Assessing the Role of Federal Administrative Regions: An Exploratory Analysis

Abstract

In many policy areas, the adjectives permissive, managerial, and regulatory describe relationships between the national and state governments. Intergovernmental relations frequently involve national government supervision of the administration of state programs because preemptive laws, regulations, and court decisions give the central government authority to determine the states' role in policy implementation.' This national dominance has continued under Ronald Reagan despite cuts in federal aid. States are permitted more leeway to experiment with innovative programs, but national criteria must be followed and/or national approval received.2 Although the states object to these national mandates, statements by the Reagan Administration and Congress indicate that this is the approach that will be used in many policy areas in the future.3 Intergovernmental relations under the environmental laws passed in the 1970s serve as a prototype for managerial federalism. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the national government supersedes state power over many pollution control programs.4 These acts allow states to retain authority over aspects of their environmental programs if they are approved and supervised by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff members in the ten federal administrative regions.5 EPA regional staffs supervise policy experiments and implementation efforts by the states. An examination of how EPA regions carried out their intergovernmental coordinating role in the 1970s provides insights on managerial federalism which can be applied to the present time.6 Studying the managerial aspects of policy implementation does not imply that factors which lie beyond the control of regional officials are unimportant. The political, social, and cultural attributes of states affect their decisions in dealing with the federal government. While acknowledging their importance, this study concentrates on the challenge faced by national agencies in coordinating intergovernmental policies, and it proposes a general framework to measure the impact that federal administrative regions have on policy implementation by the states. * In many functional areas, policy delivery by the states is extensively structured by federal actions and guidelines. Federal officials in administrative regions supervise the implementation of intergovernmental policy. Since this relationship is likely to continue in the future, the impact that federal managers have on state enforcement activity warrants examination. This study proposes a framework to judge the success of national administrative regions in convincing states to accept responsibility for implementing federal programs. Successful policy supervision is seen as the ability to use communication, treasury, authority, and organization tools. The application of this analogy to the delivery of environmental policy reveals why some federal regions are more successful than others in managing relationships with the states.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.