Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1997 22(3):691-720; DOI:10.1215/03616878-22-3-691
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Anton, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Duke University Press

New Federalism and Intergovernmental Fiscal Relationships: The Implications for Health Policy

Thomas J. Anton
Brown University

This paper explores a number of popular but largely inaccurate myths about American federalism in order to clarify the fundamental structures and processes that characterize American federal governance. Examination of financial and political trends over the past several decades reveals the development of a form of functional specialization among national, state, and local governments based on pragmatic responses to policy problems rather than decisions based on clearly articulated "principles." These responses have increasingly come from states in a wide variety of policy areas, including health care, where the energetic reform activity of the past decade provides a sharp contrast to the inability of the national government to enact reform. Recent pressure to devolve more authority to the states is thus much more than an ideological fad; it reflects widespread agreement among political elites that state and local governments have become capable governing partners. Nonetheless, there are limits to devolution which guarantee that close fiscal and political ties between the nation and the states will remain in place. Devolution does not, because it cannot, mean separation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
PubliusHome page
K. M. Esterling
Does the Federal Government Learn from the States? Medicaid and the Limits of Expertise in the Intergovernmental Lobby
Publius, December 1, 2009; 39(1): 1 - 21.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PubliusHome page
L. L. Ogden and K. Adams
Poorhouse to Warehouse: Institutional Long-Term Care in the United States
Publius, December 1, 2009; 39(1): 138 - 163.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
G. France
The Form and Context of Federalism: Meanings for Health Care Financing
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, August 1, 2008; 33(4): 649 - 705.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
PubliusHome page
E. A. Miller
Federal Administrative and Judicial Oversight of Medicaid: Policy Legacies and Tandem Institutions under the Boren Amendment
Publius, January 1, 2008; 38(2): 315 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1997 by Duke University Press