legacy of New Federalism I. The third version, The Return of Federalism, would focus on the underlying trends toward decentralization precipitated by the New Federalism and greater public confidence in the states.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121115543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Gubernatorial Transitions: Lessons from the 1982-1983 Experience","authors":"T. Beyle","doi":"10.2307/3329911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329911","url":null,"abstract":"The 1982 gubernatorial elections led to transitions between outgoing and incoming administrations in seventeen states. This article is an overview of what transpired during those transitions based on studies conducted by state analysts in sixteen of the seventeen states. While politics was still a major part of the context in which the transitions occurred, the fiscal situation in the states framed the transitions, and there was an apparent increase in professionalism. Not all was politics. Further, transition is a longer period than normally understood, starting well before the election and continuing until the legislature has adjourned.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127485825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Questioning ACIR Interpretations","authors":"C. Lovell","doi":"10.2307/3329920","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329920","url":null,"abstract":"Since its inception in 1959, the ACIR has served a valuable function as watchdog and interpreter of intergovernmental events in our political and fiscal systems. From its Washington, D.C. observation point it has, over the years, illuminated many issues and provided scholars and policymakers alike with an unending stream of invaluable data on the federal system. In the last seven years alone, it has published some sixty substantive reports plus a series of conference reports, information summaries, and regular quarterly issues of Intergovernmental Perspective. Anyone interested in researching, thinking about, making policy about, or just observing intergovernmental developments must depend in some measure on the studies of the ACIR. Over its nearly twenty-five year history, its strengths, in the words of Senator Edmund Muskie, have been \"in its reputation for thoroughness and nonpartisanship and in its proven ability to assemble vast bodies of factual information, define salient intergovernmental issues, and recommend appropriate policy decisions.\"' Why then, in spite of its well deserved reputation, have some of the most devoted readers of ACIR studies become, over the last few years, increasingly disenchanted and critical of its work? At first glance it might seem that ACIR's recent work should be faulted mostly for its strident tone; on deeper examination it appears that the work must be criticized on substantive grounds as well. The 1977-1978 series on the Intergovernmental Grant System, and the 1980-1981 series on The Federal Role in the Federal System present serious questions of both substance and tone.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121451782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The U.S. ACIR from a State ACIR Perspective","authors":"Jay G. Stanford","doi":"10.2307/3329922","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329922","url":null,"abstract":"About twenty states currently have some type of intergovernmental advisory panel. The organization and functions of these panels vary from state to state, ranging from state-local study commissions to organizations, such as the Texas ACIR, that were consciously patterned after the national organization. At least two of the state organizations-Illinois and Maryland-pre-date the national advisory commission. Most of the state organizations were established within the last ten to fifteen years, however (see Table 1). The Texas ACIR was created by a law enacted by the Texas legislature in 1971, during a period that was marked by rapid change in Texas government. The state was assuming many programs under federal law, and there was increasing awareness and concern about urbanization and its attendant governmental problems, such as overlapping jurisdictions and the need for regional intergovernmental cooperation. Membership of the Texas ACIR is representative of various governmental bodies in the state. Most of the members are appointed by the governor. These include representatives of cities, counties, school districts, and other political subdivisions, as well as private citizens. Members of the state legislature are appointed by the lieutenant governor and speaker of the House of Representatives. Both of these officers also serve as ex officio members of the commission.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130440199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The ACIR: Its Mission and Operations","authors":"M. M. Reeves","doi":"10.2307/3329921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329921","url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) has been operating since 1959. As it approaches its twenty-fifth anniversary, it is appropriate to scrutinize its contributions and effectiveness. No organization can be evaluated correctly apart from the mission it undertakes, however, and assessments of the ACIR should occur within the framework of its statutory charge. Because ACIR's mandate can be interpreted differently by commission members, its staff, and the various constituent groups affected by its work-public officials and the public interest groups of which they are members, academics, and the general public-an examination of its mission and the manner in which it operates to achieve it could help to establish the parameters for proper assessment of its work.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117094225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"City Managers View Intergovernmental Relations","authors":"T. J. Kane","doi":"10.2307/3329917","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329917","url":null,"abstract":"This report presents the findings of a national survey of city managers concerning intergovernmental relations. Key aspects of intergovernmental relations covered in the survey are the administration of the grant system, effects of federal grants on local government decisionmaking, types of federal aid, images of federal administrators, intergovernmental service agreements, comparison of state and federal government, and city manager involvement in intergovernmental relations.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125417219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Intergovernmental Management: Federal Changes, State Responses, and New State Initiatives","authors":"R. Agranoff, Alex N. Pattakos","doi":"10.2307/3329913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329913","url":null,"abstract":"This article surveys state responses and new state initiatives in 1983 to three sets of successive federal changes in domestic policy. Collectively referred to as the New Federalism, these changes include the block grants and accompanying regulatory reforms of 1981, the changes in Medicaid reimbursement policy of 1982, and the job training and development programs of late 1982 and early 1983. Following a brief overview of these changes in intergovernmental management perspective, state responses in 1983 are examined in three areas-policy development, policy and program management, and service delivery management.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121079185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"ACIR: A Mixed Review","authors":"S. Gove, J. Giertz, J. Fossett","doi":"10.2307/3329919","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329919","url":null,"abstract":"The United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) has had a long and productive existence. Created in 1959, the Commission has produced a large number of publications that have contributed greatly to our knowledge of intergovernmental relations. It has also made many recommendations. These have received mixed reactions. At times, the recommendations have been seriously considered by Congress and the executive branch. At other times, the recommendations have been ignored. The ACIR says it is \"the first official 'federal' body created since the Constitutional Convention itself. Lacking the action mandate of that great body, the ACIR nevertheless has over the years forged an important agenda as we move into the third century of this vast American experiment.\" Among its many contributions, the most important may well have been the development of the block grant concept. The Commission also played a major role in the debate on revenue sharing. Moreover, it has provided a valuable service with its continuing surveys of the public's view of the federal system. These surveys sometimes tell us things we do not necessarily want to hear (e.g., that the public favors state sales taxes over state income taxes); nonetheless, the information has been invaluable for state policymakers. The Commission's work as illustrated by its publications can be divided into two categories: economic (fiscal) studies and governmental (structural, state and local, and the like) studies. We would similarly like to separate our comments into these two areas.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133100959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Education Reform California Style","authors":"R. Hawkins","doi":"10.2307/3329915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3329915","url":null,"abstract":"Education reform was a major issue in California during the 1983 legislative session. As a legislative issue, it was resolved in July when Governor George Deukmejian signed into law an education reform bill that increased spending by $800 million and made a number of important changes in the state's education code. The differences between the 1982 and 1983 legislative sessions were stark. In 1982, an election year, despite intense pressure by the education lobby, the state legislature refused to grant new monies to education. Yet in 1983 the reverse was the case. How this turnabout came to pass is a case of state politics; national events had little impact on either the direction or the nature of reforms enacted.","PeriodicalId":403250,"journal":{"name":"CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116921842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
