82 Chapter 3Chapter 3 || Federa lismFedera lismv. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, the Supreme Court largely discarded these
distinctions and gave Congress far more latitude to shape economic and social policy
for the nation.^8Shifting National–State Relations The type of federalism that emerged in this era
is called cooperative federalism, or “marble cake” federalism, as opposed to the “layer
cake” model of dual federalism.^9 As the image of a marble cake suggests, the boundar-
ies of state and national responsibilities are less well defined than they are under dual
federalism. With the increasing industrialization and urbanization of the late 1930s
and 1940s, along with the Great Depression, more complex problems arose that could
not be solved at one level of government. Cooperative federalism adopted a more prac-
tical focus on intergovernmental relations and the efficient delivery of services. State
and local governments maintained a level of influence as the implementers of national
programs, but the national government played an enhanced role as the initiator, direc-
tor, and funder of key policies.
“Cooperative federalism” accurately describes this important shift in national–
state relations in the first half of the twentieth century, but it only partially captures
the complexity of modern federalism. The marble cake metaphor falls short in one
important way: the lines of authority and patterns of cooperation are not as messy
as implied by the gooey flow of chocolate through white cake. Instead, the 1960s
metaphor of picket fence federalism is a better description of cooperative federalism
in action. As the How It Works graphic shows (p. 84), each picket of the fence represents
a different policy area and the horizontal boards that hold the pickets together
represent the different levels of government. This is a much more orderly image than
the marble cake provides, and it illustrates important implications about how policy is
made across levels of government.
The most important point to be drawn from this analogy is that activity in the
cooperative federal system occurs within pickets of the fence—that is, within policy
areas. Policy makers within a given policy area will have more in common with others in
that area (even if they are at different levels of government) than they do with people who
work in different areas (even if they are at the same level of government). For example,
someone working in a state’s Department of Natural Resources will have more contact
with people working in local park programs and the national Department of the Interior
than with people who also work at the state level but who focus on, say, law enforcement.
Cooperative federalism, then, is likely to emerge within policy areas rather than
across them. This may create problems for the chief executives who are trying to run
the show (mayors, governors, the president), as rivalries develop among policy agencies
competing for funds. Also, contact within policy areas is not always cooperative.
(Think of detective shows in which the FBI arrives to investigate a local crime and pulls
rank on the town sheriff, provoking resentment from local law-enforcement officials.)
This is the inefficient side of picket fence federalism in action.cooperative federalism
A form of federalism in which
national and state governments
work together to provide services
efficiently. This form emerged in the
late 1930s, representing a profound
shift toward less concrete boundaries
of responsibility in national–state
relations.picket fence federalism
A more refined and realistic form
of cooperative federalism in which
policy makers within a particular
policy area work together across the
levels of government.Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New
Deal shifted more power than ever to
the national government. Through
major new programs to address the
Great Depression, such as the Works
Progress Administration construction
projects pictured here, the federal
government expanded its reach
into areas that had been primarily
the responsibility of state and local
governments.“Why
Should
I Care?”
Why is it important to understand the history of federalism? You might think that the
Civil War ended the debates over nation-centered versus state-centered federalism
(in favor of the national government), but disputes today over immigration, health care,
welfare, and education policy all revolve around the balance of power between the
levels of government. State legislatures that talk about ignoring federal criticisms of
their sanctuary policies are invoking the same arguments used by advocates of states’
rights in the 1830s and 1840s concerning tariffs and slavery.Full_04_APT_64431_ch03_070-101.indd 82 16/11/18 1:29 PM