Tag Archives: federalism

Season 1, Episode 29

Transcription

On today’s episode of Free Range, Michael Livermore speaks with UVA Law colleague Rich Schragger a leading expert on local government, federalism, and urban policy and the author of City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age.

Schragger begins the episode by discussing the idea of ‘city power,’ which is meant to challenge the usual narratives about local governments and cities. (0:42 – 2:41)

Livermore and Schragger turn to one view, of cities as selling a suite of policies and amenities. In his book, he discusses the mistake of misinterpreting sorting as a theory of economic growth. Schragger is skeptical of claims that a city has failed because of a decrease in population, which can have other causes. He argues that even in an economic downturn, cities need to provide good municipal services. (2:44 – 10:40)

They discuss theories of growth in cities, debating if growth is a policy independent processes. Schragger elaborates on the relationship between institutions and growth, saying that they will have a relationship but at what scale? He explains his attraction to Jane Jacobs’s ideas on why economic development happens in cities. (10:45 – 18:41)
Schragger explains two common views of cities: that they are products in markets or that they are byproducts of large-scale social forces. He prefers to think of a city as a process akin to an organic phenomenon. (18:42 – 28:07)

Schragger argues that we are still radically unsure what causes economic growth in a city. He emphasizes that cities should provide basic municipal services to their people as a matter of social justice, not as a matter of growth seeking. (28:10 – 31:47) He sees the lack of control over growth as in some ways liberating. Cities are free to implement policies such has a minimum living wage, and environmental regulations because ultimately these policies will not hurt the growth of the city. (31:48 – 35:17)

The discussion transitions into the distinctions between intercity and intracity competition. Schragger talks about how city population increases/decreases are attributed to the wrong factors. He uses the example of the urban resurgence in Charlottesville wrongly being attributed to the downtown mall. (35:20 – 43:13)

Livermore poses the question about the possibility of ever truly learning how policy affects cities. Schragger re-emphasizes that cities need to invest in services that improve the living of the people already there rather than attracting new people. Schragger argues that cities should act for justice, not growth. (43:20 – 53:01)

Livermore and Schragger discuss their views on redistribution, focusing on minimum wage. Schragger says the living minimum wage movement represents a proof of concept. He describes how large cities, such as Tokyo, New York City, London, have economic power that is used to leverage location advantage to do redistribution. He compares the power differences between city states and nation states, explaining cities’ locational leverage gives them more power to tax and redistribute than nations which flips the narrative of traditional federalism. (53:10 – 1:03:26)

Livermore closes the discussion by describing states as vestigial things in our constitutional system, asking Schragger his thoughts on the value of states. Schragger agrees that US states are in some ways a product of a flawed compromise and have lost their reason for being. He explains how one can be opposed to states but in favor of cities. He expresses that state-based federalism doesn’t work because the actual divide is not between states, but between cities and rural areas in those states. (1:03:31 – 1:11:40)

Season 1, Episode 18

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western who writes on environmental law, federalism, and regulation. In 2020, Brookings Institution Press published Adler’s edited Marijuana Federalism: Uncle Sam and Mary Jane.

Livermore and Adler begin their discussion on the topic of federalism and environmental law. Generally, Adler highlights sees the federal government as best focused on transboundary issues while states focus on issues with more localized impacts (00:49 – 02:50). Adler lists several benefits of states as venues for environmental policymaking, including variation in geography, economics, and industry as well as differences in values (02:50 – 04:35). He also highlights the value of experimentation in this regard (04:35 – 05:30). Alder also notes the distinction between decentralization as a policy matter and decentralization as a legal matter (05:30 – 06:56).

Livermore notes the large role played by the federal government under existing law for locally oriented pollution. Adler offers some thoughts on the origins of this situation, mentioning the lack of jurisdictional thought when statues were passed as well as the deserved skepticism towards state and local governments as a result of the Civil Rights Movement (06:56 – 10:37). Adler hopes that today’s states are different from those in the 60s and 70s (10:37 – 10:52). Adler offers some suggestions for policy reform (12:50 – 16:35) and the two discuss potential political barriers (16:35 – 21:47).
Livermore introduces a discussion about injustice and public choice failure at the state level. He mentions our renewed emphasis on environmental justice issues, and Adler argues that while states can fail, so can the federal government (21:47 – 32:40).

Adler and Livermore turn to experimentation and state variation (32:40 – 42:01). Livermore notes his view that the Brandeisian idea of “laboratories of democracy” is inapt; that a better way to view this process is as innovation. Adler agrees with the concept of innovation and discovery, emphasizing the discovery side. It’s not experimentation in the sense that it is controlled, it is rather a discovery and learning process as a result of variation and observation (42:01 – 48:06).

Livermore requests Adler’s thoughts on federalism versus localism and decentralization more broadly. Adler responds with the idea that different communities have different priorities; there is no one size fits all. He mentions that when local communities are given autonomy and control, they often discover and innovate in ways that have important environmental benefits. In terms of legality, the extent to which this is viable varies from state to state (48:06 – 53:36).

Livermore and Adler return to the earlier, more legal discussion around litigation over climate damages. Livermore explains a recent Second Circuit decision which led to a preemption-like result, asking Adler to discuss the stakes of the difference between federal common law and state common law, displacement versus preemption, and his thoughts on the Second Circuit decision. Adler argues that, although from a policy perspective, climate change is better suited to national rather than state or local solutions, from a legal perspective, the Second Circuit’s holding that these suits were preempted was unjustified (53:36 – 1:02:34).

The final question the two discuss is the intersection between environmental federalism and political polarization. Adler argues that principled federalism can help depolarize because it can lessen the stakes. Unnecessary centralization magnifies polarization. Adler is careful not to generalize, recognizing that there is no one answer that will solve everything. However, he states that if we can allow centralization and decentralization where they are most fit, we might be a few steps closer to arriving at agreement on environmental policy (1:02:34 – 1:07:52).