CALL
FOR PROPOSALS
State
and Local Government Review
2016 Special Issue on Political and
Ideological Polarization
and Its Impact on Subnational Governments
Michael J. Scicchitano, University of Florida, Editor
Political
and Ideological polarization in the United States is evident at all levels of
government—federal, state and local. While
this polarization is interesting from a political or electoral perspective, it also
has profound implications for governance.
The impacts are certainly felt at each level of government but also
through the intergovernmental system.
There
are at least four plausible dimensions or scenarios resulting from political and
ideological polarization. First,
polarization at the national level can have a rippling effect on state and
local governments. Perhaps the most
obvious example would be in a policy area like immigration, once thought to be
the province of the federal government, where pressing problems associated with
it must be resolved by state and local governments since the federal government
has been unwilling or unable to craft solutions. Witness the actions of a number of states that
have tried going it alone in dealing with the fallout of no federal government
action to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. Other examples can be found in policy areas (e.g.,
homeland security, transportation, education, health care, taxation, and economic
inequality) where over the years the federal government has articulated an
express and overriding interest via federal fiscal assistance or mandates. Here again, the inability of the federal
government to craft realistic solutions or instead sends mixed signals
ultimately means that these problems are passed down to the states and even to local
governments where they cannot be ignored.
Examples abound like the federal government keeping school districts
across the nation in limbo about compliance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) by
procrastinating for years in renewing the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA). Another example has been
Congressional delay in enacting legislation (referred to as a marketplace fairness
act) that would produce much-needed additional revenue for state and local
governments from Internet sales and other out-of-state retailers.
Another
dimension can be seen where political and ideological polarization occurs
within a state, and pressing public issues are eventually devolved downward to
local government as well as to school districts and special districts. Polarization within a state sometimes leads
to preemption of local authority and can lead to states taking over authority from
local government for service delivery, reassigning functional responsibility,
and prohibiting certain local government actions. Some recent examples include: State of
Michigan exercising oversight authority in the provision of water in the City
of Flint; State of Michigan overseeing the entire operation of the City of
Detroit; States of Pennsylvania and South Carolina, among others, assuming
direct control of failing schools; State of Florida seeking to exercise
complete regulatory authority over fracking in cities and counties; and a
number of states prohibiting local governments from enacting ordinances to
increase minimum wages.
A
third dimension could take the form of political and ideological polarization
between Red and Blue states. This can be
seen in the diverse state laws dealing with abortion LGBT rights. States with either Democratic or Republican
unified leadership control have enacted starkly contrasting legislation in
these two controversial policy areas.
That is, Republican states have very restricted policies, while
Democratic states have very liberal laws.
What happens when people migrate from one state to another and the issue
of recognition of other states’ law come into question? Will they ignore other states’ enactments or
ignore/defy them?
Yet,
another dimension of political and ideological polarization can be played out
exclusively at the local level, with repercussions felt there. More specifically, local government elected legislative
bodies may have members who promote strongly particular issues of ideological or
even political perspectives. As a
result, debates among the commission/council members (or school or special
districts boards) may be conflictual and protracted. Reaching some consensus and making decisions
may be difficult. Professional managers (and
their staffs0 may find it difficult to govern or even find the job security
needed to be effective in this type setting.
The
goal of the 2016 State and Local
Government Review Special Issue is to publish research that examines the
impact of political and ideological polarization on governance at the state or
local level and in the intergovernmental system. We welcome manuscripts that address these and
related scenarios that are triggered by polarization. Below are some specific examples that would be
appropriate for the 2015 Special Issue:
·
In
what ways did polarization affect the delayed reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary School program and then influence the provisions of the Every Student
Succeeds Act
of 2015?
·
In
what ways did polarization affect the delayed reauthorization of the surface
transportation program and then influence the provisions of the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of
2015?
·
In
light of the 2016 passage of the Internet Tax Freedom Act and Congress’s
failure to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, how is polarization positively
and negatively affecting state and local taxation powers and revenues?
·
To
what extent is party polarization over economic inequality positively or
negatively affecting states and especially local governments in terms of their
ability to foster economic growth and alleviate poverty?
·
How
is the growing polarization affecting policymaking in the federal government
and on the U.S. Supreme Court, especially the ability of state and local
governments to influence federal policymaking?
·
How
is the growing polarization between blue and red states affecting the diffusion
of innovations? To what extent are blue and red states adopting or not adopting
their respective innovations?
·
How
is polarization shaping innovative state policy-making from marijuana
legalization and environmental regulation to abortion restrictions and voter ID
laws?
·
In
light of the severe FY 2016 budget standoffs in Illinois and Pennsylvania, how
is party polarization affecting state budgeting across the country?
·
What
role is polarization playing in state preemptions of local authority to set
higher minimum wages, regulate fracking, refuse to accept marijuana shops, and
the like, and what role is it playing in state takeovers of distressed
municipalities (e.g., Detroit and Flint) and school districts?
·
To
what extent, if any, are county commissions and city councils polarizing along
lines of party rather than personality, and how is this polarization affecting
local governance?
Please submit a proposal that
outlines a specific topic that conveys how state and local governments have been
affected by political and ideological polarization and how they have responded
to this phenomenon. Clearly outline the empirical basis for the manuscript, and
if your paper is data driven, please indicate whether data have already been
collected. Also, identify the current
status of the research and writing and the extent to which the manuscript can
be completed according to the schedule outlined below.
We encourage proposals from all disciplines including but not
limited to public administration, political science, sociology, economics,
planning, etc. and expect to publish papers where there is collaboration
between academics and practitioners and authors both from inside and outside
the U.S.
Note: Acceptable topics are not limited to those
listed above.
Proposals
should be submitted between March 7, 2016 and May 1, 2016 to the
following email address: slgrspecial@gmail.com
The
proposals should be double-spaced and include no more than two pages of text. There is no need to include tables or
appendices and references do not count against the two-page limit. All
proposals will be subject to editorial review. Please do not send complete papers—if you
have a draft of your paper, please note that in the proposal.
Submissions
will be evaluated with respect to the following criteria:
·
Relevance. The
proposed manuscript should examine issues related to how subnational
governments have been affected by economic polarization and how they have
responded to this phenomenon.
·
Viability. The
proposal should represent an achievable manuscript project within the tight time
constraints required. More detail on the timeline is provided below.
·
Scope of
Interest. Papers of broad interest to scholars and professionals will be preferred.
·
Organization and
Coherence. The proposal should follow a logical structure, read clearly, and
thoroughly represent the available research.
·
Insight for
Future Work. The proposal should convey important implications for both future research and practice
related to local government.
Due
to editorial constraints, it is vital for authors to adhere to the following
strict timeline. We will not be able
to consider late submissions. If you have any questions, please contact the
Editor at mscicc@ufl.edu or by phone
at (352) 846-2874.
Relevant
dates* are as follows:
·
March 7- May 1, 2016: Proposals due to the State and Local Government Review to be sent to slgrspecial@gmail.com
·
May 15, 2016:
Final decision on proposals and initial feedback provided to authors.
·
August 1, 2016:
Full draft of paper due to State and
Local Government Review.
·
September 1, 2016:
Review and feedback to authors on full paper.
·
October 1, 2016:
Final paper submitted to State and Local
Government Review. Final manuscripts should be no longer than 18
pages of text with standard margins and font size.
*Please
note that these are basic guidelines, each paper may require a different number
of revisions or timing to make the October
1, 2016 deadline
Feel free to email or call me if you
have any questions regarding your proposal or manuscript.
