Search results
People also ask
What is coercive federalism?
Do federal actions constitute coercive federalism?
What will Bush's 'coercive federalism' entail?
Did the ascendance of the conservative regime reverse coercive federalism?
Jul 23, 2022 · Coercive federalism is a period of American federalism that began in the late 1960's. It is characterized by substantial growth in the power of the federal government relative to the states and by the ability of the federal government to override state powers and impose policies on the states.
Jul 11, 2020 · Conceptually, coercive federalism describes federal efforts to bend subnational governments to its will through financial withholdings and regulatory initiatives (Posner 2007, 391–392). Building on this perspective, and informed by increasing polarization, we highlight how coercive federalism is being exercised punitively.
- Greg Goelzhauser, David M Konisky
- 2020
Coercive federalism is a period of American federalism that began in the late 1960’s and is characterized by the growth of federal power over state powers and the ability of the federal government to impose policies on the states. The web page explains ten significant characteristics of coercive federalism, such as grants-in-aid, mandates, preemptions, taxation, criminal law, and court orders.
- Abstract
- Coercive Federalism: A Taxonomy
- The Bush Era: Continuities and Change
- Homeland Security
- The Evolution of Mandates as A Tool of Government
- The Politics of Coercive Federalism
- Toward An Analytic Framework
- Conclusions
- GeneratedCaptionsTabForHeroSec
Over the past forty years, mandates and preemptions have become among the primary tools relied on by Congress and the president to project national priorities and objectives throughout the intergovernmental system (Kincaid 1990). The trends toward the use of coercive tools have proven to be durable and long lasting, albeit punctuated by episodes of...
The concept of coercive federalism covers a range of potential federal policy actions with centralizing effects on our system. Intergovernmental regulations can range from direct orders imposed on state and local governments by federal statute to more indirect actions that force state and local policy change as a consequence of other independent fe...
At the outset of a new administration, expectations were high for policy change in the intergovernmental system. President Bush himself proved to be more committed to conservative ideological principles than many had expected, given his self proclaimed profile as a consensus leader with Democratic state legislators in Texas (Fortier and Ornstein 20...
The tragic events of September 11, 2001, forced federal officials to recognize that the intergovernmental system constituted the nation's first line of defense in dealing with the consequences of terrorist attacks. However, the presence of a strong national consensus, many externalities, extensive interdependencies, and high stakes ultimately led t...
The mandates passed during this period illustrated both continuity and change in the types of policy instruments adopted by federal policymakers to impose national regulatory policies. Congress and the president showed themselves to be opportunistic in reaching for a wide range of regulatory strategies to impose mandated requirements on state and l...
Clearly UMRA was not able to provide the institutional ballast to prevent major surges of nationalizing legislation. The roots of federal mandate and preemptions run deep through the modern political system, and it is unrealistic to expect a procedure to forestall strongly rooted national policy movements involving the intergovernmental system. Ind...
State and local governments are critical to the outcomes of mandate policy debates. Given the importance of state and local behavior and the ambivalence that they face in confronting mandate proposals, under what conditions are state and local officials likely to be more or less influential? William Gormley argues that mandates have variable levels...
Federal actions constituting coercive federalism, including mandates, continue to be a major feature of our system, relied upon by a diverse range of actors to accomplish a wide variety of policy and political goals. The Bush era continues trends observed in prior decades, breaking new ground in the nationalization and centralization of policy in a...
The article explores how the Bush presidency and Congress used coercive federalism to centralize and nationalize policy in major areas such as education, welfare, homeland security, and taxation. It discusses the political sources, trends, and implications of this trend, as well as the continuities and change from prior administrations and Congresses.
- Paul Posner
- 2007
Abstract. Cooperative federalism, the reigning conception of American federalism from about 1954 to 1978, was a political response to the policy challenges of market failure, postwar affluence, racism, urban poverty, environmentalism, and individual rights. Having social equity as its primary objective, cooperative federalism significantly ...
- John Kincaid
- 1990
This article traces the evolution of American federalism from cooperative to coercive, from 1954 to 1978. It examines the policy challenges, the fiscal and regulatory tools, and the constitutional and political limits of federalism during this period.
and coercive conditional spending transfer control of state governments from their constitutionally designated electoral constituencies to Congress. This threat is probably insufficient to justify the anti-commandeering and anti-coercion principles—it is only one element of a more complex federalism
