Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T21:09:35.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

States as Stakeholders: Federalism, Policy Feedback, and Government Elites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2017

Andrew Karch  and
Shanna Rose
Andrew Karch*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota
Shanna Rose
Affiliation:
Government Department, Claremont McKenna College
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Politicians and program administrators played a central role in early studies of policy feedback but have largely been superseded by a focus on mass publics. This article attempts to revive and reorient the study of elite feedback effects by investigating, in the context of American federalism, whether and how national programs can influence the incentives and resources of state government officials. It examines four case studies in which national officials adopted a new program and subsequently tried to alter it by diminishing the states’ administrative role, reducing the financial resources available, or terminating the program. State-level actors emerged as critical stakeholders and strongly resisted national efforts to reform unemployment insurance and Medicaid, but neither the Sheppard-Towner Act nor general revenue sharing generated strong elite-level feedback effects. This variation suggests that timing (i.e., the political, economic, and administrative context), policy design (financial generosity, administrative discretion, duration of authorization, and coalition potential), and their interaction can prompt or discourage government elites to mobilize.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , April 2017 , pp. 47 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors thank Kimberley Johnson, Carol Weissert, and the editors and reviewers for their constructive feedback on earlier drafts of the article, and Aaron Rosenthal and Jordan Sisson for superb research assistance.

References

1. Schattschneider, E. E., Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935)Google Scholar.

2. Pierson, Paul, “Public Policies as Institutions,” in Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Skowronek, Stephen, and Galvin, Daniel (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 114–31Google Scholar.

3. Patashnik, Eric M. and Zelizer, Julian E., “The Struggle to Remake Politics: Liberal Reform and the Limits of Policy Feedback in the Contemporary American State,” Perspectives on Politics 11 (2013): 1071–87, 1075Google Scholar.

4. Campbell, Andrea Louise, “Policy Makes Mass Politics,” Annual Review of Political Science 15 (2012): 333–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Patashnik, Eric M., Reforms at Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes Are Enacted (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Patashnik and Zelizer, “Struggle to Remake Politics.”

5. Heclo, Hugh, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), 315 Google Scholar.

6. Orloff, Ann Shola and Skocpol, Theda, “Why Not Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Social Spending in Britain, 1900–1911, and the United States, 1880s–1920,” American Sociological Review 49 (1984): 725–50, 730Google Scholar.

7. Heclo, Modern Social Politics; Hall, Peter A., “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain,” Comparative Politics 25 (1993): 275–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Derthick, Martha, Policymaking for Social Security (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1979)Google Scholar.

9. Ikenberry, G. John, Reasons of State: Oil Politics and the Capacities of American Government (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

10. Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Pierson, Paul, “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change,” World Politics 45 (1993): 595–628, 616CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Heclo, Modern Social Politics, 321.

13. Pierson, “When Effect Becomes Cause.”

14. Hall, “Policy Paradigms,” 276.

15. For an especially thoughtful summary of research on feedback effects on mass publics see Campbell, “Policy Makes Mass Politics.”

16. Campbell, Andrea Louise, How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Citizen Activism and the American Welfare State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Campbell, Andrea Louise, “Participatory Reactions to Policy Threats: Senior Citizens and the Defense of Social Security and Medicare,” Political Behavior 25 (2003): 29–49 Google Scholar; Mettler, Suzanne, “Bringing the State Back In to Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the G. I. Bill for World War II Veterans,” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 351–65Google Scholar; Soss, Joe, “Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning, and Political Action,” American Political Science Review 93 (1999): 363–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. This broad conceptualization encompasses “lock-in” effects whereby the policy status quo persists over time, as well as “positive” feedback whereby a policy expands over time.

18. Pierson, “When Effect Becomes Cause,” 603–604.

19. Howard, Christopher, “Workers’ Compensation, Federalism, and the Heavy Hand of History,” Studies in American Political Development 16 (2002): 28–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Karch, Andrew, Early Start: Preschool Politics in the United States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

21. Brown, Lawrence D. and Sparer, Michael S., “Poor People's Progress: The Unanticipated Politics of Medicaid Policy,” Health Affairs 22 (2003): 31–44 Google Scholar; Grogan, Colleen and Patashnik, Eric, “Between Welfare Medicine and Mainstream Entitlement: Medicaid at the Political Crossroads,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 28 (2003): 821–58Google Scholar; Rose, Shanna, Financing Medicaid: Federalism and the Growth of America's Health Care Safety Net (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

22. Pierson, Paul, “Fragmented Welfare States: Federal Institutions and the Development of Social Policy,” Governance 8 (1995): 449–78Google Scholar.

23. Campbell, “Policy Makes Mass Politics,” 346. This focus on the “political or economic stream” differs from other treatments of timing that emphasize when specific events occur relative to other unfolding historical processes or the order in which particular developments occur. See Hacker, Jacob S., The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pierson, Paul, “Not Just What But When: Timing and Sequence in Political Processes,” Studies in American Political Development 14 (2000): 72–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pierson, Paul, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

24. Stimson, James A., Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991)Google Scholar.

25. Berry, Christopher R., Burden, Barry C., and Howell, William G., “After Enactment: The Lives and Deaths of Federal Programs,” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2010): 1–17 Google Scholar; Maltzman, Forrest and Shipan, Charles R., “Change, Continuity, and the Evolution of the Law,” American Journal of Political Science 52 (2008): 252–67Google Scholar.

26. Patashnik, Reforms at Risk; Pierson, “Public Policies as Institutions.”

27. Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen, The Search for American Political Development (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schickler, Eric, Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

28. Skowronek, Stephen, The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to George Bush (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 443 Google Scholar.

29. Bowman, Ann O'M. and Kearney, Richard C., The Resurgence of the States (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986)Google Scholar; Teaford, Jon C., The Rise of the States: Evolution of American State Government (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

30. Campbell, “Policy Makes Mass Politics.”

31. Campbell, How Policies Make Citizens; Mettler, “Bringing the State Back In.”

32. Lieberman, Robert C., Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

33. Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, 13.

34. Lindblom, Charles E., The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making through Mutual Adjustment (New York: Free Press, 1965), 140 Google Scholar.

35. March, James G., A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen (New York: Free Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

36. Patashnik and Zelizer, “Struggle to Remake Politics,” 1074.

37. Derthick, Martha, Keeping the Compound Republic: Essays on American Federalism (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2001)Google Scholar.

38. Robertson, David Brian, Federalism and the Making of America (New York: Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar.

39. Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D., Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 31 Google Scholar.

40. Nugent, John D., Safeguarding Federalism: How States Protect Their Interests in National Policymaking (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2009), 21 Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., 41–45. State officials do not always want to increase the size of existing programs. As the unemployment insurance case study in this article illustrates, sometimes the goal of their lobbying is to preserve their policymaking discretion to keep benefit levels low.

42. Cammisa, Anne Marie, Governments as Interest Groups: Intergovernmental Lobbying and the Federal System (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995)Google Scholar; Haider, Donald H., When Governments Come to Washington: Governors, Mayors, and Intergovernmental Lobbying (Washington, DC: Free Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Herian, Mitchel N., Governing the States and the Nation: The Intergovernmental Policy Influence of the National Governors Association (Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

43. Wechsler, Herbert, “The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government,” Columbia Law Review 54 (1954): 543–60Google Scholar. See also Nugent, Safeguarding Federalism.

44. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers.

45. Bailey, Michael A. and Rom, Mark Carl, “A Wider Race? Interstate Competition across Health and Welfare Programs,” Journal of Politics 66 (2004): 326–47Google Scholar; Besley, Timothy and Case, Anne, “Incumbent Behavior: Vote-Seeking, Tax-Setting, and Yardstick Competition,” American Economic Review 85 (1995): 25–45 Google Scholar; Volden, Craig, “The Politics of Competitive Federalism: A Race to the Bottom in Welfare Benefits?” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2002): 352–63Google Scholar.

46. Johnson, Kimberley S., Governing the American State: Congress and the New Federalism, 1877–1929 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Welch, Susan and Thompson, Kay, “The Impact of Federal Incentives on State Policy Innovations,” American Journal of Political Science 24 (1980): 715–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47. Table 1 also reveals that differences in the programs’ long-term trajectories should not be attributed to the size of their enacting coalitions. All four policies received strong congressional support upon their adoption, which has been associated with policy durability. See Maltzman and Shipan, “Change, Continuity, and the Evolution of the Law.”

48. Clemens, Elisabeth S., “Lineages of the Rube Goldberg State: Building and Blurring Public Programs, 1900–1940,” in Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Skowronek, Stephen, and Galvin, Daniel (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 187–215 Google Scholar. See also Johnson, Governing the American State.

49. Jacobs, Alan M. and Weaver, R. Kent, “When Policies Undo Themselves: Self-Undermining Feedback as a Source of Policy Change,” Governance 28 (2015): 441–57Google Scholar; Patashnik and Zelizer, “Struggle to Remake Politics.”

50. George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

51. Ragin, Charles C., “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research,” in Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 123–38Google Scholar.

52. George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development, 27.

53. Ibid.

54. Perkins, Frances, The Roosevelt I Knew (New York: Penguin, 1946)Google Scholar.

55. Witte, Edwin E., “‘Federalization’ of Unemployment Compensation?” American Labor Legislation Review 32 (1942): 41–8Google Scholar.

56. Downey, Kristin, The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life and Legacy of Frances Perkins—Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and the Minimum Wage (New York: Anchor Books, 2009)Google Scholar.

57. Perkins, Roosevelt I Knew, 279.

58. Lieberman, Shifting the Color Line; Skocpol, Theda and Ikenberry, G. John, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State in Historical and Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Social Research 6 (1983): 87–148 Google Scholar.

59. Perkins, Roosevelt I Knew, 279.

60. House Committee on Ways and Means, Economic Security Act: Hearings on H.R. 4120, 74th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 4, 1935, pp. 861–71.

61. Witte, Edwin E., “An Historical Account of Unemployment Insurance in the Social Security Act,” Law and Contemporary Problems 3 (1936): 157–69, 166Google Scholar.

62. Witte, Edwin E., “Development of Unemployment Compensation,” Yale Law Journal 55 (1945): 21–52 Google Scholar.

63. Quoted in House Committee on Ways and Means, Economic Security Act, pp. 882–83.

64. Committee on Economic Security, Report to the President (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1935)Google Scholar.

65. Ibid.

66. Altmeyer, Arthur J., The Formative Years of Social Security (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966), 134 Google Scholar.

67. Witte, “‘Federalization’ of Unemployment Compensation,” 42.

68. Hight, Joseph E., “Unemployment Insurance: Changes in the Federal-State Balance,” University of Detroit Journal of Urban Law 59 (1982): 615–29, 617Google Scholar.

69. Altmeyer, Formative Years, 132.

70. Blaustein, Saul J., O'Leary, Christopher J., and Wandner, Stephen A., “Policy Issues,” in Employment Insurance in the United States: Analysis of Policy Issues, ed. O'Leary, Christopher J. and Wandner, Stephen A. (Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute, 1997), 1–49, 37Google Scholar.

71. Witte, “‘Federalization’ of Unemployment Compensation.”

72. Ikenberry, G. John and Skocpol, Theda, “Expanding Social Benefits: The Role of Social Security,” Political Science Quarterly 102 (1987): 389–416 Google Scholar.

73. “Oppose Job Federalization,” New York Times, November 20, 1941.

74. “All States Oppose Job Insurance Federalization,” Los Angeles Times, September 1, 1945.

75. Blaustein, Saul J., Unemployment Insurance in the United States: The First Half Century (Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute, 1993), 187 Google Scholar.

76. The Post-War Problems Survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center in March 1942 and was based on 2,505 interviews. Other responses included “Don't know” (14 percent), “Neither” (2 percent), and “Both” (1 percent).

77. Pierson, Paul, “The Creeping Nationalization of Income Transfers in the United States, 1935–94,” in European Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration, ed. Leibfried, Stephan and Pierson, Paul (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1995), 301–28, 325Google Scholar.

78. Harpham, Edward J., “Federalism, Keynesianism, and the Transformation of the Unemployment Insurance System in the United States,” in Nationalizing Social Security in Europe and America, ed. Ashford, Douglas E. and Kelley, E. W. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), 155–79, 161Google Scholar.

79. Blaustein et al., “Policy Issues.”

80. Louis Stark, “Move to Federalize Jobless Benefits Meets Heavy Barrage of Criticism,” New York Times, April 1, 1949.

81. Haber, William and Murray, Merrill G., Unemployment Insurance in the American Economy (Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1966)Google Scholar.

82. Lieberman, Shifting the Color Line, 185.

83. Hight, “Unemployment Insurance.”

84. James C. Hyatt, “Updating Jobless Aid,” Wall Street Journal, April 22, 1974.

85. Lieberman, Shifting the Color Line, 212. The racial implications of policy change were also important, as southerners worried that it would promote the expansion of coverage to occupations in which African American workers were concentrated.

86. Whittaker, Julie M. and Isaacs, Katelin P., Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014)Google Scholar.

87. Weir, Margaret, Politics and Jobs: The Boundaries of Employment Policy in the United States (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 141–42Google Scholar.

88. Brooks, Glenn E., When Governors Convene: The Governors’ Conference and National Politics (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

89. C. P. Trussell, “Senate Approves 389 Million in Aid to Jobless Areas,” New York Times, March 24, 1959.

90. Lieberman, Shifting the Color Line, 177.

91. Graetz, Michael J. and Mashaw, Jerry L., True Security: Rethinking American Social Insurance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), 79 Google Scholar.

92. The law was sponsored by Senator Morris Sheppard (D-TX) and Representative Horace Mann Towner (R-IA).

93. Rothman, Sheila M., Woman's Proper Place: A History of Changing Ideals and Practices, 1870 to the Present (New York: Basic Books, 1978)Google Scholar; Schmidt, William M., “The Development of Health Services for Mothers and Children in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health 63 (1973): 419–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers.

94. For more on the creation and early activities of the federal Children's Bureau see Lemons, J. Stanley, The Woman Citizen: Social Feminism in the 1920s (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1990)Google Scholar; Lindenmeyer, Kriste, “A Right to Childhood”: The U.S. Children's Bureau and Child Welfare, 1912–46 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Meckel, Richard A., Save the Babies: American Public Health Reform and the Prevention of Infant Mortality, 1850–1929 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Rothman, Woman's Proper Place; and Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers.

95. Meckel, Save the Babies, 205.

96. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers.

97. Senate Committee on Public Health and National Quarantine, Hearing on S. 3259, 66th Cong., 2nd sess., May 12, 1920, p. 27.

98. Chepaitis, Joseph B., “Federal Social Welfare Progressivism in the 1920s,” Social Service Review 46 (1972): 213–29, 218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99. Meckel, Save the Babies, 211.

100. Rothman, Woman's Proper Place, 141.

101. Lemons, Woman Citizen, 169.

102. Meckel, Save the Babies, 211.

103. Eleventh Annual Report of the Chief, Children's Bureau, to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1923 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1923), 1–2 Google Scholar.

104. Lindenmeyer, “A Right to Childhood,” 93.

105. Lemons, Woman Citizen.

106. Illinois was the other state that did not participate in the program.

107. The Plant Quarantine and Control Administration of the Department of Agriculture provided $5,000,000 for this purpose during the 1929 fiscal year. All figures in this paragraph come from House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Extension of Maternity and Infancy Act: Report to Accompany H.R. 17183, Report No. 2751, 70th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 26, 1929, Exhibit H, p. 18.

108. Lemons, Woman Citizen, 158. Political scientist Kimberley Johnson attributes the phrase “pitifully small” to Julia Lathrop, the Children's Bureau's first director. See Johnson, Governing the American State, 144.

109. Rothman, Woman's Proper Place.

110. Meckel, Save the Babies, 218.

111. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 513.

112. Johnson, Governing the American State, 137.

113. Chepaitis, “Federal Social Welfare Progressivism,” 223.

114. Johnson, Governing the American State, 149.

115. House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Extension of Public Protection of Maternity and Infancy Act: Hearing on H.R. 7555, 69th Cong., 1st sess., January 14, 1926.

116. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 520.

117. Johnson, Governing the American State, 140.

118. House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Extension of Public Protection, pp. 10–11.

119. While there is general agreement that the clout of female voters had declined by the mid-1920s, Kimberley Johnson convincingly argues that the extension's large margin of victory in the House indicates that support for the Sheppard-Towner Act did not completely collapse. See Johnson, Governing the American State, 149–50.

120. Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Amend the Maternity Act: Report to Accompany H.R. 7555, Report No. 745, 69th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 1926, p. 2.

121. Burrow, James G., AMA: Voice of American Medicine (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Starr, Paul, The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry (New York: Basic Books, 1982)Google Scholar.

122. Zelizer, Julian E., Taxing America: Wilbur D. Mills, Congress, and the State, 1945–1975 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 262 Google Scholar.

123. House Committee on Ways and Means, Medical Care for the Aged, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., January 22, 1964, p. 1587.

124. Marmor, Theodor, The Politics of Medicare (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2000)Google Scholar.

125. Ibid.; see also Zelizer, Taxing America.

126. Marmor, The Politics of Medicare.

127. Moore, Judith D. and Smith, David G., “Legislating Medicaid: Considering Medicaid and Its Origins,” Health Care Financing Review 27 (2005): 45–52, 49Google ScholarPubMed.

128. Memorandum, Wilbur J. Cohen to the President, February 25, 1965, EX LE/IS I, Box 75, White House Central File, LBJ Presidential Library.

129. Rose, Financing Medicaid.

130. House Committee on Ways and Means, Social Security Amendments of 1965, House Report No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st sess., March 29, 1965, p. 75.

131. Stevens, Robert and Stevens, Rosemary, Welfare Medicine in America: A Case Study of Medicaid (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2003), 81 Google Scholar. State officials were not responding to constituent demands, as few Americans were aware of Medicaid's existence prior to the adoption of these state plans, which unleashed a “nationwide storm” of protest over “socialized medicine.” See Eve Edstrom, “Nationwide Storm Looms on ‘Socialized Medicine,’” Washington Post, May 22, 1966.

132. Congressional Research Service, Medicaid Source Book: Background Data and Analysis, a 1993 Update (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993)Google Scholar.

133. Norman Miller, “Medicaid Mistake,” Wall Street Journal, October 20, 1966.

134. Ibid.

135. “Volpe Protests to Conferees on Proposed Medicaid Cuts,” New York Times, December 10, 1967.

136. Richard L. Madden, “Javits and Goodell Stop Medicaid Cut with a ‘Minibuster,’” New York Times, October 12, 1968.

137. Bowman and Kearney, Resurgence of the States; Teaford, Rise of the States.

138. Sabato, Larry, Goodbye to Goodtime Charlie: The American Governorship Transformed, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1983), 2 Google Scholar.

139. Brooks, When Governors Convene, vii.

140. Ibid., 6.

141. Haider, When Governments Come to Washington, 27.

142. Engel, Jonathan, Poor People's Medicine: Medicaid and American Charity Care Since 1965 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

143. Palley, Marian L., “Intergovernmentalization of Health Care Reform: The Limits of the Devolution Revolution,” Journal of Politics 59 (1997): 657–79Google Scholar.

144. Rose, Financing Medicaid.

145. Stephens, G. Ross and Wikstrom, Nelson, American Intergovernmental Relations: A Fragmented Federal Polity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

146. Break, George F., Financing Government in a Federal System (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1980), 144 Google Scholar.

147. Thompson, Richard E., Revenue Sharing: A New Era in Federalism (Washington, DC: Revenue Sharing Advisory Service, 1973), viiiGoogle Scholar.

148. Haider, When Governments Come to Washington, 252.

149. Senate Finance Committee, Revenue Sharing, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., July 20, 1972, p. 112.

150. Oates, Wallace E., Financing the New Federalism: Revenue Sharing, Conditional Grants, and Taxation (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975)Google Scholar.

151. Thompson, Revenue Sharing; Wright, Deil S., Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, 3rd ed. (Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1988)Google Scholar.

152. Beer, Samuel H., “The Adoption of General Revenue Sharing: A Case Study in Public Sector Politics,” Public Policy 24 (1976): 127–95, 190Google Scholar.

153. Thompson, Revenue Sharing.

154. Wallin, Bruce A., From Revenue Sharing to Deficit Sharing: General Revenue Sharing and Cities (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998), 102 Google Scholar.

155. Beer, “Adoption of General Revenue Sharing,” 185.

156. Wallin, From Revenue Sharing to Deficit Sharing.

157. The legislation reauthorized general revenue sharing for local governments through 1983. Following another reauthorization through 1986, the local program was also eliminated.

158. Neil R. Peirce, “Moving Off the Easy Street Paved with Revenue Sharing,” New York Times, April 15, 1980.

159. “Fund Sharing Cutoff Backed by Governors,” Los Angeles Times, April 9, 1980.

160. Wallin, From Revenue Sharing to Deficit Sharing, 112.

161. Ibid., 104.

162. Break, Financing Government, 146.

163. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), General Revenue Sharing: An ACIR Re-Evaluation (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1974), 47 Google Scholar.

164. Ibid., 48.

165. Haider, When Governments Come to Washington, 275–76.

166. Wallin, From Revenue Sharing to Deficit Sharing, 110.

167. John Herbers, “States, Facing Revenue-Sharing Loss, Planning Cuts,” New York Times, August 4, 1980.

168. The Changing Public Attitudes on Government and Taxes Survey was conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation in May–June 1979 and was based on 2,022 interviews. Other responses included “Oppose” (30 percent) and “No Opinion” (19 percent).

169. Wallin, From Revenue Sharing to Deficit Sharing, 112.

170. Transcript of Proceedings, National Governors Association 1980 Winter Meeting: Open Plenary Session, Washington, DC, February 25, 1980, pp. 19–20.

171. Wallin, From Revenue Sharing to Deficit Sharing, 108.

172. Patashnik and Zelizer, “Struggle to Remake Politics.”

173. Weir, Margaret, “States, Race, and the Decline of New Deal Liberalism,” Studies in American Political Development 19 (2005): 157–72, 169Google Scholar.

174. Bowman and Kearney, Resurgence of the States.

175. Sabato, Goodbye to Goodtime Charlie.

176. Many states did not accept the maximum amount available in matching funds, and in a typical year approximately one-fifth of the available funds went unclaimed. House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Extension of Maternity and Infancy Act, Exhibit A, pp. 8–9.

177. Baumgartner, Frank R., Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David, “Federal Policy Activity and the Mobilization of State Lobbying Organizations,” Political Research Quarterly 62 (2009): 552–67Google Scholar.

178. Rose, Shanna, “Opting In, Opting Out: The Politics of State Medicaid Expansion,” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 13 (2015): 63–82 Google Scholar.

179. Patashnik and Zelizer, “Struggle to Remake Politics,” 1071.

180. Karch, Andrew and Cravens, Matthew, “Rapid Diffusion and Policy Reform: The Adoption and Modification of Three Strikes Laws,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 14 (2014): 461–91Google Scholar.

181. Jacobs and Weaver, “When Policies Undo Themselves;” Weaver, R. Kent, “Paths and Forks or Chutes and Ladders? Negative Feedbacks and Policy Regime Change,” Journal of Public Policy 30 (2010): 137–62Google Scholar.