Federal-state Relations Research Articles

Social Media Discourse in Sarawak: An Analysis of Popular Issues and Their Correlation with the Gabungan Parti Sarawak Manifesto in 2021

Social media, notably Facebook, has been reported to be actively used by all, particularly when expressing opposing perspectives on various matters related to Sarawak and Sarawak’s interests. The debate became more interesting during the period of political change in 2018 when Sarawak began to realign its position within a shifting political landscape. Consequently, the realignment had also influenced the framing of the Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) manifesto during the 2021 Sarawak State Election (SSE21). The article attempts to identify the popular issues circulated in social media and to correlate them with the highlighted issues embedded in the GPS manifesto in SSE21. Data was collected from Facebook from 20 December 2018 to 26 January 2019 through historical data retrieval process. About 197 high-engagement posts were selected as the dataset. Thematic analysis was used in the analytic methods, which was carried out using QSR NVivo 12 Plus. Six main topics were identified that served as focal points of discussion for online discourse in Sarawak: sociocultural topics; economic topics; political topics; development topics; constitutional and legal topics; and border and security topics. Among the topics, three main issues have been identified to be crucial for Sarawakians: (1) constitutional and legal issues – issues that are related to Sarawak rights, Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), and federal and state constitution; (2) sociocultural issues – regional sentiments that are related to the ideals of being a Sarawakian; and (3) political issues – issues of federal-state relations. It is suggested that as the online discussion of the issues gains traction, Sarawakians are observed to be more engaged in topics within the framing of their perceived position within the federation, specifically relating to the preferred position of their identity as Sarawakian first as opposed to Malaysian first. The formation of GPS as a local-based coalition has immensely benefited GPS since it is consistent with its agenda of “Sarawak First”. The study’s findings imply that there is consistency between the topics raised by Sarawakians during Sarawak’s term as an opposition state in 2018 and the themes contained in the GPS manifesto during the SSE21.

Sectoral Intergovernmental Relations in Ethiopia Federation: Normative and Empirical Considerations

Policy overlap or functional interface is inevitable in all federations. In Ethiopia, federal sectoral offices depend on the regional state institutions to execute most of their policy, programs, and decisions. The policy overlap and functional interface demands the entrenchment of sectoral forums that facilitate interactions, consultation, and cooperation between federal and state sectoral offices to deal with functional interface and spillover. Yet, formal sectoral forums are not institutionalized. Previous studies reveal that there is no much study that shows how sectoral relations and interactions are conducted in various policy sectors. This article examines sectoral IGR using the practices of selected federal-state and interstate sectoral relations. It reveals that the established formal sectoral IGR forums have remained dysfunctional. Yet, there are several informal sectoral meetings (conferences) between the federal and state sectoral institutions or among state sectoral bureaus. The vertical sectoral meetings are organized by the federal sectoral offices which also set the agenda of the meetings. The federal sectoral personnel are also overrepresented. These matters negate the co-equal status expected in federal-state relations. In most of the sectoral IGR, there are no written rules that regulate their meetings and decision-making procedures except the relations that exist between the Ministry of Health and state health bureaus regulated by an internal bylaw. However, horizontal sectoral relations are regulated by interstate agreements.

Vagueness and Federal-State Relations

Vagueness and Federal-State Relations

Governing in a Pandemic: Law and Government in Australia, 1919

The 1918–19 pneumonic influenza pandemic reached into mainland Australia in January 1919 and spread through the country over the next nine months. As a major public health emergency the pandemic proved to be a significant test of Australian governance. This article explores this history through attention to the imperial framing of Australian international and regional responses, the mechanisms of federal-state relations, the constitutional framework for management of domestic health and public order, and the legal disposition of rights and responsibilities as they arose in the events of 1919. The experience of 1919 highlighted institutional strengths of the Australian state by this period, in constitutional and governmental arrangements, and in capabilities of domestic management of health and public order.

Federal and Subnational Fiscal Power in Canada and the US

This paper examines the fiscal balance of power between national and subnational governments in Canada and the US. While it is generally acknowledged that Canadian provinces are more autonomous than American states in terms of own-source revenues and the conditionality of transfers, I argue that political dynamics within and between the two levels of government significantly impact the ability of federal governments to exercise their fiscal power on the subnational units. Even though Canada has more decentralized fiscal arrangements, the independence of its federal government and the interdependence of American federal-state relations results in a greater degree of federal fiscal power in Canada.

How the United States Flunked the COVID-19 Test: Some Observations and Several Lessons

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has already caused enormous economic and human life losses in the United States and it is still ravaging the country. In this article, the authors argue that the pandemic has exposed key issues of concern in several areas of the American government system ranging from federalist intergovernmental relations to public health system and to health care policy. These issues of concern include the strained federal-state relations in emergency management, inadequate data collection and data reporting for disease surveillance and control, politicization and diminished role of science and evidence in administrative decision making, and underinvestment in public health programs especially in minority health. Based on their analysis, the authors admonish that it is critically important for the U.S. government to learn from the failed response to the pandemic and offer several recommendations for improving its response to future public health emergencies and research in public administration.

Frankfurter, Abstention Doctrine, and the Development of Modern Federalism: A History and Three Futures

In its first century and a half, the Supreme Court never used the term “federalism” in its opinions. The Court had talked about federal-state relations before but the concept had gone unlabeled. That changed in 1939. Something new was happening, thanks in large part to Justice Felix Frankfurter. Just a month after joining the Court, Frankfurter authored the Court’s first opinion using the term “federalism.” Frankfurter introduced federalism as a key concept for analyzing the relationship between state courts and federal courts. Before long, Frankfurter would rely on federalism to fashion an original and enduring doctrine of judicial federalism: abstention, requiring federal courts to sometimes refrain from hearing cases that were within their jurisdiction. This article provides a historical study of Frankfurter’s contribution to the modern law of judicial federalism. It documents Frankfurter’s theory of federalism in his judicial opinions with a focus on the abstention cases. It also shows how the abstention cases and their concept of federalism were rooted in Frankfurter’s Progressive politics. They were a reaction to what he perceived as the federal courts’ anti-regulatory and anti-labor attitudes. The history—relevant again today, as the political discussion around the courts again echoes the Progressive era—sets the stage for considering the future of abstention. I suggest three possibilities. The first, an originalist future, would more or less maintain the contemporary Supreme Court’s current status quo on abstention, somewhat more modest than what Frankfurter envisioned: a cautious use of abstention in a relatively small number of equitable cases. A second possibility would be a liberal future that backtracks from abstention, as legal liberals recognize a cautionary lesson in Frankfurter’s hostility to an assertive, rights-protecting judiciary. The third future would be one of embracing Frankfurter’s vision of abstention in the name of judicial restraint. Abstention has potential to curb federal court power and, at least on the margins, put more adjudicative power in state courts. This possibility might bring together modern progressives, who are wary about a largely-conservative federal judiciary, with conservatives who want to promote judicial restraint and an increase in democratic accountability.

Model and determinants of state-local governments’ relations in Nigeria

Abstract Nigeria struggles to establish and sustain cooperative, interdependent state-local intergovernmental relations (IGR) by providing for the powers and rights of local governments in the federal constitution. Despite the provisions, the practice of state-local IGR has remained inclusive, hierarchical, dependent and competitive. This paper investigates the extent to which constitutional provisions determine state-local relations as against the macrostructure of intergovernmental relations between the federal government and states. The authors argue that it is difficult to expect a cooperative, interdependent, state-local IGR through constitutional provisions of the powers and rights of local governments, if the federal-state relations, which should be the determining framework of IGR is inclusive, hierarchical and dependent. The paper suggests that the lower forms of IGR in a federation (e.g. the state-local IGR), largely depend on the super-structure, which is that between the federal government and the lower tiers. The implication is that the level of autonomy enjoyed by local governments largely depends on the level of autonomy the states themselves enjoy.

Public Land and Resources Law in the American West: Time for Another Comprehensive Review?

The federal public lands, a defining characteristic of the American West, are embroiled in change and controversy. This is nothing new as these lands have long ignited passions linked to debates over resource development versus protection and federal-state relations. During the past fifty years, however, changes engulfing the region have helped enflame these historic debates, driven by unparalleled population growth, major economic and social shifts, water conflicts, energy development demands, climate change impacts, emergent recreational and environmental values, new scientific knowledge, extensive litigation, reduced agency budgets, new community-based collaborative initiatives, and the like. These remarkable changes are testing the legal and institutional framework governing the public lands, which has changed little during the past fifty years despite recurrent criticism directed toward its shortcomings. In fact, the last comprehensive review of federal public land and resource law occurred during the 1960s, when the Public Land Law Review Commission convened and issued a groundbreaking report that helped prompt much-needed legal reforms, such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Forest Management Act, Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act, and Public Rangelands Improvement Act. Given the level of controversy prevailing on the public lands today, this Article addresses the question whether the time has come for another comprehensive review of the relevant laws governing these publicly owned lands and their resources. The Article identifies the changes that are inexorably reshaping public land policies, reviews past efforts through federal commissions to examine and reform the laws governing these lands, and assesses the prospects for another comprehensive review. Noting the extreme level of controversy and distrust that persists today, it concludes by proposing a more limited review effort, one focused on accelerating recreational uses and conflicts that may present an opportunity to achieve consensus for the sake of the landscape that everyone is sharing and values.

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.

Reflections of a Torts Teacher on the Bench

AbstractI have been a judge for twenty-four years and have taught Torts for sixty years. What has all that taught me about Torts, about federal-state relations in this field, and about judges and judging? The first thing I learned is how important Torts and Torts reasoning are in many areas that we don’t think of as being traditionally Torts. The second thing I have come to realize is how significant federal preemption has become to the field. The third thing I have come to understand is why judges and judicial lawmaking are particularly important in Torts: the people who are active in pushing and resisting Torts “reforms” before legislatures are bound to be repeat players; courts, instead, are invoked by non-repeat parties. My fourth realization upon becoming a judge is a completely different one: there are situations in traditional Torts-negligence law that seem sufficiently rare to require little attention but are, in fact, central to areas of law that a federal judge sees all the time. My fifth point has to do with how little federal judges in general, and federal appellate judges in particular, know or understand about Tort law. My last reflections go to something of a totally other sort. And that is the difference I have come to see in the roles of scholars and of judges. It is often said of judges that they should “do justice though the heavens fall.” That is, of course, nonsense. A judge who truly risked causing the heavens to fall would be thrown off the bench in no time. The role of scholars is quite different. As scholars, our role is to tell and write the truth as we have come to see it, fully and courageously, though the heavens fall. Our job is to look in dark places, shine light on what we believe is really going on, and reveal what is actually occurring in the face of the human subterfuges and legal fictions that obscure the truth.

Cooperative Federalism and Policy Implementation: The Children’s Health Insurance Program for the Latino Population

With ongoing debates in Washington about the proper role of government in the provision of health care, especially during tight fiscal times, this paper examines current federal-state relations on the implementation of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The paper focuses specifically on the cooperative nature of the relationship between federal and state governments with regards to insuring low-income, uninsured Latino children. While the cooperative nature will continue, program implementation will be difficult to maintain in the future because of the uncertainties of resources provided to the states, commitment of political leaders to the program’s goals, the complexity of joint action involved, and the diversity of the Latino population. The theoretical framework, program context, and findings of this research are specifically discussed.

The Implications of Petroleum Conflict in the Context of the Federal Government and the Kelantan State Government Relations

Malaysia is one of those countries that rely on petroleum-based revenues as one of its main sources of national income. The majority of its oil fields are found in the coasts of Kelantan, Terengganu, Sabah and Sarawak. Upon the discovery of these, Malaysia had incorporated a national petroleum company named “Petronas” on 17th August 1974 to manage all related matters to exploration and exploitation of petroleum in the country. Subsequently, on 1st October 1974, the Parliament had passed Petroleum Development Act 1974 that, inter alia, gives the power and right for exploration and exploitation of petroleum to Petronas and to pay 5% of oil royalty to the petroleum-producing states. However, due to ideological differences between the federal government and the state government of Kelantan, this lucrative natural source has found itself at the center of conflict between the two. The study analyzes the implication of such a petroleum-based conflict against the federal-state relations within a context of a democratic Malaysia. In order to so, as far as oil royalty payment arrangement is concerned, the concept of federalism was applied as a tool of analysis to evaluate the extent of the effectiveness of the relations between the federal government and the state government of Kelantan. Pursuant to that, the discussion of this study revolves around qualitative data approach based on documents related to the oil royalty agreement between the federal government and state government of Kelantan. The analysis has indicated that Malaysia, as a federalist country, has failed to put into practice the true concept of federalism. One of the major reasons behind this was conflicting political interests. The impacts of such could be seen from the distinctive way the federal government treated the state governments, in this case Kelantan, whose state government was formed by the opposition political party. The Malaysian federal government's extensive power and the different constitutional interpretation also contributes to the conflict especially in the context of the federal legislative policies that often being perceived as discriminating against the state government.

The Governors’ Lobbyists: Federal–State Relations Offices and Governors Associations in Washington. By Jennifer M. Jensen. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016. 288p. $75.00 cloth.

The Governors’ Lobbyists: Federal–State Relations Offices and Governors Associations in Washington. By Jennifer M. Jensen. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016. 288p. $75.00 cloth.

The Securitization of Migrant Workers in Sabah, Malaysia

In the past decades, the Malaysia’s economy, particularly in Sabah, faced high dependence on migrant workers, predominantly Indonesian and Filipino workers. This over-reliance on migrant workers made the ruling elites in the country fear that their dominant presence would undermine the government’s policy to move Malaysia from a labor intensive to an automation in order to achieve the status of a developed nation, as well as a policy to prioritize locals over foreigners in all economic sectors. In order to implement this policy and to break the economic sectors from continuing to rely on the foreigners, the ruling elites have continuously associated migrant workers, especially illegal laborers, as a security threat that needs to be flushed out. This paper utilizes the Copenhagen School framework of securitization to explain why the securitizing actors, namely the politicians and the ruling elites, continue to frame Indonesian and the Filipino workers in Sabah as security issue. Two case studies are presented to examine the securitization of migrant workers in Sabah: first, “All-out war against illegals” and Ops Nyah II, 2002–03 and second, Ops Nasihat, 2004–05. However, this paper argues that making illegal migrant workers as security issue and form a sound policy to control immigrants cannot solely rely on the speech act and power of persuasion, as central in the theory because other condition factors, namely the domestic politics of the state, the federal-state relations, nature of state economy, and international pressures, are also significant in explaining why the government has never been consistent in its policy on migrant workers in Sabah.

Political Voice

Political Voice

The Every Student Succeeds Act, the Decline of the Federal Role in Education Policy, and the Curbing of Executive Authority

This article analyzes the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 and the evolving role of the federal government in educational policy. We rely on John Kingdon’s policy window framework to evaluate how key political constituencies on both the political right and left pressured Congress to limit both the executive branch and federal roles in educational policy. We find that policies during the Obama Administration shifted political attitudes on key issues and within key constituencies that had previously supported a stronger federal role. We conclude with a discussion of how this shift in federal education policy can yield insights applicable to other policy areas and also how this informs the current direction of federal–state relations.

The Governors’ Lobbyists: Federal-State Relations Offices and Governors Associations in Washington, by Jennifer M. Jensen

The Governors’ Lobbyists: Federal-State Relations Offices and Governors Associations in Washington, by Jennifer M. Jensen

The State of American Federalism 2016–2017: Policy Reversals and Partisan Perspectives on Intergovernmental Relations

Unified Republican Party control of the federal government after the 2016 election brought a reversal of several Obama administration policies, especially those adopted via executive and administrative action in areas such as immigration, energy, the environment, and LGBT rights. The 2016 election also prompted a reversal of partisan perspectives with respect to federal-state relations, as Republicans in Washington moved to preempt state discretion in various areas, whereas Democrats in state capitols challenged the legality of presidential actions and resisted federal efforts to constrain state and local discretion. In this essay, we discuss these themes through an analysis of developments in 2016 and early 2017 regarding health care, immigration, education, marijuana, and energy and environmental policy. We also consider key U.S. Supreme Court decisions affecting the contours of state policymaking.

The Taft Lecture: Living Under Someone Else's Law

This paper explores the differences between vertical and horizontal federalism. Vertical federalism is so familiar that we can recite the reasons to value states’ role in our federal system as easily as children recite the alphabet. The law of horizontal federalism, in contrast, has mostly developed within its doctrinal silos - the Dormant Commerce Clause, personal jurisdiction, the Full Faith and Credit Clause.This papers makes two points. First, it’s both strange and instructive that the two halves of “Our Federalism” have developed so differently given that they are both preoccupied with the same problem: what happens when one government invades another’s turf? Vertical federalism offers a single narrative for adjudicating federal-state relations. We ask the same question in every case - how should we think of federal-state relations writ large? - and unsurprisingly gets the same answer in every case. Horizontal federalism, meanwhile, resolves state-federal tussles issue by issue, problem by problem, domain by domain. Rather than focusing on a single big question - how should we think of state-state relations writ large? - it emphasizes context and facts on the ground and a myriad of doctrinal questions writ small. It thus lacks what vertical federalism theory has long provided: a broad-gauged account of how our governing institutions ought to interact. Second, if we’re going to build an overarching narrative for horizontal federalism, it shouldn’t be the story scholars have offered thus far. The moral of that story is that no one should be forced to live under someone else’s law. But that tale is premised on an outdated attachment to state sovereignty and an unrealistic impulse to tamp down on state spillovers. The paper thus sketches an alternative, democratically inflected account that we should deploy going forward.