This book examines patterns of environmental regulation in the European Union and four federal polities--the United States, Germany, Australia, and Canada. Daniel Kelemen develops a theory of regulatory federalism based on his comparative study, arguing that the greater the fragmentation of power at the federal level, the less discretion is allotted to component states. Kelemen's analysis offers a novel perspective on the EU and demonstrates that the EU already acts as a federal polity in the regulatory arena. In The Rules of Federalism, Kelemen shows that both the structure of the EU's institutions and the control these institutions exert over member states closely resemble the American federal system, with its separation of powers, large number of veto points, and highly detailed, judicially enforceable legislation. In the EU, as in the United States, a high degree of fragmentation in the central government yields a low degree of discretion for member states when it comes to implementing regulatory statutes. Table of Contents: Acknowledgments 1. Regulatory Federalism and the EU 2. Environmental Regulation in the EU 3. Environmental Regulation in the United States 4. Environmental Regulation in Germany 5. Environmental Regulation in Australia and Canada 6. Food and Drug Safety Regulation in the EU 7. Institutional Structure and Regulatory Style Notes References Cases Cited Index R. Daniel Kelemen's The Rules of Federalism is an important contribution to both the literature on federalism and on the European Union. It makes an original theoretical and empirical contribution to our understanding of regulatory federalism and sheds new light on the federal systems which it compares. It will open up new avenues of inquiry. --Alberta Sbragia, University of Pittsburgh The Rules of Federalism makes a significant contribution to the literature on regulatory federalism. Keleman's original theoretical perspective is made plausible through a series of fascinating case studies. The book will be of interest to scholars of federalism, constitutional design, environmental policy, and the European Union. --Susan Rose-Ackerman, Yale Law School

During this era of construction of the information superhighway, this volume presents a prudent analysis of the pros and cons of continuing state regulation of telecommunications. While interested parties either attack or defend state regulation, careful scholarly analysis is required to strike the appropriate balance of regulatory federalism. Focusing on regulation in the 1990s, it uses a positive political economy perspective to analyze enduring state-federal conflicts and to weigh the justifications and explanations for continuing state telecommunications regulation, or for changing its structure. It also considers normative concerns and makes recommendations about how to improve telecommunications policy. Seriously concerned with assessing the problems surrounding cost burdens for different categories of consumers, market entry for different firms, economic growth and the information infrastructure, global competitiveness, and control over information, this volume attempts to provide answers to the following specific questions: * How are states regulating telecommunications in the brave new world of global markets, fiber optics, and digital technology? * Do states vary significantly in their regulatory models? * How are the politics of state and federal regulation different? * Would a different federal-state relationship better serve national telecommunications goals in the future? To tackle these critical questions, the scholarly perspectives of economists, lawyers, political scientists, and telecommunications consultants and practitioners are employed.

How Trump has used the federal government to promote conservative policies The presidency of Donald Trump has been unique in many respects—most obviously his flamboyant personal style and disregard for conventional niceties and factual information. But one area hasn't received as much attention as it deserves: Trump's use of the “administrative presidency,” including executive orders and regulatory changes, to reverse the policies of his predecessor and advance positions that lack widespread support in Congress. This book analyzes the dynamics and unique qualities of Trump's administrative presidency in the important policy areas of health care, education, and climate change. In each of these spheres, the arrival of the Trump administration represented a hostile takeover in which White House policy goals departed sharply from the more “liberal” ideologies and objectives of key agencies, which had been embraced by the Obama administration. Three expert authors show how Trump has continued, and even expanded, the rise of executive branch power since the Reagan years. The authors intertwine this focus with an in-depth examination of how the Trump administration's hostile takeover has drastically changed key federal policies—and reshaped who gets what from government—in the areas of health care, education, and climate change. Readers interested in the institutions of American democracy and the nation's progress (or lack thereof) in dealing with pressing policy problems will find deep insights in this book. Of particular interest is the book's examination of how the Trump administration's actions have long-term implications for American democracy.

Challenging the myth that the federal government exercises exclusive control over U.S. foreign-policymaking, Michael J. Glennon and Robert D. Sloane propose that we recognize the prominent role that states and cities now play in that realm. Foreign Affairs Federalism provides the first comprehensive study of the constitutional law and practice of federalism in the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. It could hardly be timelier. States and cities recently have limited greenhouse gas emissions, declared nuclear free zones and sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, established thousands of sister-city relationships, set up informal diplomatic offices abroad, and sanctioned oppressive foreign governments. Exploring the implications of these and other initiatives, this book argues that the national interest cannot be advanced internationally by Washington alone. Glennon and Sloane examine in detail the considerable foreign affairs powers retained by the states under the Constitution and question the need for Congress or the president to step in to provide "one voice" in foreign affairs. They present concrete, realistic ways that the courts can update antiquated federalism precepts and untangle interwoven strands of international law, federal law, and state law. The result is a lucid, incisive, and up-to-date analysis of the rules that empower-and limit-states and cities abroad.

What is the price of federalism? Does it result in governmental interconnections that are too complex? Does it create overlapping responsibilities? Does it perpetuate social inequalities? Does it stifle economic growth? To answer these questions, Paul Peterson sets forth two theories of federalism: functional and legislative. Functional theory is optimistic. It says that each level of the federal system is well designed to carry out the tasks for which it is mainly responsible. State and local governments assume responsibility for their area's physical and social development; the national government cares for the needy and reduces economic inequities. Legislative theory, in contrast, is pessimistic: it says that national political leaders, responding to electoral pressures, misuse their power. They shift unpopular burdens to lower levels of government while spending national dollars on popular government programs for which they can claim credit. Both theories are used to explain different aspects of American federalism. Legislative theory explains why federal grants have never been used to equalize public services. Elected officials cannot easily justify to their constituents a vote to shift funds away from the geographic area they represent. The overall direction that American federalism has taken in recent years is better explained by functional theory. As the costs of transportation and communication have declined, labor and capital have become increasingly mobile, placing states and localities in greater competition with one another. State and local governments are responding to these changes by overlooking the needs of the poor, focusing instead on economic development. As a further consequence, older, big cities of the Rust Belt, inefficient in their operations and burdened by social responsibilities, are losing jobs and population to the suburban communities that surround them. Peterson recommends that the national government adopt p

American Federalism in Practice is an original and important contribution to our understanding of contemporary health policy. It also illustrates how contentious public policy is debated, formulated, and implemented in today’s overheated political environment. Health care reform is perhaps the most divisive public policy issue facing the United States today. Michael Doonan provides a unique perspective on health policy in explaining how intergovernmental relations shape public policy. He tracks federal-state relations through the creation, formulation, and implementation of three of the most important health policy initiatives since the Great Society: the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), both passed by the U.S. Congress, and the Massachusetts health care reform program as it was developed and implemented under federal government waiver authority. He applies lessons learned from these cases to implementation of the Affordable Care Act. “Health policymaking is entangled in a complex web of shared, overlapping, and/or competing power relationships among different levels of government,” the author notes. Understanding federal-state interactions, the ways in which they vary, and the reasons for such variation is essential to grasping the ultimate impact of federalism on programs and policy. Doonan reveals how federalism can shift as the sausage of public policy is made while providing a new framework for comprehending one of the most polarizing debates of our time.