Federal-state Cooperation Research Articles

The Design of a European Unemployment (Re)Insurance Scheme: Lessons from US Experience

The American system of unemployment insurance (UI) is often cited as a model for potential European unemployment re-insurance schemes. While oversimplified comparisons are to be avoided, there are lessons Europe can learn from US federal-state relations regarding UI. We distinguish three aspects of the US system: first, in the 1930s the federal government was able to solve a collective action problem that impeded the development of state-level UI programs; second, during the 1950s Congress enacted a federal backstop for depleted state UI trust funds that are used to finance regular UI benefits; third, in the 1970s the federal government added an extra layer of UI to the state system, based on an intergovernmental co-financing of benefits which intensifies during crises and thus reinforces protection and stabilization where and when it is most needed. The second and third aspects now exercise European interest, which is about buttressing national systems with a supranational layer of insurance. The American experience shows that federal-state cooperation has overcome problems of collective action and enhanced stabilization. It proved to be of great importance in the Great Recession to effectively expand the protection of unemployed workers and to backstop state UI programs in a period of high and rising unemployment and thereby to contribute in a relevant way to the stabilization efforts of the Obama Administration. However, there are also some structural weaknesses in the American system. With a view to what might be developed in the EU, we identify two risks when an extra layer of unemployment protection is added at the supranational level. First, depending on the set-up of the system, federal-level financing of UI can lead to retrenchment of state-level efforts in terms of UI schemes and macroeconomic stabilization. Second, state-level retrenchment can lead to divergence between state UI programs. The US UI model is vulnerable to these two risks, although this may not be its main current challenge. Simultaneously, these risks – and the other problems besetting the American model – are not insurmountable. We draw both positive and cautionary lessons from the American experience. A lesson is that minimum requirements regarding generosity and coverage levels of UI programs are fundamental prerequisites for any supranational re-insurance.

Climate Change Mitigation through Energy Efficiency Laws: from International Obligations to Domestic Regulation

Energy efficiency is one of the most effective and affordable policy mechanisms to address climate change, stimulate economic growth and improve energy security. Energy efficiency laws are a low-cost approach to climate change mitigation and a ‘no regrets’ measure. The development of energy efficiency laws and domestic sustainable energy policy has been positively influenced by principles of international environmental law. But international and regional treaties fail to establish uniform energy efficiency obligations and are drafted in non-binding hortatory language. Australian energy production – the case study of this article – is primarily based on emissions-intensive fossil fuels. Considerable potential exists to employ proven energy efficiency technologies to reduce energy demand. Success will require constructive federal–state cooperation and coordination, including harmonisation and implementation of legislation. Sectoral improvements can be achieved in high-emissions industry, appliance performance standards and labelling and buildings. Although still in its infancy, Australian energy efficiency regulation has delivered preliminary economic and environmental benefits. Lessons can be learnt from the European and US experiences on how to remove barriers to adoption and unlock the enormous greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction potential of energy efficiency.

The Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy: State Perspectives

In its final report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, the U.S.Commission on Ocean Policy, created by the Oceans Act of 2000, strongly endorsed regional scale, ecosystem-based management of coastal/ocean areas. To advance such an approach the Commission made numerous recommendations, including suggestions for both structural change in government and also for change in policy. As mandated by Congress, the process leading to the ultimate issuance of the Commission's final report specifically allowed for state governors to comment on a preliminary version of that report. The Commission was then to take those comments into account before issuing its final report. Thus, state governors were given a rare opportunity to indicate their preferences and concerns on the totality of U.S. coastal/ocean governance efforts. It is clear that implementation of the Commission's recommendations will require political support from the states, both in terms of encouraging the Administration and Congress to adopt change and in ensuring required federal-state cooperation. Accordingly, it is of great importance to understand the views of the states on the issues addressed by the Commission. This article outlines and examines key concerns raised by the nation's governors on the proposed new approach to coastal/ocean governance.

Better federal‐state cooperation needed

Better federal‐state cooperation needed

Cooperative Federalism in the Progressive Era: Lochner, Liquor, and Longshoremen

In 1890, the Supreme Court shocked and thrilled the civilized world with the announcement that dry states could not prohibit the sale of liquor shipped in from outside the state. So long as the out-of-state goods remained in their original packages, the Court held they retained their character as interstate commerce subject only to federal regulation. The consequences for the cause of local sobriety were, predictably, catastrophic. The proliferation in temperance territory of original package saloons, at which one could purchase liquor free from the superintendence of local liquor authorities, was appalling to dry eyes. Members of Congress immediately proposed bill to authorize the states again to regulate such sales. It was enacted only over strenuous objections that such legislation unconstitutionally delegated congressional authority to regulate interstate transactions and thereby authorized unconstitutional disuniformity in the regulation of interstate commerce. While the Court would consistently approve this and other similar congressional legislation, the debate over constitutional constraints on such congressional authorizations would persist over the course of the next half-century. It is only fairly recently that such measures became unexceptionable.A parallel debate unfolded in the more recondite domain of admiralty, with strikingly different results. In 1917, in the controversial case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, the Supreme Court held that New York’s workmen’s compensation statute could not constitutionally apply to workplace injury sustained over navigable waters. The Court relied upon its dormant Commerce Clause decisions in the liquor context in holding that such an application of the state statute would interfere with the uniformity of maritime law contemplated by Article III's grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the federal courts. Yet when Congress enacted legislation authorizing the application of state workmen's compensation statutes to maritime workplace injuries, the Court invalidated the statute on the ground that it delegated congressional authority to regulate maritime matters and thereby authorized unconstitutional disuniformity in the substantive law of admiralty. The contention that had failed in the Commerce Clause context prevailed in admiralty.This curious asymmetry in the Court's federalism jurisprudence has never been satisfactorily explored. Admiralty scholars, content for the most part to explain Jensen and its progeny as manifestations of judicial hostility to worker-friendly Progressive legislation, have paid scant attention to cognate developments in Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Similarly, historians of constitutional federalism, perhaps viewing admiralty jurisprudence as an occult science, have largely neglected the field. Yet an excursion into interdoctrinal comparative law promises to shed new light on both subjects. This article challenges the traditional interpretation of the Jensen line of cases, while at the same time integrating these developments in admiralty law into the larger story of cooperative federalism and legal and social reform in the Progressive Era. In addition to offering a reinterpretation of these leading admiralty decisions, the article aims to identify the salient features of the political and constitutional landscape within which distinctive forms of cooperative federalism emerged in the Progressive Era, and to illuminate the manner in which those features helped to shape the asymmetric constitutional law of federal-state cooperation.

Federal-state cooperation in science and technology programs

During the past several years participants in the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, chaired by Richard Celeste, have discussed cooperation in science and technology programs between state and federal agencies. The result is the following paper on the potential for and means of promoting such cooperation. The roundtable is sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. [It was] created in 1984 to provide a forum where scientists, administrators, and policy makers from government, university, and industry can come together on an ongoing basis to explore ways to improve the productivity of the nation's research enterprise. The object is to try to understand issues, to inject imaginative thought into the system, and to provide a setting for discussion and the seeking of common ground. The roundtable does not make recommendations, nor of fer specific advice; it develops options and brings interested parties together.

Federal-State Cooperation for Public Library Data

Federal-State Cooperation for Public Library Data

Nunc Dimittis

Percy Harold Gooding of Hampton, South Carolina, died April 23, 1988, at the home of his son Robert, in Greenwood, South Carolina. Gooding served as Leader of Poultry Extension at Clemson University from 1929 to 1963. During this era, he participated in the evolution of the poultry industry from a backyard enterprise to a modern agribusiness giant. He was a leader in the development of the national poultry improvement plan that is a model of successful federal-state cooperation. This program improved the breeding of poultry and eliminated Salmonella pullorum as the cause of a major poultry disease in the United States. Gooding served as secretary of the South Carolina Poultry Improvement Association for many years until his retirement. After retiring, Gooding operated the ancestral farm near Hampton.Gooding graduated from Clemson College in 1923 and worked briefly as Extension Poultryman in Kentucky prior to his return to Clemson. He is .

FEDERAL-STATE QUALITY PROGRAM FOR MANUFACTURING MILK

This paper describes the broad responsibilities carried out by USDA in the field of inspection, grading, specifications, standards, and quality assurance of manufacturing milk and manufactured milk products. Effectiveness of this work depends, in a large measure, on Federal-State cooperation and on close working relationships between State regulatory agencies and the industry. We believe that manufacturing milk from the great majority of farms meets the present acceptable quality level. However, some areas in the country lag in milk quality and some individual farmers in all areas are not doing their part to keep up with the rest of the Nation on milk quality.The past year shows tremendous effort by many States to get needed legislation for quality and farm requirements for manufacturing milk. If your State didn't get legislation covering farm requirements, this is no excuse for delaying action on milk quality improvement. Consumer interests are insisting on action towards quality and wholesomeness of milk and dairy foods. We must move forward now on manufacturing milk quality.

Relevant Research Areas and Organizational Questions Relative to Federal-State Research Programs in the Economics of Agricultural Production

In dealing with the subject of federal-state research programs, I shall summarize areas and topics for research as visualized by some of those engaged in production economics research in the southern region, and raise some questions relative to organization for Federal-State cooperation on research programs.Complicating the problem of coordination of effort is the traditional compartmentalization of research and the entanglement one often encounters in administrative procedures when encroaching into areas and topics of research claimed by others.

Governmental Statistics—An Example of State-Federal Cooperation

Intergovernmental cooperation in the collection of statistics on economic and social conditions presents an interesting problem because of the need for uniformity in the various segments of a statistical survey. This subject has not, however, been discussed, except incidentally, in any of the many studies of the changing roles of state and federal governments. In many programs flexibility, the capacity to adapt to varying local conditions, is presented as a major advantage of federal-state cooperation and particularly of grant-in-aid programs. The very essence of accurate statistics, however, is uniformity of concept, methodology and product in the various parts of a system. Once it is recognized that a number of major statistical programs are carried out through cooperative action, questions about the desirability of cooperation and the reasons for it arise, since it appears that the flexibility which is an advantage in other programs would be a dangerous weakness in these. This article reviews the development of one of the larger cooperative statistical programs and, in the process, attempts to throw some light on the reasons for the success of cooperation in that program and the conditions under which it is likely to be satisfactory in other programs. Economic and social statistics, or interpretations of them, are frequently referred to; they are an important factor in political and economic decisions and programs. but little attention is customarily paid to the way in which they are obtained. The scope and accuracy of the statistics which describe our economy, the majority of which are prepared by government agencies, have grown enormously in the last generation, which has also seen some important changes in the relations between our national and state governments. These changing patterns have impinged and, in consequence, a substantial share of our current economic statistics is collected through some arrangement by which the national and state governments cooperate in order to increase the quantity of comparable statistics and reduce the number of requests for information addressed to putative respondents in statistical surveys. There is a great diversity in the subject matter of these cooperative surveys. The Department of Agriculture uses them in collecting information on the acreage and production of crops and the number of livestock on farms. The Bureau of Mines conducts surveys of mineral production and accidents to miners. The Office of Education helps states to improve their own statistics on education. The National Vital Statistics Division secures data on births and deaths throughout the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics prepares current monthly estimates of employment, hours of work, earnings, and labor turnover for several hundred industries and these are comparable with the estimates for each state and 140 metropolitan areas which are prepared by cooperating states. Each of the sets of statistics mentioned has its own audience of business analysts, legislators, public health services, school systems, economists, and public adininistrators. They are factors in the development of public policy and legislation at all levels of government and frequently contribute to business decisions and to the climate of public opinion on various issues. These statistical systems are of quite different types in a technical sense. In some cases they are based on samples, in others reports are obtained for each unit in the universe of events being studied; some depend almost entirely on mailed questionnaires, others on interviews; some measure changes in a continuum through time, others count discrete events; some are based on voluntary responses to requests for information, others on the tabluation of reports required by law for various purposes. The common thread running through them is cooperation between state and national agencies. This cooperation itself takes various forms, ranging from a simple exchange of the basic data collected to highly integrated systems. It may involve technical or financial assistance by the national government, which may be provided in one of a number of ways.

J. Bracken Lee and the Public Service in Utah

IN THE EARLIEST study of turnover of state personnell Professor Martin L. Faust of the University of Missouri summarized the arguments against the spoils system. The spoils system entails heavy turnover in personnel which periodically results in the scrapping of all or nearly all accumulated experience. It places inexperienced and incompetent persons in responsible administrative positions. Since it is predicated upon rewards and favors, it introduces favoritism and partiality in the conduct of the public business and limits the access to the public service of young people of capacity and promise. The spoils system renders impossible continuity in administrative policy and destroys morale within the service. It leads to oligarchy and autocracy by helping bosses get control of the party machinery. Moreover, the prevalence of the spoils system in state government makes difficult effective federal-state co-operation and at the same time encourages the growth of bureaucracy at both levels. Therefore Dr. Faust advocated the merit system for Missouri. These arguments turn in considerable part on the assumption that heavy turnover occurs in non-merit positions. This assumption is borne out by Dr. Faust's statistics for Missouri for the years studied. It is commonly made for other states, but without supporting data. Hitherto no studies have been made of the experience of the eleven western states save for a recent investigation in Washington,a which unfortunately proved to be

Health consolidation works

AbstractWith aid of federal‐state cooperation Topeka‐Shawnee County department improves its services and personnel.

Federal‐state tax cooperation

Federal‐state tax cooperation

Federal‐State Cooperation in Soil‐Plant Research

Soil Science Society of America JournalVolume 5, Issue C p. 3-7 Article Federal-State Cooperation in Soil-Plant Research† E. C. Auchter, E. C. Auchter Chief, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.Search for more papers by this author E. C. Auchter, E. C. Auchter Chief, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 January 1941 https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1941.036159950005000C0001x ‡ An address delivered before the Soil Science Society of America at Chicago, Ill., Dec. 4, 1940. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume5, IssueC1941Pages 3-7 RelatedInformation

Recent Developments in the Field of Federal-State Cooperation in Agriculture

Until a few years ago the agricultural policy of the federal government was very largely one of indirect aid to agriculture through the medium of research and education. The method was in part federal action alone undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and in part federal-state cooperation through an experiment stationi and an extension service in each state administered jointly by the Department of Agriculture and the land-grant colleges. Within recent years, however, the older policy of the federal government has been supplemented by one of direct action. As a result, the Department of Agriculture has, in addition to its other duties, been given the responsibility for administering vast programs having for their purpose the adjustment of agricultural production, the rehabilitation of agricultural life and the conservation of agricultural resources. In the carrying out of these programs it has had to act alone except in so far as state agencies have placed at its disposal their already developed facilities for research and education. One of the principal problems with which the Department of Agriculture has been faced is that of planning the various action programs which it has been required to undertake. In doing so it has recognized the fact that planning is a two-way process and so must come not only from the top down but also from the bottom up. It has accordingly fostered planning on the part of the farmers themselves. During the years 1935-1937 approximately 2,500 county committees were organized in fortyfive states for the purpose of appraising local agricultural problems and estimating the changes which would be necessary to substitute soil-conserving for soil-depleting crops.1 The various Extension Services cooperated with the local committees in a number of ways. In many instances they helped to organize the committees and their representatives met with them in a consultative capacity. They also prepared in cooperation with state and national research agencies informational material such as

The Rise of a New Federalism. Federal-State Cooperation in United States

The Rise of a New Federalism. Federal-State Cooperation in United States

State and Federal Grants-in-Aid. Henry J. BittermanThe Rise of a New Federalism: Federal-State Cooperation in the United States. Jane Perry Clark

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsState and Federal Grants-in-Aid. Henry J. Bitterman The Rise of a New Federalism: Federal-State Cooperation in the United States. Jane Perry Clark Grace AbbottGrace Abbott Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Social Service Review Volume 12, Number 3Sep., 1938 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/632286 Views: 1Total views on this site Copyright 1938 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Federal‐state cooperation under the social security act

AbstractProvisin for grants‐in‐aid in the social field, to be spent by states under federal supevision, will pave the way for greater coöperation between states and nation.

State Constitutional Provision for Federal-State Cooperation

Quite recently the activities of the Federal departments and agencies have been extended into the field of state legislation, many attempts having been made by them during the past two years to suggest the nature of legislation which they desired, and to exert such pressure as they could to secure its adoption.2 Attempts to influence the administrative policies of the states have rarely, if ever, raised any important constitutional problems; in the majority of cases, the same may be said concerning legislation approved or sponsored by Federal departments and agencies.