Federalism and Social Policy focuses on the crucial question: Is a strong and egalitarian welfare state compatible with federalism? In this carefully curated collection, Scott L. Greer, Heather Elliott, and the contributors explore the relationship between decentralization and the welfare state to determine whether or not decentralization has negative consequences for welfare. The contributors examine a variety of federal countries, including Spain, Canada, and the United Kingdom, asking four key questions related to decentralization: (1) Are there regional welfare states (such as Scotland, Minnesota, etc.)? (2) How much variation is there in the structures of federal welfare states? (3) Is federalism bad for welfare? (4) Does austerity recentralize or decentralize welfare states? By focusing on money and policy instead of law and constitutional politics, the volume shows that federalism shapes regional governments and policies even when decentralization exists.

In this unique and provocative contribution to the literatures of political science and social policy, ten leading experts question prevailing views that federalism always inhibits the growth of social solidarity. Their comparative study of the evolution of political institutions and welfare states in the six oldest federal states - Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, the US - reveals that federalism can facilitate and impede social policy development. Development is contingent on several time-dependent factors, including degree of democratization, type of federalism, and the stage of welfare state development and early distribution of social policy responsibility. The reciprocal nature of the federalism-social policy relationship also becomes apparent: the authors identify a set of important bypass structures within federal systems that have resulted from welfare state growth. In an era of retrenchment and unravelling unitary states, this study suggests that federalism may actually protect the welfare state, and welfare states may enhance national integration.

Belgium is a federation in turmoil. Politicians of the two language communities find it increasingly difficult to reach common ground on many issues. Social policy stands in the middle of these tensions. At present, social federalism in Belgium is still at an immature stage. However, as a result of constitutional reform in the course of the last decennia, social policy has become embedded at the regional, the federal, as well as at the European level. Moreover, the more prosperous region of Flanders has expressed the wish to develop its own social protection and has introduced, among others, a Flemish Care Insurance. These developments have resulted in the creation of a "layered welfare state." The authors of this book critically assess the current stage of social federalism in Belgium and ask how, against the background of the major challenge of an ageing population, an effective social policy can be shaped. The book considers at which level the bulk of an effective social policy is best situated, what the role of the sub-national entities can be, and which limitations are imposed by the constitutional and European framework. The various forms of power allocation are considered for social federalism in Belgium. From the perspective of various scientific disciplines, and averse to any political dogma, this book pleads for a more nuanced thinking on social federalism in Belgium.

The book improves our knowledge on the impact of federalism on policy performance from a comparative point of view. Case studies of six countries - federal and unitary states - establishes the relationship between state structure (federal or unitary) and policy performance.

"As James Madison led America's effort to write its Constitution, he made two great inventions-the separation of powers and federalism. The first is more famous, but the second was most essential because, without federalism, there could have been no United States of America. Federalism has always been about setting the balance of power between the federal government and the states-and that's revolved around deciding just how much inequality the country was prepared to accept in exchange for making piece among often-warring states. Through the course of its history, the country has moved through a series of phases, some of which put more power into the hands of the federal government, and some rested more power in the states. Sometimes this rebalancing led to armed conflict. The Civil War, of course, almost split the nation permanently apart. And sometimes it led to political battles. By the end of the 1960s, however, the country seemed to have settled into a quiet agreement that inequality was a prime national concern, that the federal government had the responsibility for addressing it through its own policies, and that the states would serve as administrative agents of that policy. But as that agreement seemed set, federalism drifted from national debate, just as the states began using their administrative role to push in very different directions. The result has been a rising tide of inequality, with the great invention that helped create the nation increasingly driving it apart"--

The balance between state and federal health care financing for low-income people has been a matter of considerable debate for the last 40 years. Some argue for a greater federal role, others for more devolution of responsibility to the states. Medicaid, the backbone of the system, has been plagued by an array of problems that have made it unpopular and difficult to use to extend health care coverage. In recent years, waivers have given the states the flexibility to change many features of their Medicaid programs; moreover, the states have considerable flexibility to in establishing State Children's Health Insurance Programs. This book examines the record on the changing health safety net. How well have states done in providing acute and long-term care services to low-income populations? How have they responded to financial incentives and federal regulatory requirements? How innovative have they been? Contributing authors include Donald J. Boyd, Randall R. Bovbjerg, Teresa A. Coughlin, Ian Hill, Michael Housman, Robert E. Hurley, Marilyn Moon, Mary Beth Pohl, Jane Tilly, and Stephen Zuckerman.

The US Constitution did not establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national government and state governments, so the distribution of policymaking authority is subject to constant renegotiation and debate. When national lawmakers introduce policy initiatives that implicate the states in important ways, why do state leaders sometimes respond with strong support and other times with indifference or outright hostility? Moving beyond the conventional story that state officials simply want money and autonomy from their national counterparts, this book explains how the states' responses over the short, medium, and long term are shaped by policy design, timing, and the interaction between the two. Reaching across different historical eras with in-depth case studies of policies such as Superfund, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the book shows how federalism has influenced, and continues to influence, the evolution of American public policy.

Until the 1990s social policy played an integrative role in Canada, providing a counter-narrative to claims that federalism and diversity undermine the potential of social policy. Today, however, the Canadian model is under strain, reflecting changes in both the welfare state and the immigration-citizenship-multiculturalism regime. Federalism and the Welfare State in a Multicultural World illustrates that there are clear trends that, if unchecked, may exacerbate rather than overcome important social cleavages. The editors argue that we are at a crucial moment to re-evaluate the role of social policy in a federal state and a multicultural society, and if federalism and diversity challenge traditional models of the nation-building function of social policy, they also open up new pathways for social policy to overcome social divisions. Complacency about, or naive celebration of, the Canadian model is unwarranted, but it is premature to conclude that the model is irredeemably broken, or that all the developments are centrifugal rather than centripetal. Social policy is integral to mitigating divisions of class, region, language, race, and ethnicity, and its underlying values of solidarity and risk-sharing also make it a critical mechanism for nation-building. Whether social policy actually accomplishes these goals is variable and contested. The essays in this volume provide some timely answers.

Examining the changing nature of health care federalism within a competitive global context, Comparative Health Care Federalism provides a rich and nuanced account of the way in which the interplay of federal relationships impact health care within an array of systems. The editors have gathered together some of the leading international health policy scholars to provide detailed accounts of the dynamics of federal health policy-making within their respective jurisdictions. Complementing the theoretical and methodological objectives, this book provides a detailed, empirical description of the challenges faced by different states and the ways in which health policy-making works within the federal, quasi-federal, and functional federal systems presented. In chapters on the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom, the EU, India, China, Brazil, and the Russian Federation the authors consider what variables contribute to, and stand in the way of, the formation of robust and sustainable health care systems.

What does federalism do to welfare states? This question arises in scholarly debates about policy design as well as in discussions about the right political institutions for a country. It has frustrated many, with federalism seeming to matter in all sorts of combinations with all sorts of issues, from nationalism to racism to intergovernmental competition. The diffuse federalism literature has not come to compelling answers for very basic questions. Scott L. Greer, Daniel Béland, André Lecours, and Kenneth A. Dubin argue for a new approach—one methodologically focused on configurations of variables within cases rather than a fruitless attempt to isolate “the” effect of federalism; and one that is substantively engaged with identifying key elements in configurations as well as with when and how their interactions matter. Born out of their work on a multi-year, eleven-country project (published as Federalism and Social Policy: Patterns of Redistribution in Eleven Countries, University of Michigan Press, 2019), this book comprises a methodological and substantive agenda. Methodologically, the authors shift to studies that embraced and understood the complexity within which federal political institutions operate. Substantively, they make an argument for the importance of plurinationalism, changing economic interests, and institutional legacies.