Search Results

This chapter introduces the core themes of the book: that federalism structures the representation of interest groups; that groups with broad public interest concerns have difficulty operating in state and national legislative venues; and that the local level can sometimes offer the most pluralistic, competitive policy environment. The central argument of the book is that the federalization of crime control has resulted in a mobilization of bias in favor of governmental bureaucracies and narrow citizen interests and at the expense of broad citizen groups with a wide range of interests, particularly those that represent the communities most devastated by crime. Drawing on research on federalism, interest groups, and racial politics, this chapter suggests that understanding the environment available for interest groups at each level of government reveals how public debate on crime control is atrophied when the rich mix of loosely organized interests at the local level is absent from state and national political environments. This chapter also lays out the methodology for the research and offers a typology for understanding citizen participation in crime politics at each level of government.

The complex character of the Belgian political class is strongly shaped by institutional federalization, party fragmentation, and executive dominance in policy making. Since a national parliamentary mandate offers only limited influence in an institution with relatively scarce resources, most MPs combine their national with a local political office. Together with a local or regional party office, such a cumul local has several benefits: visibility at the local level and thus an advantage in the locally organised candidate selection, accumulation of experience for higher offices, larger personal and financial resources, and more material and executive influence at least on the local level. However, high degrees of public disaffection with the Belgian parties since the end of the 1980s have led to gradual changes in this system and a weakening of the party's grip on the political and public sector.

This account of institutional change and positional differentiation of senior officials in Germany's Federal administration is presented in five sections. Section I, ‘Senior Officials and the Reassertion of Political Authority’, is introductory and discusses the causes and implications of change in the organization and in the political and administrative roles of the senior civil service; changes identified include party politicization, parliamentarization and federalization of the national policy process, modernization initiatives, European integration, and unification. Section II gives a brief survey of the Federal senior ministerial personnel (looking at pay grade and rank, and centrality), and section III considers paths to the top, paying particular attention to the procedures for recruitment and promotion and the consequences of weak formal structures for personnel planning and development. Following on from the definition of political craft as a defining attribute of effective top officials, section IV highlights the central position of political coordination units as training grounds in the Federal administration and comments on the informal positional differentiation that they encourage. The discussion concludes in section V with an assessment of the implications of the partition of the ministerial bureaucracy between Bonn and Berlin.

This chapter examines the contribution of Isaac Butt in the agitation for Irish self-government in 1870. Butt proposed not only the dismantling of the United Kingdom but its federalisation, with England, Scotland, and Ireland having local parliaments subordinate to Westminster. He also envisaged the Irish parliament having a house of lords with veto powers. Though the home rule of 1874 failed, it was a considerable achievement for Butt because it was particularly important in keeping the land question alive. The chapter discusses the split of the home rule party in parliament during the 1877 political campaign, and describes the conflict between Butt and Charles Stewart Parnell.

With the various case studies provided by the preceding chapters in hand, this concluding chapter returns to a more global focus to consider the impact the post-crisis reforms collectively have had on the effectiveness of the corporate governance system. It looks at a wide variety of evidence, ranging from cost-benefit analyses, studies of delisting decisions by former public corporations, decisions to go public or not by start-ups, and the competitive standing of U.S. capital markets in the global economy. On balance, the evidence strongly suggests that the creeping federalization of corporate governance is producing costs well in excess of the benefits.

The chapter provides a brief intellectual biography of Friedrich and examines in detail his major contribution to the study of federalism. His distinctive approach to and understanding of federalism is revealed and a textual exegesis of his major works on federalism is conducted. Friedrich’s overall contribution to the study of federalism is characterised as wide-ranging, based upon an unusual combination of practical experience and scholarly endeavour. His intellectual feud with Riker is introduced, chronicled and appraised and his fidelity to the federal idea of Johannes Althusius as essentially about political community-building is sketched out to expose the most vivid attachment to the federal spirit among the five main theorists of federalism.

This chapter discusses federalism and centrism in Mexico. In Mexico, discussions of federalism dominate a large space in the political terrain. Under Mexico's system of presidentialism, ‘federal control’ meant centralized control by the federal executive of government at all levels of society. The chapter begins by discussing the federalization of Mexican Law and the political foundations of federal power, and the federalization by the Constitutional Amendment. It then describes the transition in Mexico's federal government, highlighting the dramatic change in the political system in 2000.

Chapter 5 introduces Part II of the book, where the analysis of the English folk resurgence is broadened out with a focus on questions of place and identity. This chapter gives a brief contextualisation of the wider cultural interest in Englishness within which the folk resurgence is situated. It points towards an interconnected set of historical and contemporary political and cultural currents including UK devolution, European federalisation, processes of immigration, and globalisation, that have contributed to an inclination towards expressions of English identity. These range from the expression of Englishness as a cultural identity to a variety of explicitly political positions which extend from left-wing ‘reclamations’ of English patriotism to far-right racist assertions of English ‘racial’ purity. English folk music and dance exists at the nexus of these multiple approaches to Englishness.

This chapter examines the possibilities that existed, before the civil war ended in Sri Lanka in 2009, for state reform in Sri Lanka in conjunction with a negotiated settlement between the government and the LTTE. It argues that the protracted ethnic conflict and civil war had made state reform both necessary and difficult in Sri Lanka. Even amidst difficulties, a sustained argument for state remaking had emerged in Sri Lanka along with a state reformist discourse. The chapter then examines different state reform models and approaches available to Sri Lanka and argues for a state reform project of deep federalization. This should bring together the goals and agendas of ethnic conflict resolution, state rebuilding, and democratization. The chapter concludes by highlighting how the ending of the civil war in 2009 has paradoxically made state reform doubly difficult in Sri Lanka.

This chapter analyses the dynamics of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) that came into being in 1999. It discusses the significance of the NDA in the context of a search for an alternative to single-party rule in India and highlights the level of understanding among the partners and maturity of the leaders of this twenty-four-party coalition that steered it through despite occasional hiccups. This chapter also describes the accomplishments of the NDA and suggests that it epitomized the federalization of Indian politics by guaranteeing legitimate space to regional political forces that remained integral to its existence.

Chapter 3 examines the complicated nature of the European legal system in the area of human trafficking and how Council of Europe and European Union legal instruments have resulted in some confusion as to their implementation in the UK. Recognising that the legal provisions affecting the situation of human trafficking in European member states and regions can be a case study in federalism, the chapter looks at the various layers of legal protections and why there can be, at times, failures in the complex systems and processes. It argues that the use of legislation to inform practice guidelines and procedures can lead to unclear processes in practice, especially when concepts of ‘appropriate’ or ‘minimum’ levels of support / intervention are not clearly defined.

This chapter documents the growth of carceral capacity during the Civil Rights era. It argues that Florida policymakers engaged in a process of penal modernization that was part of a larger state modernizing project that stemmed from racial conflict. The chapter explains how reformers drew on federal resources to develop new hiring and training requirements for police, create new state-level criminal justice bureaucracies, and implement new standards for corrections agencies. In addition, it details how Florida agencies spent Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grants between 1969 and 1979. The chapter concludes that penal modernization changed ideas about the federal and state (as opposed to local) role in crime control, significantly increased the ability of the state to arrest and process those deemed “criminal,” and created new interest groups that reinforced the role of criminal justice in social policy. While penal modernization included new progressive programs, it ultimately created the foundation on which politicians built the punitive carceral state.

This chapter describes the quiet effort by several federal agencies during the George W. Bush administration to preempt state common law litigation through aggressive administrative interpretations of federal regulatory laws in informal contexts largely out of public view. In most cases, this represented a dramatic shift from past agency practice. Perhaps for this reason, the agencies buried these new interpretations within lengthy preambles to regulations, sometimes without allowing an effective opportunity for public comment, in a process that Professors Sam Issacharoff and Catherine Sharkey have referred to as “backdoor federalization.” After taking a quick look at a short-lived attempt by the FRA to expand the range of its preemptive power during the second half of the Clinton administration, this chapter visits the three most prominent Bush administration initiatives in the contexts of food labeling regulations, automobile roof crush rules, and rules for mattress flammability.

The U.S. Supreme Court has developed an extensive decisional law on arbitration. The FAA's early enactment prevented it from incorporating major developments in the area of arbitration. The Court's rulings modernized the statute, making arbitration a vehicle by which U.S. citizens could be guaranteed access to effective adjudication. The Court gave the FAA a destiny that far exceeds the circumstances and objectives of its original enactment. The Court's rulings introduced federal question jurisdiction into the law by federalizing arbitration and thereby preempting state laws from restricting arbitration's scope of application. The court also promoted the existence of a federal policy favoring arbitration in the statute, making arbitrability the more likely conclusion of litigation. The Court also made arbitrators more powerful by allowing them to assess their own jurisdiction and interpret the arbitral clause. Finally, the Court recognized separability and greatly confined subject matter restraints on arbitration.

The Court's decisional law on arbitration is not free of ambivalence. There is a small group of cases in which the Court itself may have engaged in judicial hostility toward arbitration. Wilko v. Swan was the first decision in which the Court questioned the value of arbitration as an adjudicatory methodology. There, it allowed securities regulations to trump arbitral autonomy and depreciated the professional utility of arbitration. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver added civil rights to the list of possible limits on arbitrability, and Commonwealth Coatings required arbitrators to comply with legal standards regarding disclosures. When courts adjudged arbitrators partial, the award became an unenforceable nullity. Thereafter, Volt Information Sciences undermined federalization and Hall Street Associates removed the possibility of party control over vacatur. Finally, Stolt-Nielsen seemed to authorize judicial merits review of awards. Each of these decisions indicated that the Court was reconsidering its favorable position on arbitration.

Although many assume that the federal government always had a leading role in anticancer efforts, it only gained this status in the middle of the 1950s. Chapter 4 explores how the government “federalized” cancer as a national problem. This mobilization did not come from within the pre-Second World War community of cancer experts but from new ways of discussing cancer as a curable children’s disease and of understanding the potential impact of biomedical research on national well-being. A key figure for understanding this transition was the New Deal activist Mary Lasker, who reoriented anticancer efforts from opposing to supporting federal intervention, especially in the new field of chemotherapy, where public expectation rapidly exceeded philanthropic capacity.

This chapter sets a particular thesis focused on the institutional structure of the American political system within the context of a broader literature in the comparative political economy of crime and punishment. It then considers three possible objections to this analysis. The first argues that increasing American exceptionalism in the postwar period is to be explained primarily in terms of a distinctive history and politics of race. The next is the argument that this exceptionalism is to be attributed primarily to national policy driven by the federal government. The final argument is that American exceptionalism is driven by the interests of political elites who are relatively disconnected from the interests of their electors. Each of these objections, the chapter suggests, can be met.

This chapter provides an overview regarding the federalization of corporate governance as an evolutionary process. From this perspective, the chapter examines both state and federal law that impact corporate governance. As the chapter explains, from a historical perspective, the states emerged as the primary regulator of corporate governance. Today, Delaware has emerged as the preeminent state where publicly-held corporations elect to incorporate. Nonetheless, federal law, even from a traditional perspective, impacted corporate governance, such as the SEC’s shareholder proposal rule adopted over 75 years ago. With the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, SEC rules adopted under the authority of these statutes, and the emergence of stricter substantive listing requirements mandated by the national stock exchanges, federal law principles are now firmly established.

This chapter focuses on the important role that the national stock exchanges play in the federalization of corporate governance. Responding to federal legislative and SEC directives and, at times, acting on their own initiative, the stock exchanges have promulgated meaningful rules that comprise a significant component of the corporate governance landscape. Although technically not government regulation, the national stock exchanges play a central role in the enhancement of sound corporate governance practices and policies. Examples include the emphasis by the exchanges on independent directors, board committees (including audit, compensation, and nominating committees), and corporate codes of ethics. Hence, when addressing the federalization of corporate governance, stock exchange regulation is to be given prominent status.