scholarly journals Book Review: "From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime The Making of Mass Incarceration in America"

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 618-622
Author(s):  
Tate Fegley

The great extent of federal involvement in local criminal justice matters was not established overnight, but over the course of several decades. This is the primary subject of Elizabeth Hinton’s book, From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America, wherein she catalogs the vast increases in federal spending on grants to state and local governments for policing and prison initiatives that occurred during the presidential administrations of John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan. Chapter after chapter simply describe the activities of the federal government in influencing local law enforcement and the expansion of prisons over the relevant time period. But the lack of any overarching argument leaves the reader feeling as though he is just reading a long series of facts.

2021 ◽  
pp. 153851322110475
Author(s):  
Carlton Basmajian ◽  
Nina David

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12372, revoking a relatively obscure publication issued by the Office of Management and Budget in 1969, Circular No. A-95. One of many policy changes that were part of a broad effort to rebalance how power was shared between the federal government, the states, and municipalities, Reagan’s pen stroke ended what for many planners had been a critical piece of urban policy during the 1970s. Part of President Lyndon Johnson’s 1960s Great Society programs, an era when federal assistance to state and local governments in support of domestic policy increased significantly, A-95 had established a coordination and review process that local governments receiving federal funding for planning development projects would be required to follow. The program was designed to force local governments to engage in more comprehensive regional coordination. For the next 12 years, almost every planner across the country, at some point or another, worked within the A-95 process. But researchers who examined A-95 during its short life struggled to produce solid evidence of its effectiveness. Absent a clear metric of the program’s success or failure, the history and legacy of the A-95 program has since been largely neglected. This paper explores the history of Circular A-95, a booklet issued by the US Office of Management and Budget to guide the implementation of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. We argue that the rules contained in the A-95 circular should be understood as an effort to create a framework for regional planning. Using primary documents and secondary literature, we conclude that the program deserves to be re-read as an important attempt to use federal power to establish a pragmatic national planning policy in the United States in the latter half of the 20th century.


Author(s):  
Greta de Jong

This chapter describes how the conservative political discourse of the 1970s echoed the sentiments expressed by southern opponents of the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty in the 1960s, tracing changes in federal policy that reflected the growing acceptance of these ideas among government officials and the population at large. Citing the need to halt the trend toward federal intervention in the economy and other areas of American life, President Richard Nixon proclaimed an era of “New Federalism” that reduced funding for antipoverty programs and restored control over economic development to state and local governments. These moves neutralized the transformative potential of the War on Poverty and left existing power relations intact, leaving poor people without strong advocates in government or adequate assistance during a decade of rising unemployment and economic distress.


1963 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Cohen ◽  
Moeton Grodzins

We present in this paper an economic analysis of American federalism as a system of shared functions. Recent political studies have suggested that the federal, state and local governments may be viewed as closely meshed parts of a single system. Functions are not neatly parceled out among the many units, or along the three planes, of the federal system. Rather, it is difficult to find any governmental activity performed by a given plane of government which does not involve the other planes in important and continuing responsibilities. Decision-making power, as well as administration, is shared. Formally, as in grant-in-aid programs, and informally, as in the cooperation of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, the three planes of government work substantially as one in the fulfillment of common purposes.It is possible to formulate an economic counterpart to the hypothesis of political sharing, as follows: Despite apparent diversities in the fiscal activities of the federal government, on the one hand, and state-local governments, on the other, an essential consistency marks the economic impacts of these two planes of government. In political analysis the sharing hypothesis relies for demonstration on descriptive studies of the common involvement of the federal, state, and local governments in the entire range of their activities. More quantitative criteria can be applied in testing economic impacts.Three types of economic impacts of government can be distinguished: on the allocation of resources between public and private use; on the level of aggregate demand (income and employment); and on the distribution of income among households. These are the major categories of economic impact with which the economist deals. They are distinct areas: the resource-shifting effect of government, for example, is analytically separate from the equalization-of-income effect.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document