Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:09:10.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Federal-State-Local Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Arthur W. Bromage
Arthur W. Bromage
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Like all other aspects of public administration, intergovernmental relations are undergoing constant readjustment to the times and conditions. War so alters conditions in public affairs that federal-state-local realignments are taking place from month to month. Never before have so many administrative operations at the local level been guided by so many directives out of Washington. Coöperative government by federal-state-local authorities has become a by-word in the prodigious effort to administer civilian defense, rationing, and other war-time programs. The first year of war brought new forces into the field of administration, but developments have followed an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary pattern. Intergovernmental administration, while it is a part of all levels of government, is turning into something quite distinct from them all.

The states have coöperated in passing war-time legislation; in ironing out transportation problems created by diverse state regulations; in controlling aliens and relocating Japanese-Americans; in foregoing construction of new public works; in building public works in war-affected communities where in-migration has resulted from concentrations of war industries and military personnel. New programs affecting the lives of all Americans, such as civilian defense, price control, and rationing, are making demands upon localities and states for intergovernmental action. In the absence of any complete overhauling of the federal-state-local tax systems, the Bureau of the Budget has written a new chapter in the intergovernmental field by giving a set of directives for state and local governments to follow or to ignore at their own risk.

Type
American Government in War-Time: The First Year
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , February 1943 , pp. 35 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 An outstanding exception was the conversion on January 1, 1942, of the state-administered employment offices to a system of national operation so as to assure a maximum mobilization of manpower for war production.

2 “Progress Report on State War Legislation,” State Government (May, 1942), p. 107Google Scholar.

3 Frank Bane, “The States and the War Effort,” ibid. (June, 1942), p. 125.

4 State Government (July, 1942), p. 145.

5 Nickel, George D., “Evacuation: American Style, Part II,” Survey Midmonthly (Oct., 1942), p. 263.Google Scholar

6 Reprinted in State Government (Aug., 1942).

7 “Civilian Protection in War-time,” State Government (Jan., 1942), p. 13.

8 Federal Register, Vol. 7, No. 85 (May 1, 1942), p. 3248.

9 New York Times, May 3, 1942.

10 Landis, James M., “Relation of Local Defense Councils to Municipality, State, and Nation,” American City (July, 1942), p. 59.Google Scholar

11 Landis, James M., “Address before New York Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials” (Syracuse, N. Y., June 9, 1942). Mimeo. copy, p. 5.Google Scholar

12 Hamm, J. E., “Administrative Structure for Rationing,” State Government (June, 1942), p. 119.Google Scholar

13 OPA, First Quarterly Report (Apr. 30, 1942), p. 70.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., pp. 70–71.

15 OPA, Rationing: Why and How (Washington, 1942), p. 11.Google Scholar

16 When the fall of 1942 rolled around, the steel mills were running short of scrap. The local defense councils and the schools literally “got in the scrap.” Under the leadership of school administrators and teachers, the children did everything from ringing doorbells to collecting the scrap. In this instance, coöperative action implemented a program of the War Production Board.

17 “Suggestions for Harmonizing State with Federal War-time Fiscal Policies,” State Government (June, 1942), p. 123; from an address by Harold D. Smith before a Conference on Emergency Fiscal Problems in New York City, May 8, 1942.

18 Smith, Harold D., “Cities Defenders of Democracy,” Amer. Mun. Assoc. Mimeo. Release, June 9, 1942.Google Scholar

19 Ibid.

20 See Reed, T. H., “Federal-State-Local Fiscal Relations,” State Government (Oct., 1942), pp. 204–205.Google Scholar

21 U. S. Government Manual (Fall, 1942), p. 385.

22 Ibid., pp. 72–73.

23 Under Title II of the Lanham Act (June 28, 1941), as amended January 21, 1942.

24 U. S. Government Manual (Fall, 1942), pp. 402, 406.

25 John B. Blandford, Jr., speaking at the Conference of Governors, Washington, D. C., May 6, 1942.

26 U. S. Government Manual (Fall, 1942), pp. 112, 124.

27 Victory, Vol. 3, No. 43 (Oct. 27, 1942), p. 26.

28 NHA Division of Urban Studies, Bulletin No. 6; “Zoning in Relation to the Homes Utilization Program.”

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.