Intergovernmental Relations in Mexico and the United States: A Comparative Perspective

1990 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack W. Hopkins
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Turner

<div>Our main report, Good Ideas from Successful Cities: Municipal Leadership in Immigrant Integration, explores these themes through a selection of nearly 40 profiles of municipal practice and policies from cities across Canada, the U.S., Europe and Australasia. In this companion report, United States: Good Ideas from Successful Cities, we present an additional snapshot of municipal leadership and excellence in immigrant integration from cities in the United States. Each of these five city profiles includes a selection of related international city practices to encourage comparative perspective and enriched learning.</div>


1989 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary J. Jacobsohn

Constitutional transplantation, the process by which the constitutional practice of one society becomes an important source for the legal development of another, has figured importantly in the institutional evolution of new politics. In this article, I examine the constitutional experience of Israel and the United States, two societies that share a language of jurisprudential discourse while differing significantly in a number of polically relevant ways. In particular, the fact that both societies can be described as pluralistic only conceals the fact that they represent alternative models of pluralism that may render problematic the the transferablity of constitutional outcomes from one place to another. Thus, the literature of modern constitutionalism, which has tended to emphasize the rights-based liberal ethic of individualism, is arguably more compatible with an American model in which the principles of the “procedural republic” are more unproblematically embraced. To pursue this question, I look at two issues—the advisability of adopting a bill of rights and the appropriate stance of the regime on the question of free speech—that allow us to reflect upon the limits and possibilities of constitutional transplantation.


2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. 1283-1295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur B. Gunlicks

In both the United States and Germany constitutional lawyers, politicians, and the attentive public speak of “dual federalism.” In the United States this means that the federal government and the states have separate political and administrative responsibilities and their own sources of revenues. In Germany, in contrast, dual federalism means that the federal government, i.e., the executive and legislative branches, are responsible for most legislation, and that the Länder (states; singular, Land) generally administer the laws (in large part through their local governments) on their own responsibility. In both federal systems “dual federalism” has been undermined if not replaced by “cooperative federalism,” generally associated with the New Deal era in the United States and the Finance Reform of 1969 in Germany. In the meantime “intergovernmental relations” has more or less replaced the concept of “cooperative federalism” in the United States, while Politikverflechtung (political/policy interconnection and coordination) is perhaps the more commonly used term in Germany today. In both cases the new terms reflect an interrelationship among federal, regional, and local levels that goes beyond mere cooperation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document