Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:02:16.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Preemption: Prospects for the States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2005

Paul L. Posner
Paul L. Posner
Affiliation:
United States Government Accountability Office
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Woodrow Wilson told us that the federal-state relationship is the cardinal question of our system that is destined to be reformulated for each generation. His prophetic words aptly characterize the challenges federal and state governments face in satisfying both the requisites of an increasingly global economy and nationalized political culture while at the same time reflecting the differential values and interests of states. States need to retain their diversity and capacity to innovate and respond to different values and interests that may not get a hearing in Washington; conversely, Washington needs to be alert and reactive when states prove unresponsive to key values and interests or collectively incapable of solving national economic or social problems.

Type
SYMPOSIUM
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 371 - 374
Copyright
© 2005 The American Political Science Association

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

Bardach, Eugene, and Robert A. Kagan. 1982. Going By the Book: The Problem of Regulatory. Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel. 1991. “Cooperative Federalism.” In Competition among State and Local Governments, eds. Daphne Kenyon and John Kincaid. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Grodzins, Morton. 1966. The American System. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Haider, Donald. 1974. When Governments Come to Washington. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen. 1977. “Policy Implementation through Bargaining: The Case of Federal Grants-in-Aid.” Public Policy 25 (fall): 499–526.Google Scholar
Kincaid, John. 1990. “From Cooperative to Coercive Federalism.” Annals 509: 139–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Multistate Tax Commission. 2003. Federalism at Risk, 2003. Washington, D.C.: The Commission.Google Scholar
Nathan, Richard. 1991. “Federalism—The Great Composition.” In The New American Political System, ed. Anthony King. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 231–262.Google Scholar
National Governors Association. 2000. Governance in the New Digital Era.” Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Posner, Paul L. 1998A. “Federal Grant Design.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Posner, Paul L. 1998B. The Politics of Unfunded Mandates: Whither Federalism? Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, Lester. 2002. The Tools of Government. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Clive S., and Ronald J. Hrebenar. 1996. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States, 6th ed., eds. Virginia Gray and Herbert Jacob. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2002. Regulatory Programs: Balancing Federal and State Responsibilities for Standard Setting and Implementation. Report number GAO-02-495. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F. 1991. Federal Preemption: The Silent Revolution. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F. 2005. “The Nature and Political Significance of Preemption.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (July): 359–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar