Federalism, Homeland Security and National Preparedness: A Case Study in the Development of Public Policy   [open pdf - 109KB]

"Since the events of September 11, 2001 all levels and branches of government have been focused on how best to assess national preparedness so that appropriate resource decisions can be made to enhance the nation's ability to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from major catastrophic events. In nearly all national-level policy documents dealing with homeland security, particular mention is given to the principle of federalism as the foundation of American government and governance. However, as the development of public policy related to homeland security evolved, one became aware that federalism meant (and means) different things to different agencies, branches, and levels of government. As the nation has not faced this large a governance challenge since the end of the last world war, ensuring a balanced perspective of federalism is in place as homeland security policy evolves is a necessary condition for ensuring the safety of the nation and its citizens. Observation of intergovernmental relations and the associated actions of different levels of government in this policy arena indicate three dominant theories of federalism exist and are in conflict. Those theories are Cooperative Federalism, Coercive Federalism and Competitive Federalism. What is suggested by the literature and the qualitative analysis of associated intergovernmental relations is that a more normative theory of federalism is appropriate - a theory that incorporates the constructive attributes of each theory, while mitigating the negative manifestations of each; a theory whose fundamental attribute is collaboration."

Public domain
Retrieved From:
Homeland Security Affairs Journal: http://www.hsaj.org/
Media Type:
Homeland Security Affairs (October 2006), v.2 no.3, article 4
Help with citations