Abstract
Changing conceptions of liberty and equality in the United States have given rise in recent decades to a new, coercive phase of American federalism in which the federal government engages in unprecedented regulation of state and local governments and displacement of their sovereign powers. This coercive federalism reflects a shift in federal policy-making from places (i.e., state and local jurisdictions) to persons (i.e., individual citizens). In order to protect individual rights and provide benefits to persons, the federal government has increasingly pre-empted state and local powers and required state and local governments to implement federal policies and comply with federal rules. As a result, the federal government is occupying a more monopolistic position in the federal system. Acting more like a monopolist, the federal government has sought to suppress intergovernmental competition in the federal system and has fewer incentives to behave as a co-operative partner with state and local governments.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bowman, Ann O’M. and Richard C. Kearney, (1986) The Resurgence of the States (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) 347 US 483 and 349 US 294, 1955.
Choper, Jesse H. (1980) Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Clark, Jane Perry (1938) The Rise of a New Federalism: Federal-State Cooperation in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press).
Coleman v. Thompson (1991) 111 S. Ct. 2546.
Corwin, Edward S. (1941) Constitutional Revolution Ltd. (Claremont, CA: Claremont Colleges).
Dye, Thomas R. (1990) American Federalism: Competition Among Governments (Lexington, MA: D.C. Health).
Elazar, Daniel J. (1962) The American Partnership: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Nineteenth-Century United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Elazar, Daniel J. (1987) Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press).
Federalist Papers, The (1961) (Edited by Clinton Rossiter.) (New York: New American Library).
Freund, Paul A. (1968) ‘The Supreme Court and the Future of Federalism’, in Samuel I. Shuman (ed.), The Future of Federalism (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press).
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) 469 US 528. Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991) 111 S. Ct. 2395.
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1944) The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Hertzke, Allen D. and Ronald M. Peters (eds) (1992) The Atomistic Congress: An Interpretation of Congressional Change (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe).
Kearney, Richard C. and Reginald S. Sheehan (1992) ‘Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation’, The Journal of Politics, 54 (November), pp. 1008–25.
Kenyon, Daphne A. and John Kincaid (eds) (1991) Competition among States and Local Governments: Efficiency and Equity in American Federalism (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press).
Kincaid, John (1987) ‘Frank Hague and Franklin Roosevelt: The Hudson Dictator and the Country Democrat’, in Herbert D. Rosenbaum and Elizabeth Bartelme (eds), Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Man, The Myth, The Era (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press).
Kincaid, John (1990) ‘From Co-operative to Coercive Federalism’ The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 509 (May), pp. 139–52.
Kincaid, John (1993a) ‘Constitutional Federalism: Labor’s Role in Displacing Places to Benefit Persons’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 26 (June), pp. 172–7.
Kincaid, John (1993b) ‘Consumership versus Citizenship: Is There Wiggle Room for Local Regulation in the Global Economy?’, in Brian Hocking (ed.), Foreign Relations and Federal States (London: Leicester University Press), pp. 27–47.
Kincaid, John (1993c) ‘From Cooperation to Coercion in American Federalism: Housing, Fragmentation and Preemption, 1780–1992’, The Journal of Law and Politics, 9 (Winter), pp. 333–40.
Leavitt, Michael O. (1994) Conference of the States (Salt Lake City, UT: Governor’s Office) (20 March).
McConnell, Grant (1966) Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 US 33.
National Commission on the State and Local Public Service (1993) Frustrated Federalism: Rx for State and Local Health Care Reform (Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York).
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) 426 US 833.
O’Brien, David M. (1993) ‘The Rehnquist Court and Federal Preemption: In Search of a Theory’ Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 23 (Fall), pp. 15–31.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 US 537.
Reynolds v. Sims (1964) 377 US 533.
Riker, William H. (1964) Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (Boston: Little Brown).
Roe y. Wade (1973) 410 US 113.
South Carolina v. Baker (1988) 485 US 505.
South Dakota v. Dole (1987) 483 US 203.
Taylor, Charles (1993) Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press).
US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [US ACIR] (1984) Regulatory Federalism. Policy, Process, Impact and Reform Washington, DC: ACIR.
US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [US ACIR] (1991) Interjurisdictional Tax and Policy Competition: Good or Bad for the Federal System? (Washington, DC: ACIR).
US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [US ACIR] (1992) Federal Statutory Preemption of State and Local Authority (Washington, DC: ACIR).
US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [US ACIR] (1993a) Federal Regulation of State and Local Governments: The Mixed Record of the 1980s (Washington, DC: ACIR).
US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [US ACIR] (1993b) Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism (Washington, DC: ACIR).
United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) 312 US 100.
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) 376 US 1.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1995 Lüder Gerken
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kincaid, J. (1995). Liberty, Competition, and the Rise of Coercion in American Federalism. In: Gerken, L. (eds) Competition among Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781349242627_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/9781349242627_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-24264-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-24262-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)