Questioning ACIR Interpretations

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.