Download Prospects for IGR Mgmt 524 2013

Prospects for
Intergovernmental Management
PA 524—Intergovernmental Administrative
Problems, Summer 2013, Professor Mario Rivera
System Features
Federalism
IGR
1. Units Involved
National-State,
Interstate Relations
–National-State-Local
–State-Local
–National-Local
–Interlocal
2. Authority
Relations
National Supremacy Perceived Hierarchy
(Contingent
(Asymmetric
Hierarchy)
Orientations)
Nonhierarchical
Networks (Matrix
Management)
3. Means of
conflict
resolution
Laws, Courts,
Elections
Market, Games,
Coalitions
Bargaining and
Negotiation,
Dispute Settlement
Coping
4. Values
Purposes (Mission)
Perspectives
(Policy Realization in
Administration)
Products, Program
Results
(Management)
5. Political
Quotient(s)
Partisan politics;
dual, cooperative,
and coercive
federalism
Policy Making
(Coordination)
Implementation
(Problem Solving)
6. Lead(ing)
Actors
Elected Politicians
Administrative
Generalists
Policy Profesjonals
(State-Local)
-
IGM
IGR units plus
Public-Private
Sector Mix
Intergovernmental Management (IGM)

Has a more limited focus that IGR
 Problem-solving: activities often focus more on joint
problem-solving than policy making (coordination)
 Coping capabilities: Managing ongoing relationships and
coping with systems as they are
 Broader mix of actors: activities often include relationships
among public/private/nonprofit sectors
 Lead actors: policy/management professionals (mid- or low
level) rather than administrative generalists (high-level)
 Networks: Non-hierarchical communication networks &
collaboration
 Conflict resolution: bargaining, negotiation, cooperation,
dispute settlement, coping
Constraints Beyond Control of IGM Actors

Financial - intergovernmental grant system
 Lack of local control: Whoever controls resources sets priorities.
This occurs at the federal/state level rather than the network
level; Coercive rather than Cooperative Federalism
 Need to be systematic: Difficult to systematically solve problems
when priorities change frequently and there is no budgetary
stability over long time periods
 Distributional problems: implementation funding is often treated
as “pork”
 Administrative Costs: Grants and contracts management can be
complicated for collaborative projects, especially in
intergovernmental contexts entailing regulation
 Flexibility in using grants: Network actors eed slack resources
to participate in collaborative activities but legislatures/agencies
provide limited discretion in how resources are used.
Constraints Beyond Control of IGM Actors

Legal




Bureaucratic





Federalism, separation of powers, due process, etc
Division of legislative responsibility
Divisions of jurisdictional authority (federal, state, local)
Organizations often promote stability rather than change
Turf guarding by individuals, agencies, level of government
Managing external relationships
Differing professional training and staff norms in organizations
Accountability


Multiple constituencies, multiple lines of responsibility, answerability
Dual versus interdependent (cooperative and coercive) forms of federalism
Preceding section is adapted from Mark T. Imperial, “Strategies for Improving Coastal and
Ocean Governance: Challenges and Opportunities,” Presented at The Coastal Society’s 20th
Biennial Conference, St. Pete Beach, FL May 14 – 17, 2006
Principal-agent issues in IG administration

For example, local (county, city, COG) decision makers have two
simultaneous roles. They are

Agents for their constituency,
 so they have incentives to not increase taxes and to provide at
least acceptable public goods, services.

Agents for higher government levels,
 so they are expected to obey the injunctions of federal and
state governments, even if their injunctions are unpopular
among local constituencies.

Compelled to engage in games played by competing state and
local governments with regard to intergovernmental transfers
(e.g., Medicaid “maximization”); in so doing, they are neither
serving federal nor local constituencies.
Federalism under the Bush Administration & since
The administration of George W. Bush, particularly post-9/11,
seemed to defy traditional understandings of conservatism, as the
president’s policies expanded the size, spending, and reach of a
“nationalizing” federal government. For instance, the Patriot Act and
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security both expanded
the size and reach of the national government. And even before 9/11,
President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act expanded the federal
government’s role in funding and regulating public education,
historically a prerogative of state and local governments (in
particular, school districts).
 Bipartisan “bailout” policies at the end of this administration and
during Obama’s, such as efforts to reform healthcare, along with the
maintenance of ongoing military commitments in Iraq and
Afghanistan, indicate that the centralizing or nationalizing trend
continues today. There is a continuing trend toward Coercive
Federalism, in areas ranging from regulation to preemption, for
substantive policy areas such as healthcare reform and taxation.

Federalist Tension In The U.S. Constitution



On the one hand, the “Supremacy Clause” (Article IV of the
Constitution) indicates that the Constitution, and consistent
national laws and treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land.”
On the other hand, the “reserved powers” as written into the 10th
Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the US by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.”
Constitutional separation and division of powers, and the
balancing of power, means that the framers deliberately limited
central authority. Power was to be shared by institutions of
government. which would have to collaborate in order to get
things done (e.g., fiscal legislation). In that sense, collaborative
administration is structured in the Constitutional provisions for
distributed powers. The Obama Administration has revived the
WH Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (reading) and recast
federalism as “collaborative federalism.”
The Growth of National Power
“Necessary and proper” clause:
 Congress authorized to enact all laws “necessary and
proper” to carry out its responsibilities
 Leads to theory of “implied powers” validated in
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), as we’ve seen.
Also contributing to the growth of Federal power are the
 Supremacy clause – national laws and Constitution are
supreme laws of the land (Article VI), and the
 Commerce clause – gives Congress power to “regulate
commerce with foreign nations and among several states
and with Indian tribes”
The Constitution and the growing power of
the Federal Government
The Commerce Clause— e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.
(1964), a constitutional challenge to Title II of Civil Rights
Act of 1964

Prohibited racial discrimination/segregation in areas of public
accommodation (private businesses)—justified by Congress &
the Supreme Court with reference to the Commerce Clause
General Welfare Clause
“Congress shall have power to…provide for the…general
welfare of the United States.” Constitutional basis for
many national “social welfare” programs
14th Amendment – Government cannot deny “due process
of the law” and “equal protection of the laws.”
16th Amendment – The National income tax
Intergovernmental Management Defined Against
Backdrop of Evolving Managerial Forms
A dominant managerial form is that of the marketmodeled “New Public Management”




“Steering, not rowing” government
Reduces direct delivery of services. These can be delegated or
contracted to the market, non-profits, or other nongovernmental partners
The government’s remaining critical role is that of defining
strategic priorities and policies
Relies heavily on privatization and on market-modeled
mechanisms and approaches
—NPM has increasingly been superseded by
Collaborative Public Management.
Collaborative Public Management (CPM)
Collaborative Public Management (CPM) describes the process of
facilitating, and operating in multi-organizational arrangements to
solve problems that cannot be solved or easily solved by either single
sectors or single organizations. It means co-production, cooperation to
achieve common goals, and work across boundaries in multi-sector
relationships, including public-private partnerships.
Cooperation and collaboration are based on the values of reciprocity,
trust, and mutuality, which overweigh those associated with
hierarchical power and univocal authority. In networked organizations,
people are tied horizontally by shared vision, mission, and purpose,
and shared commitment. The following features predominate with
CPM:
—Horizontal rather than vertical management processes
— Peer and Collegial relations rather than Superior/Subordinate
relations
—Extended leadership roles across departments, organizations
(‘patron’ federal agencies and state counterparts in the reading)
Public-Private Partnerships (as in the case)






A bridging mechanism between the NPM and Collaborative Public
Management
Arrangements between government and private sector for the
purpose of providing public infrastructure, community facilities, and
related services, whereby there is sharing of investment, risk,
responsibility, and reward between partners.
The reasons for establishing such partnerships generally involve the
financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of public
infrastructure and services.
The private sector is engaged as a partner where and when neither
public ownership nor market provision is feasible.
Public sector gains access to a range of private sector capabilities and
skills that can make for more efficient and cost-effective public
service.
The private sector takes on a range of risks, including legal liability,
that under traditional public procurement would be borne by the
public sector
Robert Agranoff’s typology of networks


There is progressively tighter or denser coupling in networks as
one progresses from informational to developmental and outreach
and action networks. An informational network limits exchange
to information, knowledge, policy deliberation, and the like, still
based on organizational sources principally. A developmental
network relies on these exchanges as well as joint program
development and capacity building to carry out solutions
principally at the originating organization.
An outreach network incorporates these features, including
information exchange and policy design, but also involve joint
programming, resource exchange, and pooling of resources and
services, including client bases, to create new programming at
the network level as well as among partnering organizations. The
most complete integration occurs in outreach networks, which
incorporate these other functional levels while creating quasiinstitutional frameworks for network-level collaborative
functioning.
Features of Network/Partnership Management








Networks facilitate the coordination of actions and the exchange of
knowledge and fiscal and human resources among actors;
Network membership can be drawn from any combination of public,
private, and non-profit sector actors;
Networks and network actors may carry out multiple policy functions at
the same time (e.g., environmental advocacy and advocacy for healthcare
reform);
Although networks are mostly defined at the inter-organizational level,
they are also described in the contexts of the individuals, groups, and
organizations that comprise them;
Network structures allow for government agencies to serve in roles other
than lead organizations—engaging the themes of boundaries, nonencroachment, control, effective versus formal influence.
Network mechanisms include interest-group coalitions, regulatory
subsystems, grants and contract agreements, and public-private
partnerships.
There are significant developmental and opportunity costs to the creation
of collaborative networks, particularly as these become tightly coupled.
Effective network management requires new sets of administrative skills.
Features of Network Governance




Governance in this context is defined as achieving direction, control,
and coordination of a network of organizations with varying degrees
of autonomy in order to advance the objectives to which they jointly
contribute. There is even less of a control connotation than is the
case of the notion of “steering” under the New Public Management.
Network Development is Intentional—Organizations get together
and consciously try to find ways to improve governance
Network-based Governance has Emergent features: Organizations
are forced to adapt to changing behavior of other organizations or
changes in the political, social, or economic environment; Selforganization is common, as it is in many complex adaptive systems.
Governance occurs in polycentric network structures: Behavior is
typically voluntary and not legislated top-down. Nor is it purely
bottom-up, because organizations have power differentials and are at
different levels of government outside the cooperative relationship.
Adapted from Mark T. Imperial, “Strategies for Improving Coastal and Ocean Governance:
Challenges and Opportunities,” Presented at The Coastal Society’s 20th Biennial Conference,
St. Pete Beach, FL May 14 – 17, 2006
Convergent Administrative Paradigms in Network Management
Administrative
Paradigm
Dominant Administrative Administrative Dynamics
Structure
Classical Public
Administration
Public bureaucracies
Command & control
New Public
Management
Public bureaucracies or
private firms
Competition;
Concession & compromise
Collaborative
Public
Management
Partnerships with private
firms, non-profits, and
citizens
Collaboration & cooperation;
Concession & compromise
Network
Management
Mixed-form governance
networks
Command & control,
particularly as networks
consolidate & institutionalize
Competition;
Concession & compromise;
Collaboration & cooperation
Macro-Level Governance Forms
Market
Hierarchy
Collaborative
Network
Collaboration,
Cooperation, and
Exchange
Collaborative Public
Management
Relational Tie
Competitive
Command and
Control
Public
Administration
Paradigm
New Public
Management
(marketmodeled)
Classic Public
Administration
Institutional
Frame of
Reference
Mixed Forms
Businesses,
Corporations,
the Firm
Contracts as
hierarchical,
structuring
documents
Public Bureaucracy
Partnerships;
Coalitions
Market-like
features; profit
centers, fiscal
controls
Multiple org. partners;
inter-jurisdictional
arrangements and
formal rules serve as
effective organizing
frameworks
Questions



How do we square the centralizing or nationalizing tendencies of post9/11 federalism and IGR with the decentralizing thrust of collaborative
network management?
What about the role of strategic alignment and goal congruence among
federal, state and local governments with respect to disaster response
and counter-terrorism? In networks like the Youth Services
Collaborative?
If disaster response (as with Katrina, or in the event of pandemics or
terrorist attacks) requires the mobilization of local response with key
supports from the federal government, there is a corresponding need for
mixed forms of governance and management. Kettl calls for integration
of leadership mechanisms with emergent local responses, which often
entails collaboration among first responders. How do we find and set
that balance? Recalling the New Bedford Harbor, the California
Adoption sase, and the Youth Services case, how was an
intergovernmental balance found, or how could such a balance have
been established? Or established better, or earlier?