Which of the following is the primary controversy regarding federal grants-in-aid?
|
This title is currently out of print, but online booksellers sometimes have used copies available. See links below. Show Read the full PDF. Buy the book. Introduction The study of federal grants, like many other aspects of our political system, is overlaid with much conventional wisdom. It is a topic that has generated more heat than light, more political rhetoric than political insight. The purpose of this monograph is to review the several systematic studies that exist in the field, to assess the overall effects of grant programs on what today is called intergovernmental relations, and to offer some thoughts about possible reforms. In recent years, the problem of intergovernmental relations has become a major domestic issue. Indeed federal grant activity has reached such proportions, particularly since 1964, that the terms “new federalism” and “cooperative federalism,” all coined in the 1930s, are deemed insufficiently descriptive. Instead, the phrase “creative federalism” has attained prominence in the political arena, and scholarly literature has identified several new streams of federalism, “direct” and “private” serving as two illustrations. In this context, it seems appropriate to ask several questions that should concern the public official and private citizen alike. These questions, listed below, form the basis of this monograph.
Given the problems associated with federal grants, what modifications and alternatives have been proposed and which one(s) appears most feasible and most conducive to a viable federal system? It is appropriate at the outset to state the general value orientation underlying this study. The author is concerned about the impact of proliferated federal programs on our federal system. This concern springs from no fundamental animus against federal action, but rather from regard for the vitality of state and local governments. These governmental units have existed in a state of tension throughout our political history, subjected variously to direct assault or quiet erosion depending on the social, economic, or political challenge of the moment. The outcome of successive encounters between centralizing and decentralizing forces is not easy to measure. Most political observers agree that some centralization has occurred in the century since the Civil War. Beyond this general agreement, there are two difficult, open questions: (1) how much centralization has occurred? and (2) has it been appropriate and desirable or inappropriate and undesirable? The difficulty with the first question is that we have no objective or universally accepted criteria for measuring the locus of power. Despite some progress in conceptual clarity, as well as much debate with sociologists on measurement, an understanding of power remains one of the elusive aims of political scientists. The power problem lies at the center of debate over federal grants-in-aid. In early studies of federalism, governmental power was viewed as a fixed quantum. If the national government increased the scope of its activities (its power), the power of state-local governments was assumed to have been diminished. As long as the legal approach to the study of federalism prevailed, there was a strong tendency to see the power question in either-or, win-lose terms. This view, born of the emergent phase of U.S. federalism and nurtured in the legal doctrines of dual federalism, gave rise to the “separate spheres” interpretation of the nature of federalism. But it is now generally accepted that power is not a fixed quantum. In other words, there is some “slack” or “looseness” in the political system (or outside it) that may be exploited to develop or widen a power base. The acquisition of more power by one participant, then, does not produce an absolute reduction in the power of others. In the language of game theory, politics (or intergovernmental relations) is not a zero-sum game. Translated into current analyses of intergovernmental relationships, this gives rise to the following types of observation: “The national government is doing more and so are the states; therefore, the states have not been reduced in status.” The point frequently overlooked in such discussions, however, is that the relative power of different governmental units vis-a-vis each other is probably of equal importance to their absolute power. Thus, the first question should be restated to emphasize trends in relative power positions. The second open question involves more than different interpretations of facts and events. It is the fulcrum on which many policy differences turn, differences that tend to divide our two political parties as well as create cleavages within them. Part of the function of this monograph is to clarify these and other differences as they relate to policy questions about federal grants-in-aid. In portions of this study, I have utilized the concept of “perspectives” as a central organizing theme. The term is employed to mean the opinions, attitudes, and evaluations of governmental officials who are responsible for proposing, enacting, and administering federal grant programs. For the most part, these perspectives are documented by systematic and standardized data collection procedures. My intention is to provide, as nearly as possible, a representative sampling of the perspectives of officials most “in the know” about how grant programs function. Representativeness is especially important in view of the many factors operating throughout the political process to screen in favorable data and screen out unfavorable data. A final caveat is in order. These attitudinal perspectives, along with less systematically-gathered historical, descriptive, and evaluative data, form the basis for interpretations and conclusions that are conditioned by the author’s personal views. However, the study contains sufficient, if not extra amounts of objective material to inform readers on aspects of grants that were previously undisclosed and to permit them to work out their own enlightened views. Read the full PDF. Why are grantsWhich of these is the primary controversy regarding federal grants-in-aid? The money comes with strings attached, which allows the national government too much control over state policy making.
What is one of the biggest problems with federal block grants quizlet?What is one of the biggest problems with federal block grants? There is a need for greater accountability in how the funds are actually spent by the states. There is a need to be sure that the states are following the precise regulations established by the federal government.
Why does the federal government make grantsfederal grants given to state and local governments for broad purposes, such as welfare, community development, public health, or education. States usually prefer block grants because they are designed to allow state officials to spend the money as they see fit.
What is a primary distinction between categorical Project grants and other federal grant programs?Unlike the broad funding that the federal government often provides to people, categorical grants involve money being allocated toward specific projects.
|
