Adapting Intergovernmental Management to the New Age of Terrorism

• Author: James A. Stever
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399705277138
• Published date: 01 September 2005
• Date: 01 September 2005
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0095399705277138ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / September 2005Stever / ADAPTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT

ADAPTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL

MANAGEMENT TO THE NEW AGE

OF TERRORISM

JAMES A. STEVER

University of Cincinnati

Twentiethcentury progressivismproduced intergovernmental models that do not work in this

era of terrorism.Their shortcomings surfaced during the Gulf War,with efforts to involve the

National Guard in disaster relief, and are now quite apparent. Four assumptions should

guide the adaptation of existing intergovernmentalmodels: (a) recognizing the new linkage

between intergovernmentalrelations and the military; (b) mastering new proactive methods

rather than waiting on the slow processes of incremental reform; (c) accepting new values

(timeliness, flexibility, and containment of the deadly consequences of terrorism) to con-

strain 21st century intergovernmental relations; and (d) rebuildingthe shattered intergov-

ernmental context.

Keywords: intergovernmental management; federalism; emergency management;

pragmatism

Scholars of federalism and intergovernmental management (IGM) are

divided on the effect that terrorism will haveon the American federal sys-

tem. Some insist on sweeping reforms (Walker, 2002). Others anticipate

only minor adjustments (Kincaid & Cole, 2002). This article takes the for-

mer position, arguing in particular that terrorism will have a major effect

on IGM and should change the way that it is conceived and practiced.

379

AUTHOR’S NOTE:The National Agricultural Biosecurity Center at Kansas State Univer-

sity provided an extraordinaryenvironment within which to develop and frame many of the

ideas found in this article. I am particularly indebted to R. W. Trewyn, vice provost for

researchat Kansas State University, for his criticism and suggestionsthat improved the vari-

ousdrafts of this article. This material was made possible in part by a cooperative agreement

to Kansas State University from the United States Department of Agriculture’sAnimal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). This article may not necessarily express the views

of the APHIS.

ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 37 No. 4, September 2005 379-403

DOI: 10.1177/0095399705277138

© 2005 Sage Publications

To be more specific, there is concern that scholars and practitioners

who labor in the tradition of pragmatism or progressivism do not fully

appreciate the challenges of terrorism to their conventional models of

IGM. There were several indicators that conventional pragmatic or pro-

gressive approaches to IGM required adjustment in the 1990s, the decade

preceding the catastrophic collapse of the World Trade Towers. These

models have not produced effective intergovernmentalsolutions to prob-

lems that became acute in the 1990s. First, pragmatic or progressive IGM

models tolerated haphazard and contradictory federal, state, and local

responses to the challenge of troops returning from Operation Desert

Storm (Stever, 1999). Second, scholars and practitioners utilizing prag-

matic or progressive IGM models have not produced effective strategies

for managing multiple organizations involved in crisis management and

disaster relief. Moreover, with September 11, 2001, the intergovernmen-

tal exigencies surrounding crisis management are even more imperative.

Terrorists havethe potential to increase the scale and scope of civil disor-

der to affect multiple jurisdictions throughout the federal system. These

new realities require new IGM models that meet the new and pressing

intergovernmental security requirements of the 21st century.

To substantiate these concerns, it is necessary to briefly explore the

pragmatic or progressive origins of IGM and the subsequent IGM models

that grew out of this tradition. The intent here is not to produce a complete

history or an exhaustive taxonomy of existing IGM models. Rather, this

article intends to accomplish several objectives:to demonstrate that prag-

matic or progressive IGM models must be fundamentally adapted and to

suggest strategies for this adaptation.

THE ORIGINS OF IGM

From a historical perspective, IGM is a relatively new element of the

American federal system. Deil Wright (1990, p. 170) argues that the prac-

tice of IGM was not an established element of the system until the 1970s.

One way to understand IGM is to distinguish it from federalism. Federal-

ism is a legal concept, and there is an enduring tradition within jurispru-

dence, political science, and public administration that seeks to mediate

federal, state, and local relationships through constitutionally grounded

principles. Scholars such as Lord Bryce, Douglas Adair, and Martin Dia-

mond, steeped in classical liberal theory, believed that the fundamental

guide to intergovernmental relations was the constitution. Hence, the

380 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / September 2005