system which resembles that of the American in its fragmentation, provides a
particularly useful comparative case (Kelemen 2004 ; Sbragia forthcoming). Being
able to compare the USA with a another ‘‘separated system’’ (Jones 1994 , 2 ) should
facilitate the development of theoretical frameworks which have heretofore been
lacking.
While the study of American federalism has been viewed by many political
scientists as much less theoretically interesting than the study of federal institutions
such as Congress, integrating the study of such federal institutions into the study of
federalism may lead to both better theory and a better understanding of the
American political system as a whole. The use of comparison, when judiciously
implemented, seems to be the best bet for improving the theoretical sophistication
of the study of American federalism.
References
Allard, S. and Danziger,S. 2000. Welfare magnets: myth or reality?Journal of Politics, 62 :
350 – 68.
Anton,T.J. 1989 .American Federalism and Public Policy: How the System Works. Phila-
delphia: Temple University Press.
Bailey,M.A. 2005. Welfare and the multifaceted decision to move.American Political
Science Review, 99 ( 1 ): 125 – 35.
—— and Rom,M.C. 2004. A wider race? Interstate competition across health and welfare
programs.Journal of Politics, 66 ( 2 ): 326 – 47.
Beer,S.H. 1973. The modernization of American federalism.Publius, 3 ( 2 ): 49 – 95.
—— 1978. Federalism, nationalism, and democracy in America.American Political Science
Review, 72 ( 1 ): 9 – 21.
Berry, W. D., Fording, R. C., and Hanson,R.L. 2003. Reassessing the ‘‘race to the
bottom’’ thesis: a spatial dependence model of state welfare policy.Journal of Politics,
65 : 327 – 49.
Bowman, A. O’M. and Krause,G.A. 2003. Power shift: measuring policy centralization in
U.S. intergovernmental relations, 1947 – 1998 .American Politics Research, 31 : 301 – 25.
Brueckner,J.K 2000. Welfare reform and the race to the bottom: theory and evidence.
Southern Economic Journal, 66 ( 3 ): 505 – 25.
Cammisa,A. 1995 .Governments as Interest Groups. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Chhibber,P.K.andKollman,K. 2004 .The Formation of National Party Systems: Feder-
alism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Conlan,T. 1998 .From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-Five Years of Intergovernmen-
tal Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings.
—— and VergniolleDeChantal,F. 2001. The Rehnquist Court and contemporary
American federalism.Political Science Quarterly, 116 ( 2 ): 253 – 75.
Davis,S.R. 1978 .The Federal Principle: A Journey Through Time in Quest of Meaning.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
american federalism and intergovernmental relations 257