Intergovernmental relations are described as significant cooperation between governmental units at all levels of the hierarchy. Intergovernmental relations are referred to as cooperating networks of institutions at local and national levels. These are regional and local levels established and discerned to enhance the parts of government to collaborate in a way more or less proper to institutional positioning. It is an evolving system of institutional collaboration that aims to highlight the relations of equality and interdependence as defined by the constitution. Intergovernmental relations are an important part of modern political systems and particularly for any system with one level of government (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). The essay will focus on the evaluating the ideas on intergovernmental relations presented by Carl Stenberg and David Hamilton in the book Intergovernmental Relations in Transition: Reflections and Directions. Additionally, the book report will include ideas presented by other authors on intergovernmental relations.
There are certain approaches used in the study of intergovernmental relations. The democratic approach proponents have a separatist perspective and emphasize on the right to independence of every level of government. This perspective often causes volatile situations and complexities. According to this perspective, international government relations should aim for efficiency in public service and this necessitates that complexities and competition is reduced and interdependence and pursuit for a common agenda are enhanced (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). This brings a comparative advantage given that resources are gathered and therefore utilized optimally. The constitutional approach theorizes that there is a hierarchy of governments and this is an existing fact, since the constitution was seen as the tool for regulating intergovernmental relations and attaining harmony. The financial approach is where international governmental relations is perceived from a financial perspective and the responsibilities each government and the financial resources attached. Finally the normative operational approach includes broad aspects such as values and technical limitations, geographical factors and issues concerning the distribution of resources (Steinberg & Hamilton, 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Intergovernmental relations are basically the procedures and institutions through which governments and institutions in a political system work together. All countries whether federal or unitary have intergovernmental relations of some kind given they have a hierarchy government. Research on intergovernmental relations previously focused on structures and institutions involved in IGR and specifically those linked with the financial processes between the levels of government (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). However, intergovernmental relations also involve long informal procedures of interchange and communication. The previous federations of the United States, Canada, and Australia did not distinctively stipulate for the provision of IGR in the constitution under the presumption that two principal levels of government would operate independently in policy aspects assigned to them by the responsibilities and obligations assigned in the constitution. However, sooner or later it became distinctive that this exclusion of processes through a correlated form of government was unrealistic. As governments enlarged in scope and size in the last century, certain issues emerged that previous constitutions had not predicted. Policy areas that had previously been perceived as local issues became issues of economic, social or environmental importance or rather matters of policy and political significance to national governments (Agranoff & Radin, 2014 p. 139). Inefficient overflows in sectors such as transport, water and environment meant that the roles and obligations between certain levels of government were not distinctive and intergovernmental relations of some kind was needed to create policy arrangements and liabilities as well as administrative agreements between governments (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). Most importantly with the increase of national income tax as an instrument of macroeconomic policy and welfare state realignment, national governments collected more revenues than they could use and fiscal transfers to sub-units became more crucial. Synchronized federalism was progressively restored by concurrent federalism which needed the dissimilar levels of government to engage with each other (Aagranoff & Sindane 2017 p. 267). This increased the necessity for collaboration and the possibility for duplication, complexity, convergence, compulsion and gaming.
A key reaction to these evolving changes has been to pursue more of a logical assignment of obligations, although whether this can be attained by a reciprocation of powers to the states or more powers to the states for the main government is conflicted (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). The other option for creating distinctive lines between governments is collaborative federalism which in core entails that a consequent set of intergovernmental relations institutions and procedures to manage the unknown concurrency of government roles. This concurrency implies that a certain level of cooperation, inquiries and collaboration between governments and dispute resolution mechanisms and a preparedness to adjust to evolving situations (Krane & Wright, 2018 p. 88). The degree to which this can be achieved effectively is a key inquiry as is the question of whether collaborative intergovernmental relations may be achieved at the cost of democratic accountability. Although inevitable and crucial, intergovernmental relations can create difficulties for generalizations and theorization (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). This is partially because most part of intergovernmental relations is non-formal and retrospective of a particular country’s national features. Such features often cause strong dependency. There are dimensions to intergovernmental relations that give the basis for subsequent evaluation of intergovernmental relations processes and institutions (Nice, 2018 p. 17). These often include horizontal, vertical and sectoral dimensions as well as the level of formality with which intergovernmental relations performed. Intergovernmental relations happens most crucially in a straight relation between the national government and the sub national governments. In single systems there are normally described to as national and local governments while in federations they are called central or federal governments and the subsequent units of the federation (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018) However, many countries have two or more levels of government. In countries like China for instance the constitution identifies four tiers of government (central, county, province and township).
Different forms of government have certain influences on intergovernmental relations. A unitary form of government acknowledges a supreme authority of state which is not inferior to any institution (Poirier & Saunders, 2015). In unitary governments the key legislative authority is supreme and can legislate, repeal or alter laws that control the affairs of a particular nation and in practice there is no restriction to the powers of the central legislative authority. The United States system of government most obvious feature is federalism, it is the division of responsibility between the national and state governments. Intergovernmental relations in the United States also describes the relation between the national and tribal government on reservation (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). Although these relations might be different, they all involve the division of authority that is a key feature of multilevel systems of government. The relations between states is often not federal but nonfederal; this type of relationship conveys the significance of sovereignty in such interactions. The constitution recognizes that states are on an equal footing meaning that no state has a supreme status than any other. However there are differences in political power and influence but the symmetry of constitutional standing means that state governments must broker their differences or depend on national agencies such as the United States and the Supreme Court (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). The relationship between states and local units of governments are unitary. Localities do not enjoy supremacy or independence, they are the creation of social government. This differentiation of constitutional power is rarely shown openly. Instead it creates a backdrop for political relationships that are more rational.
The states vary greatly in the powers they devolve to different units of local governments, so this aspect of intergovernmental relations is differentiated across and within the states. States manage the lines of communication between local and national governments, carrying their objectives and concerns of one to the other while adding the predispositions of governors and legislators. States steadily manage interactions among local governments, resolving conflicts and establishing regional agencies to harmonize the actions of neighboring localities (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). State government in the United States are at the center of a complex web of intergovernmental relations. Some states maintain a cordial relationship with other states in terms of education collaboration and, licensing. States often cooperate in a less formal manner; for instance states joined forces to campaign against powerful cooperation. State officials often cooperate with each other in monitoring national issues and political developments in the capital. In the United States, the designation of power between state and national governments is outlined in the constitution which assigns some powers exclusively to the national government (Wright & Stenberg, 2018 p. 407). Some powers are set aside to the people or states under the Ninth and Tenth amendment. However there are powers assigned simultaneously by the state and national governments including the power to tax, make laws, borrow money and enforce the laws. There are concurrent powers that must be exercised collaboratively an example of this is the conduction of federal elections and amendment of the constitution (Stenberg & Hamiliton, 2018). The assignment of the certain powers is indistinct and subject to evolution over a certain period of time. Politicians often want to manage policies of key interest to the constituencies. Often, this results to problems between state and national officials each of whom need to dictate policies and want credit for the results (Stenberg & Hamilton, 2018). The political issues ensuing are often referred by the Supreme Court that takes on a key role in outlining relations between state and national governments.
Local politics often has a huge influence in intergovernmental relations. If a certain party is concentrated and influences authority at a national and sub-national level, national leaders might overcome and dominate state and regional governments despite what the formal division of powers might dictate (Krane & Wright, 2018 p. 89). This is most common in countries transitioning economies such as Asia, Malaysia and South Africa. In countries such as Australia the key political parties are organized federally and state branches and governments maintain substantial independence although federal interventions by a national party into a dysfunctional state branch occurs from time to time. Interest parties equally affect the form of intergovernmental relations in a particular country. Business groups and trade unions only had its roots in the states but many are quickly evolving to the national level in terms of focus, policy and organization. Main professional bodies were conventionally subjected to state legislation but are now becoming subject to national regulation with lesser jurisdictions. The key procedure of coordinating intergovernmental relations in all countries it is practiced is through formal agreements between governments. They are either legislated or made through executive agreement. These agreements primarily designate roles and responsibilities to the government and outline any financial provisions and create reporting requirements. Intergovernmental relations in the United States can be described as collaborative, competitive and coercive. In the level of high-level political policy creation with elected officials and particularly the members of congress, intergovernmental relations have been notably constraining since late 1960s. That means that the congress has enforced more conditions, mandates, preemptions and other laws affecting local and state governments than before. On the other hand, state governments have overly implemented more regulatory authority over the local governments than they did before.
References
Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2014). Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations: The basis for contemporary intergovernmental relationships. Publius: The Journal of Federalism , 45 (1), 139-159.
Agranoff, R., Sindane, J., & Liebenberg, I. (2017). Sharing Power?: Intergovernmental Relations in Democratic Transitions. In Consolidation of Democracy in Africa (pp. 267-299). Routledge.
Krane, D., & Wright, D. S. (2018). Intergovernmental relations. In Defining Public Administration (pp. 83-101). Routledge.
Nice, D. C. (2018). The intergovernmental setting of state-local relations. In Governing Partners (pp. 17-36). Routledge.
Poirier, J., & Saunders, C. (2015). Comparing Intergovernmental Relations and Cooperative Mechanisms in Federal Systems: An Introduction.
Stenberg, C. W & Hamilton, D. K. (2018). Intergovernmental Relations in Transition: Reflections and Directions. Taylor and Francis.
Wright, D. S., & Stenberg, C. W. (2018). Federalism, Intergovernmental Relations, and Intergovernmental Management: The Origins, Emergence, and Maturity of Three Concepts across Two Centuries of Organizing Power by Area and by Function. In Handbook of public administration (pp. 407-479). Routledge.
