Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
Intergovernmental Relations as Seen by Public Officials

Intergovernmental Relations as Seen by Public Officials

Volume: 9
Copyright Date: 1960
Edition: NED - New edition
Pages: 180
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Intergovernmental Relations as Seen by Public Officials
    Book Description:

    Intergovernmental Relations as Seen by Public Officials was first published in 1960. Minnesota Archive Editions uses digital technology to make long-unavailable books once again accessible, and are published unaltered from the original University of Minnesota Press editions. This volume is number 9 in a series of monographs edited by William Anderson and Edward W. Weidner on intergovernmental relations in the United States as observed in the state of Minnesota. Topics of discussion in the report include: officials and their units of government; the increase or decrease and allocation of activities; frequency of contacts and degrees of cooperation; governmental powers and vertical and horizontal intergovernmental relations; conclusions and anticipations; the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Questionnaire; the Participation-Awareness-Responsibility (PAR) Categories; and methods of research._x000B_

    eISBN: 978-1-4529-3851-6
    Subjects: Political Science

Table of Contents

Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-viii)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. ix-x)
  3. CHAPTER 1 The Officials and Their Units of Government
    (pp. 1-21)

    Intergovernmental relations have become exceedingly important in the daily conduct of government everywhere in the United States, owing in part to the complexities of the “three-level” national-state-local division of governmental functions and responsibilities; but nowhere at the time the present series of studies was begun had there been a sufficiently comprehensive and penetrating examination of these relations to make clear what they were in actual practice. The series on Intergovernmental Relations in the United States as Observed in the State of Minnesota was undertaken not to promote any reform or reorganization of government, but for the simple purpose of providing...

  4. CHAPTER 2 The Increase or Decrease and Allocation of Activities
    (pp. 22-48)

    The allocation of activities of government has long been one of the central issues of politics in the United States. All or nearly all major controversies over federalism or intergovernmental relations have involved in greater or less degree disagreement as to what governmental activities ought to be performed, by what units of government, and under what conditions.¹ Actually there are several questions for consideration here:

    1. What should be the general level of governmental activity in the nation as a whole, as contrasted with the activities that are reserved for individuals and private groups? While this question seemingly falls outside the...

  5. CHAPTER 3 Frequency of Contacts and Degrees of Cooperation
    (pp. 49-76)

    A cooperative system of relationships is frequently thought of as the prime objective in intergovernmental relations. There is little doubt that it is a much-prized end goal, but that it is the sole or necessarily the most important objective is open to serious question. On occasion a lack of cooperativeness may be desirable, according to the thinking of certain citizens and officials, because the program objectives achieved through cooperation are not necessarily acceptable to all. No attempt was made in the present study to measure the relative importance to public officials of cooperativeness in intergovernmental relations. Instead, cooperation was viewed...

  6. CHAPTER 4 Governmental Powers and Vertical Intergovernmental Relations
    (pp. 77-103)

    In carrying out the various functions assigned to them by statutes, the officials of national, state, and local governments are not entirely free to work out their relations with the officials of other units and levels of government. They may desire more cooperative, advisory, supervisory, and other types of relations with the officials of other governmental units, in order to achieve greater effectiveness in the services they are trying to render, but the wish is not equivalent to the power to proceed. While informal contacts, discussions, understandings, and general helpfulness are not forbidden, more formal and potentially more effective and...

  7. CHAPTER 5 Governmental Powers and Horizontal Intergovernmental Relations
    (pp. 104-117)

    There are substantial differences between national-state or state-local relations and interlocal or interstate relations, for the general lines of authority between superior and inferior units of government do not prevail in relations between presumed equals. There are relatively few powers that one state has over another or that one locality has over another. As a consequence, almost all relations must have as their base less authoritative devices than serve for vertical intergovernmental relations. Yet the difference is not as great as it would seem at first blush. It has already been noted, in Chapter 4, how in actual fact administrators...

  8. CHAPTER 6 Conclusions and Anticipations
    (pp. 118-126)

    In this chapter I not only summarize and to some extent restate some of the findings of this survey, but also set forth some tentative implications of the data as to what would be likely to happen, in the light of the findings, if certain things were done. Several courses of action are suggested for those who are interested in achieving certain results (as in the selection of personnel for intergovernmental programs).

    There is no single set of attitudes that all public officials tend to have toward intergovernmental relations. However, there were many tendencies toward agreement among the various classes,...

  9. APPENDIX 1 The Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Questionnaire
    (pp. 127-137)
  10. APPENDIX 2 The Participation-Awareness-Responsibility (PAR) Categories
    (pp. 138-142)
  11. APPENDIX 3 The Methods of Research
    (pp. 143-158)
  12. Index
    (pp. 159-162)