• Request Info

Intergovernmental Relationships: How The Three Levels of Government Work Together

The United States’ governmental system consists of three levels: local, state and federal. The three levels work together to help implement federal programs and mandates, such as those related to education and the environment.

infographic - intergovernmental relationships

Text: Intergovernmental Relationships

The levels of governments.

The federal government is made up of the judiciary that comprises the Supreme Court and the federal courts. The premise behind the formation of federal governments is to provide stability and order to the society, in the economy and represent the USA in international relations. The executive arm comprises of the presidency, the cabinet, executive departments, and independent federal agencies. The legislature is made up of the senate and the House of Representatives. The state governments are constituted on the federal government model where the three arms create a check and balance for each other. The governor heads the executive arm of the state governments while each state has a state supreme court and a legislature. The local governments are set up depending on the requirements of each state’s constitution. The tiers of the local government include the counties, cities, and towns. Working together.

The federal government sets up the programs to be implemented in the whole nation. These programs are the pertinent issues falling under the mandate of the federal government and touch on all US citizens. However, the state governments undertake the implementation of these programs. The federal government places requests on the states and local governments, known as federal mandates, to implement its programs. These mandates are either fully funded by the federal government, partially funded by the states and federal government or the unfunded mandates.  

Collaboration in Education

As of 2015, there were 54.9 million students in the K-12. 50 million attended the publicly funded schools while the rest attended the privately owned schools. In the primary education category, the federal and state government has differing roles. The federal government, through the federal department of education, engages in the management of the education related critical and emergency issues occurring at the state level. The states are mandated to maintain the public schools and the colleges as well as develop curriculum used within the school in the state.  

Funding education

The federal government provides 10.8% of all the funding required for the elementary and secondary school levels. Since the federal government takes care of educational all the states, the funds are provided as categorical grants on a national approach. The states provide the remaining 87.7% of the elementary and secondary school.  

Federal mandates in education

Although the federal government provides lesser funds in the elementary and secondary education, it makes the overall guiding policy to be implemented by the states in the education sector. These federal mandates are meant to unify the quality of education in all states such that every child has access to education. It also ensures that all children have access to the same quality level regardless of the states they are learning from.

The federal mandate requires the states to test each student from the third to the twelfth grade in both mathematics and reading. Additionally, each school has to report the grades to both the federal and the state governments. States are expressly required to assist in boosting the score of special interest groups in the society such as the poor, minorities, those with special requirements, and those using language as the second language.  

Addressing climate change

Considering that the effects of the climate change are a reality in America, the three government levels collaborate with each to collect data and address the effects. The most recent data shows the last decade was the hottest with the year 2012 being the hottest in the history of the USA. Each level of government takes its primary environmental protection duties serious.  

Roles of three levels of government in managing climate change

The federal government is solely responsibility for enacting nationwide legislation to protect the environment and the health of the citizens. However, given that the federal government may not be able to control the environmental issues in each town or county it is necessary to allow the states and local governments to deal with the issues. The Federal government formed the environmental protection agency (EPA) to monitor and regulate the environmental issues in all states. The states and the local government rely on the EPA guidance to legislate environmentally friendly laws. These laws are implemented in each state depending on the environmental issues affecting the specific state.  

Environmental Collaboration

Both the federal, state, and local governments collaborate in the identification of the causes of the climatic change and the impacts of these changes to the environment and health of the people. On its part, the federal government identifies the ways where the measurements and monitoring of the greenhouse gas emission can be improved. As a result, the federal government forms the guidelines and regulations to be followed by the companies operating in the USA.

The state and the local governments take the implementation roles to ensure adherence to the guidelines and the regulations. Since the activities likely, to pollute the environment take place within the states, the local governments has to ensure that the firms engaging in any production activity abides by the federal guidelines.

Both federal, state and local government has set several goals to protect the environment, including reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, saving money and improving the air quality and health of the citizens. To achieve these goals, both levels of governments are making investments in efficient ways of using energy and are exploring new and sustainable sources of renewable energy. All governments are also exploring policies and programs to address the climate change.  

As the nation’s oldest private military college, Norwich University has been a leader in innovative education since 1819. Through its online programs, Norwich delivers relevant and applicable curricula that allow its students to make a positive impact on their places of work and their communities.

Norwich University’s online Master of Public Administration program is a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary program that helps produce graduates with the skills needed to effectively manage a demanding and evolving industry. Our rigorous curriculum helps provide you with an all-inclusive study of organizational management concepts, decision-making processes, strategic planning, and fiscal management.  

Citizens, Governments Solve Governance Challenges Together

  • This page in:

Image

Move fast, think slow: How financial services can strike a balance with GenAI

how do governments work together to solve problems

Take on Tomorrow @ the World Economic Forum in Davos: Energy demand

how do governments work together to solve problems

PwC’s Global Investor Survey 2023

how do governments work together to solve problems

Climate risk, resilience and adaptation

how do governments work together to solve problems

Business transformation

how do governments work together to solve problems

Sustainability assurance

how do governments work together to solve problems

The Leadership Agenda

how do governments work together to solve problems

PwC’s 27th Annual Global CEO Survey: Thriving in an age of continuous reinvention

how do governments work together to solve problems

Built to give leaders the right tools to make tough decisions

how do governments work together to solve problems

The New Equation

how do governments work together to solve problems

PwC’s Global Annual Review

how do governments work together to solve problems

Committing to Net Zero

how do governments work together to solve problems

The Solvers Challenge

Loading Results

No Match Found

Diversity and Inclusion

How governments can push towards a better tomorrow

World leaders face six interconnected challenges, and although approaches and solutions will differ by country, taking key actions will benefit all.

9 minute read     |     March 8, 2021     |     s+b, a PwC publication

how do governments work together to solve problems

Kevin Burrowes

Global Clients and Industries Leader, PwC United Kingdom

how do governments work together to solve problems

Jessica Shannon

Former partner with PwC Ghana

The year 2020 was full of challenges for world leaders. No country was spared from the COVID-19 pandemic or the related economic, educational and national security crises. Issues of climate change became even more acute than they already were, with a record number of natural disasters, including fires, hurricanes and droughts. And geopolitical instability became a shared experience within and across nations, affecting countries that have been fragile for a long time and those that were previously viewed as stalwarts of democracy and stability. These challenges persist in 2021. 

Citizens and businesses are looking to their government leaders to help them navigate and emerge stronger from these large-scale, complex problems. Most stakeholders have accepted that going back to the way things were in 2019 is not an option—or even a goal. Thinking ahead to 2022, they want a better future, informed by the lessons of 2020 and now 2021.  

Although the challenges governments face are nearly universal, how leaders go about tackling them might vary significantly, depending on the government structure and ideology. Because the well-being of society as a whole is at stake, potential solutions to need to be inclusive of all. 

Six pressing challenges

Rising levels of inequality within and across countries have contributed to the severity of the COVID-19 crisis and created significant geopolitical unrest. Economic and social systems often increase inequality, which can then exacerbate societal polarisation and undermine national safety and security. To  reinvent a future that is more sustainable, governments must address six core challenges, with a focus on reducing inequality and promoting shared prosperity. Although each challenge is discrete, together they have significant interdependencies, so a failure to address one is likely to have an adverse effect on others. This is why an executive-level, cross-ministerial, cross-agency plan will be critical to success. 

1. Economy. More than 493m full-time-equivalent jobs, most belonging to women and youth, were lost in 2020, and the global GDP declined by 4.3%. The International Monetary Fund noted that this crisis might have been much worse if not for strong government intervention. Governments have provided an unprecedented level of support to businesses and citizens through direct funding, investments, tax reductions and targeted distribution of goods. This level of support, however, has come at a cost of ballooning government debt.  

The World Bank is predicting a modest rebound in 2021, with 4% growth in global output, contingent upon broadscale COVID-19 vaccination success and government policies and programmes that promote private-sector growth and reduced public-sector debt.  

2. Healthcare. It’s counterintuitive, but global expenditure on healthcare was expected to fall by 1.1% in 2020, driven by delayed or cancelled care for non–COVID-19-related illnesses or treatments. Although patients initiated cancellations in some cases, capacity constraints have also been a big factor—and all of this deferred care is expected to increase healthcare challenges in 2021 and 2022. COVID-19 has highlighted hurdles in almost every element of the healthcare value chain, including supply chains, preventative medicine, primary care and in-patient treatment facilities.  

Over the next several months, public health officials must have a dual focus on surge response and vaccine distribution efforts. In the medium and long term, governments will need to assess ways in which they can make the healthcare system more resilient to reduce the impact of future adverse public health events.   

3. Education. Before the pandemic, education reform was on the agenda in most countries. It was estimated that 90% of students in low-income countries, 50% in middle-income countries and 30% in high-income countries left secondary school without necessary life skills for navigating work and life. Temporary closures in more than 180 countries at some point during the pandemic compounded the problem, keeping an estimated 1.6bn students out of schools. Most educators have worked tirelessly to deliver remote learning to students, but resources have been limited and results have been mixed. UNICEF estimates that as a result of school closures, 24m children have become dropout risks and many of the 370m children who rely on school meals could experience malnutrition.

In addition to transforming traditional education programmes to better serve all students, governments must determine how to pave the way to a better future via adult education, as well. Addressing unemployment and spurring economic recovery will rely in part on adult reskilling programmes, including digital upskilling . Government leaders must also determine how higher education should be financed if the shift to virtual learning continues.

Educational transformation at all levels will need to include a combination of digital enablement, curriculum revision, the use of new learning methods, upskilling of teachers and structural redesign.  

4. National safety and security. The mandate of defence and security forces has broadened and will continue to be critical. More than 91% of the world’s population has been under some form of lockdown and border restriction since the onset of the pandemic. Police and security agencies, technology and private contractors have been used to monitor and enforce restrictions. In addition, border management policies continue to shift based on new data on the virus and vaccines.  

Crime, including domestic violence, robberies and looting, has increased in many countries during the pandemic. So have political events, including rallies and protests. Researchers speculate that lockdown, unemployment and desperation among citizens have played a role in intensifying these crimes and events. Some rallies and protests have also been deemed “super-spreader” events, escalating COVID-19 transmission due to a lack of social distancing and mask wearing among participants.  

Digital security has emerged as a risk equal to or greater than physical security. Cybercrime has increased dramatically as governments and businesses race to become more digital. In a post-lockdown environment, governments must address risks associated with their digital agenda, in addition to security and stability challenges related to immigration, border management and political events.  

5. Climate. While the world has battled COVID-19, the war against climate change has continued. NASA officially ranked 2020 as tied for the hottest year on record, and the past seven years have been the warmest in human history. Extreme weather-related events, including hurricanes, wildfires, floods and heatwaves, were prolific in 2020.  

Governments have set ambitious climate agendas, with commitments to create policies, regulations and incentives to accelerate decarbonisation. But only two nations are currently meeting their Paris Agreement targets. Many might be able to make a positive impact through “green recovery” programmes and other related measures to direct stimulus funding to clean energy businesses, sustainable production and green infrastructure. Even governments that are not supporting a clean energy agenda must consider strategies for disaster preparedness and climate adaptation.  

6. Trust in government. Disinformation around the world costs an estimated US$78bn annually, not including societal impacts. In many countries, it erodes trust in government leaders and influences the course of elections. The lack of clear structures, roles and efficient responses to citizens’ pressing concerns and needs only compounds the loss of trust. Trust in governments rose at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but through the course of the response, governments have come to be perceived as the least ethical and least competent stakeholder, according to the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer .  

Most governments did not pivot from traditional operating models to employ the agile, whole-of-government approach required for today’s interconnected, rapidly evolving agenda. Ministries and agencies must work together. The current crisis has also highlighted how a lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of national versus subnational governments leaves constituents feeling vulnerable. 

Although trust in government has fallen since the pandemic began, people recognise the need for government to help solve fundamental problems. 

Increased urgency for governments to address foundational problems 1.

1 Respondents were asked how important it was for their country to address each issue; on a 5-point scale, top 2 = more important, bottom 2 = less important. Data reflects general population and a 27-market average. 2 Net change is the difference between “more important” and “less important” responses.

Source: Edelman Trust Barometer 2021

Governments must now urgently identify the combination of regulations, policies, organisational structures and skills required to create transparency and restore trust.

Three accelerators 

Although the challenges are daunting, they also represent opportunities. A famous world leader once proclaimed that one should never waste a good crisis—a philosophy many governments have embraced in 2021. Three key accelerators, when leveraged in addressing the six challenges, can help governments achieve a stronger, more resilient and more inclusive society for their citizens.  

1. Digital. Governments are driving a digital agenda to increase access to citizen services, education, healthcare and social safety nets. Digital platforms, if employed strategically, can serve as a great equaliser. In education, for example, Estonia, which has the top-ranked school system in Europe, had a mature digital component prior to COVID-19 and was able to move seamlessly to a remote-learning environment. Other countries are looking at how to replicate the universal access and success of this model. Similar case studies exist across almost all citizen services. 

2. Partnerships. Public–private partnerships have become a standard financing mechanism in the large-scale infrastructure sector but are often transactional in nature. A new form of partnership is emerging across the public, private and multilateral community, however, involving deep collaboration on design, development and financing of groundbreaking programmes. These types of long-term partnerships can significantly accelerate recovery, innovation and growth. The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) partnership, for example, established in April 2020 by the National Institutes for Health, includes more than a dozen leading biopharmaceutical companies and national health authorities, and has contributed to vaccine development in record time.  

3. Green programmes. Many governments are incorporating infrastructure into their economic stimulus packages. There is a good reason for this: a report by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that such investments are an economic multiplier, with each US$100bn put into infrastructure yielding as many as 1m full-time jobs, in addition to the benefit of the infrastructure itself. Forward-thinking countries are targeting such sustainable programmes that will help achieve the Paris Agreement’s net-zero targets while providing growth and future jobs. 

The path ahead

No matter which unique dimensions of the six challenges are present in different countries or what each government’s distinct approach is likely to be in seeking solutions, it is critical that all governments consider five key actions for sustainable success:

1. Listen to, and collaborate with, key stakeholders. Governments must take time to assess the sentiment of all stakeholders, including all citizens, businesses, partner countries and the global community. Each will bring a unique and important perspective when considering options.

2. Perform a clear analysis. Holistic and data-driven analyses will enable governments to make informed and defensible decisions for all constituents. A situational analysis must include country-specific qualitative and quantitative data, as well as global data. It must also consider historical and projected information under various scenarios.  

3. Explicitly manage priorities. With the crisis continuing alongside recovery, priorities will shift, often quickly. Government planning must be agile to accommodate those shifts in a structured and intentional manner.  

4. Prioritise solutions that promote equality. Inequality is both a cause and an effect of the six challenges described above. Governments must seek to repair societies and communities in an inclusive manner, reducing inequality and the underlying vulnerabilities.

5. Balance immediate and long-term needs. In challenging times, some governments will be tempted to address citizen challenges immediately, at the expense of long-term objectives and goals. When possible, decisions should be made for today and for the generations to come. 

Every government is searching for potential solutions to the challenges described above. Several factors—including the strength of the social systems and economy going into the crisis, economic diversity, culture, political system, and citizens’ opinion of and trust in the current government—will affect the options and decisions for each country.  

Over the next several weeks, PwC will share detailed perspectives on the spectrum of potential solutions to each of the six key challenges and will analyse the trade-offs and implications. We will also share a perspective on how the accelerators can help to build a more sustainable, inclusive future. Together, we’ll embark on the journey towards a better tomorrow.

Kevin Burrowes is PwC’s global clients and industries leader. Based in London, he is a partner with PwC UK.

how do governments work together to solve problems

Published by PwC Read more on strategy+business

Further reading

Hopes and fears 2021.

Explore PwC's Upskilling Hopes and Fears Survey 2021 - one of the largest-ever studies of the global workforce

Explore the series

Climate Change

Private–public infrastructure partnerships can spur a green recovery

7 minute read February 8, 2021

Economic stimulus plans that support clean energy and decarbonisation through innovative partnerships will create new models for sustainable growth.

Fracturing World

Sustaining COVID-era urgency for the long run

5 minute read January 18, 2021

Companies must keep the constructive elements of fast decision-making developed during the pandemic.

Diversity and the case for transparency

5 minute read February 17, 2021

Vulnerability is a necessity if we want to lead effectively.

Hello Tomorrow illustration - person looking through a keyhole

Get your business ready for what comes next Using our market leading studies, data, and expert analyses, we pinpoint the forces making an immediate impact on your business—and empower you to reinvent the future by examining global macrotrends, exploring sector-specific shifts, and discovering the latest technological tools to drive change. Find out more here

Get in touch

Reach out to start a conversation

Global Clients & Industries Leader, UK, PwC United Kingdom

+44 (0) 7590 353852

PwC Caribbean International Development and Forensics Leader, PwC Jamaica

Thank you for your interest in PwC

We have received your information. Should you need to refer back to this submission in the future, please use reference number "refID" .

Required fields are marked with an asterisk( * )

Please correct the errors and send your information again.

By submitting your email address, you acknowledge that you have read the Privacy Statement and that you consent to our processing data in accordance with the Privacy Statement (including international transfers). If you change your mind at any time about wishing to receive the information from us, you can send us an email message using the Contact Us page.

Matthew Wetmore

Matthew Wetmore

Global Industries & Sectors Leader and National Managing Partner, Clients & Markets, PwC Canada

Tel: +1 403 509 7483

Fax: +1 403 781 1825

© 2017 - 2024 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

  • Legal notices
  • Cookie policy
  • Legal disclaimer
  • Terms and conditions

Logo for M Libraries Publishing

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3.2 The Meanings of Federalism

Learning objectives.

After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:

  • How has the meaning of federalism changed over time?
  • Why has the meaning of federalism changed over time?
  • What are states’ rights and dual, cooperative, and competitive federalism?

The meaning of federalism has changed over time. During the first decades of the republic, many politicians held that states’ rights allowed states to disobey any national government that in their view exceeded its powers. Such a doctrine was largely discredited after the Civil War. Then dual federalism , a clear division of labor between national and state government, became the dominant doctrine. During the New Deal of the 1930s, cooperative federalism , whereby federal and state governments work together to solve problems, emerged and held sway until the 1960s. Since then, the situation is summarized by the term competitive federalism , whereby responsibilities are assigned based on whether the national government or the state is thought to be best able to handle the task.

States’ Rights

The ink had barely dried on the Constitution when disputes arose over federalism. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton hoped to build a strong national economic system; Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson favored a limited national government. Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian factions in President George Washington’s cabinet led to the first political parties: respectively, the Federalists, who favored national supremacy, and the Republicans, who supported states’ rights.

Compact Theory

In 1798, Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, outlawing malicious criticism of the government and authorizing the president to deport enemy aliens. In response, the Republican Jefferson drafted a resolution passed by Kentucky’s legislature, the first states’ rights manifesto. It set forth a compact theory, claiming that states had voluntarily entered into a “compact” to ratify the Constitution. Consequently, each state could engage in “nullification” and “judge for itself” if an act was constitutional and refuse to enforce it (McDonald, 2000). However, Jefferson shelved states’ rights when, as president, he directed the national government to purchase the enormous Louisiana Territory from France in 1803.

Alien and Sedition Acts

Read more about the Alien and Sedition Acts online at http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html .

Jefferson’s Role

Read more about Jefferson’s role online at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html .

Slavery and the Crisis of Federalism

After the Revolutionary War, slavery waned in the North, where slaves were domestic servants or lone farmhands. In the South, labor-intensive crops on plantations were the basis of Southern prosperity, which relied heavily on slaves (McPherson, 1988).

In 1850, Congress faced the prospect of new states carved from land captured in the Mexican War and debated whether they would be slave or free states. In a compromise, Congress admitted California as a free state but directed the national government to capture and return escaped slaves, even in free states. Officials in Northern states decried such an exertion of national power favoring the South. They passed state laws outlining rights for accused fugitive slaves and forbidding state officials from capturing fugitives (Morris, 1974). The Underground Railroad transporting escaped slaves northward grew. The saga of hunted fugitives was at the heart of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin , which sold more copies proportional to the American population than any book before or since.

Figure 3.2 Lithograph from Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Lithograph from Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe

The plight of fugitive slaves, vividly portrayed in the mega best seller of the 1850s, Uncle Tom’s Cabin , created a crisis in federalism that led directly to the Civil War.

Moosevlt – Uncle Tom’s Cabin – CC BY 2.0.

In 1857, the Supreme Court stepped into the fray. Dred Scott, the slave of a deceased Missouri army surgeon, sued for freedom, noting he had accompanied his master for extended stays in a free state and a free territory. [1] The justices dismissed Scott’s claim. They stated that blacks, excluded from the Constitution, could never be US citizens and could not sue in federal court. They added that any national restriction on slavery in territories violated the Fifth Amendment, which bars the government from taking property without due process of law. To many Northerners, the Dred Scott decision raised doubts about whether any state could effectively ban slavery. In December 1860, a convention in South Carolina repealed the state’s ratification of the Constitution and dissolved its union with the other states. Ten other states followed suit. The eleven formed the Confederate States of America (see Note 3.19 “Enduring Image” ).

The Underground Railroad

Learn more about the Underground Railroad online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2944.html .

The Dred Scott Case

Learn more about the Dred Scott case from the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DredScott.html .

Enduring Image

The Confederate Battle Flag

The American flag is an enduring image of the United States’ national unity. The Civil War battle flag of the Confederate States of America is also an enduring image, but of states’ rights, of opposition to a national government, and of support for slavery. The blue cross studded with eleven stars for the states of the Confederacy was not its official flag. Soldiers hastily pressed it into battle to avoid confusion between the Union’s Stars and Stripes and the Confederacy’s Stars and Bars. After the South’s defeat, the battle flag, often lowered for mourning, was mainly a memento of gallant human loss (Bonner, 2002).

The flag’s meaning was transformed in the 1940s as the civil rights movement made gains against segregation in the South. One after another Southern state flew the flag above its capitol or defiantly redesigned the state flag to incorporate it. Over the last sixty years, a myriad of meanings arousing deep emotions have become attached to the flag: states’ rights; Southern regional pride; a general defiance of big government; nostalgia for a bygone era; racist support of segregation; or “equal rights for whites” (Horwitz, 1998; Martinez et al., 1998).

Confederate Flag

Confederate Flag

Sally Tudor – CONFEDERATE FLAG2 – CC BY-NC 2.0.

The battle flag appeals to politicians seeking resonant images. But its multiple meanings can backfire. In 2003, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, addressed the Democratic National Committee and said, “White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us, and not them [Republicans], because their kids don’t have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too.” Dean received a rousing ovation, so he probably thought little of it when he told the Des Moines Register , “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.” [2] Dean, the Democratic front runner, was condemned by his rivals who questioned his patriotism, judgment, and racial sensitivity. Dean apologized for his remark. [3]

The South’s defeat in the Civil War discredited compact theory and nullification. Since then, state officials’ efforts to defy national orders have been futile. In 1963, Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to resist a court order to desegregate the all-white school. Eventually, he had no choice but to accede to federal marshals. In 1994, Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey, a pro-life Democrat, decreed he would not allow state officials to enforce a national order that state-run Medicaid programs pay for abortions in cases of rape and incest. He lost in court (Shapiro, 1995).

Dual Federalism

After the Civil War, the justices of the Supreme Court wrote, “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States” (Texas v. White, 1869). They endorsed dual federalism, a doctrine whereby national and state governments have clearly demarcated domains of power. The national government is supreme, but only in the areas where the Constitution authorizes it to act.

The basis for dual federalism was a series of Supreme Court decisions early in the nineteenth century. The key decision was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Court struck down a Maryland state tax on the Bank of the United States chartered by Congress. Chief Justice Marshall conceded that the Constitution gave Congress no explicit power to charter a national bank (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819), but concluded that the Constitution’s necessary-and-proper clause enabled Congress and the national government to do whatever it deemed “convenient or useful” to exercise its powers. As for Maryland’s tax, he wrote, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Therefore, when a state’s laws interfere with the national government’s operation, the latter takes precedence. From the 1780s to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the size and reach of the national government were relatively limited. As late as 1932, local government raised and spent more than the national government or the states.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Read more about McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_mcculloch.html .

On two subjects, however, the national government increased its power in relationship to the states and local governments: sin and economic regulation.

The Politics of Sin

National powers were expanded when Congress targeted obscenity, prostitution, and alcohol (Morone, 2003). In 1872, reformers led by Anthony Comstock persuaded Congress to pass laws blocking obscene material from being carried in the US mail. Comstock had a broad notion of sinful media: all writings about sex, birth control, abortion, and childbearing, plus tabloid newspapers that allegedly corrupted innocent youth.

Anthony Comstock

The first book by Anthony Comstock, who headed the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, aimed at the supposedly corrupting influence of the tabloid media of the day on children and proposed increasing the power of the national government to combat them.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

As a result of these laws, the national government gained the power to exclude material from the mail even if it was legal in individual states.

The power of the national government also increased when prostitution became a focus of national policy. A 1910 exposé in McClure’s magazine roused President William Howard Taft to warn Congress about prostitution rings operating across state lines. The ensuing media frenzy depicted young white girls torn from rural homes and degraded by an urban “white slave trade.” Using the commerce clause, Congress passed the Mann Act to prohibit the transportation “in interstate commerce…of any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose” (Morone, 2003). The bill turned enforcement over to a tiny agency concerned with antitrust and postal violations, the Bureau of Investigations. The Bureau aggressively investigated thousands of allegations of “immoral purpose,” including unmarried couples crossing state lines to wed and interracial married couples.

The crusade to outlaw alcohol provided the most lasting expansion of national power. Reformers persuaded Congress in 1917 to bar importation of alcohol into dry states, and, in 1919, to amend the Constitution to allow for the nationwide prohibition of alcohol. Pervasive attempts to evade the law boosted organized crime, a rationale for the Bureau of Investigations to bloom into the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the equivalent of a national police force, in the 1920s.

Prohibition was repealed in 1933. But the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, its director from the 1920s to the 1970s, continued to call attention through news and entertainment media to the scourge of organized crime that justified its growth, political independence, and Hoover’s power. The FBI supervised film depictions of the lives of criminals like John Dillinger and long-running radio and television shows like The FBI . The heroic image of federal law enforcement would not be challenged until the 1960s when the classic film Bonnie and Clyde romanticized the tale of two small-time criminals into a saga of rebellious outsiders crushed by the ominous rise of authority across state lines.

Economic Regulation

Other national reforms in the late nineteenth century that increased the power of the national government were generated by reactions to industrialization, immigration, and urban growth. Crusading journalists decried the power of big business. Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle exposed miserable, unsafe working conditions in America’s factories. These reformers feared that states lacked the power or were reluctant to regulate railroads, inspect meat, or guarantee food and drug safety. They prompted Congress to use its powers under the commerce clause for economic regulation, starting with the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 to regulate railroads and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 to outlaw monopolies.

The Supreme Court, defending dual federalism, limited such regulation. It held in 1895 that the national government could only regulate matters directly affecting interstate commerce (United States v. E. C. Knight, 1895). In 1918, it ruled that Congress could not use the commerce clause to deal with local matters like conditions of work. The national government could regulate interstate commerce of harmful products such as lottery tickets or impure food (Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918).

Cooperative Federalism

The massive economic crises of the Great Depression tolled the death knell for dual federalism. In its place, cooperative federalism emerged. Instead of a relatively clear separation of policy domains, national, state, and local governments would work together to try to respond to a wide range of problems.

The New Deal and the End of Dual Federalism

Elected in 1932, Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) sought to implement a “New Deal” for Americans amid staggering unemployment. He argued that the national government could restore the economy more effectively than states or localities. He persuaded Congress to enact sweeping legislation. New Deal programs included boards enforcing wage and price guarantees; programs to construct buildings and bridges, develop national parks, and create artworks; and payments to farmers to reduce acreage of crops and stabilize prices.

Figure 3.4 Dorothea Lange Photograph

Men sitting out on the porch of an old wooden cabin

The 1930s New Deal programs included commissioning photographers to document social conditions during the Great Depression. The resultant photographs are both invaluable historical documents and lasting works of art.

By 1939, national government expenditures equaled state and local expenditures combined (Anton, 1988). FDR explained his programs to nationwide audiences in “fireside chats” on the relatively young medium of radio. His policies were highly popular, and he was reelected by a landslide in 1936. As we describe in Chapter 15 “The Courts” , the Supreme Court, after rejecting several New Deal measures, eventually upheld national authority over such once-forbidden terrain as labor-management relations, minimum wages, and subsidies to farmers (National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, 1937; United States v. Darby, 1941; Wickard v. Filburn, 1942). The Court thereby sealed the fate of dual federalism.

The New Deal

Learn more about the New Deal online at http://www.archives.gov/research/alic/reference/new-deal.html .

Fireside Chats

Read the Fireside Chats online at http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/firesi90.html .

Grants-in-Aid

Cooperative federalism’s central mechanisms were grants-in-aid : the national government passes funds to the states to administer programs. Starting in the 1940s and 1950s, national grants were awarded for infrastructure (airport construction, interstate highways), health (mental health, cancer control, hospital construction), and economic enhancement (agricultural marketing services, fish restoration) (Walker, 1999).

Grants-in-aid were cooperative in three ways. First, they funded policies that states already oversaw. Second, categorical grants required states to spend the funds for purposes specified by Congress but gave them leeway on how to do so. Third, states’ and localities’ core functions of education and law enforcement had little national government supervision (Derthick, 2001).

Competitive Federalism

During the 1960s, the national government moved increasingly into areas once reserved to the states. As a result, the essence of federalism today is competition rather than cooperation (Peterson, Rabe, & Wong, 1986; Derthick, 2001).

Judicial Nationalizing

Cooperative federalism was weakened when a series of Supreme Court decisions, starting in the 1950s, caused states to face much closer supervision by national authorities. As we discuss in Chapter 4 “Civil Liberties” and Chapter 5 “Civil Rights” , the Court extended requirements of the Bill of Rights and of “equal protection of the law” to the states.

The Great Society

In 1963, President Lyndon Johnson proposed extending the New Deal policies of his hero, FDR. Seeking a “Great Society” and declaring a “War on Poverty,” Johnson inspired Congress to enact massive new programs funded by the national government. Over two hundred new grants programs were enacted during Johnson’s five years in office. They included a Jobs Corps and Head Start, which provided preschool education for poor children.

The Great Society undermined cooperative federalism. The new national policies to help the needy dealt with problems that states and localities had been unable or reluctant to address. Many of them bypassed states to go straight to local governments and nonprofit organizations (Walker, 1999).

Read more about the Great Society online at http://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/4.html .

Obstacles and Opportunities

In competitive federalism, national, state, and local levels clash, even battle with each other. [4] Overlapping powers and responsibilities create friction, which is compounded by politicians’ desires to get in the news and claim credit for programs responding to public problems.

Competition between levels of federalism is a recurring feature of films and television programs. For instance, in the eternal television drama Law and Order and its offshoots, conflicts between local, state, and national law enforcement generate narrative tension and drama. This media frame does not consistently favor one side or the other. Sometimes, as in the film The Fugitive or stories about civil rights like Mississippi Burning , national law enforcement agencies take over from corrupt local authorities. Elsewhere, as in the action film Die Hard , national law enforcement is less competent than local or state police.

Under competitive federalism, funds go from national to state and local governments with many conditions—most notably, directives known as mandates . [5] State and local governments want national funds but resent conditions. They especially dislike “unfunded mandates,” according to which the national government directs them what to do but gives them no funds to do it.

After the Republicans gained control of Congress in the 1994 elections, they passed a rule to bar unfunded mandates. If a member objects to an unfunded mandate, a majority must vote to waive the rule in order to pass it. This reform has had little impact: negative news attention to unfunded mandates is easily displaced by dramatic, personalized issues that cry out for action. For example, in 1996, the story of Megan Kanka, a young New Jersey girl killed by a released sex offender living in her neighborhood, gained huge news attention. The same Congress that outlawed unfunded mandates passed “Megan’s Law”—including an unfunded mandate ordering state and local law enforcement officers to compile lists of sex offenders and send them to a registry run by the national government.

Key Takeaways

Federalism in the United States has changed over time from clear divisions of powers between national, state, and local governments in the early years of the republic to greater intermingling and cooperation as well as conflict and competition today. Causes of these changes include political actions, court decisions, responses to economic problems (e.g., depression), and social concerns (e.g., sin).

  • What view of federalism allowed the Confederate states to justify seceding from the United States? How might this view make it difficult for the federal government to function in the long run?
  • What are the differences between dual federalism and cooperative federalism? What social forces led to the federal state governments working together in a new way?
  • How is federalism portrayed in the movies and television shows you’ve seen? Why do you think it is portrayed that way?

Anton, T., American Federalism & Public Policy: How the System Works (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1988), 41.

Bonner, R. E., Colors and Blood: Flag Passions of the Confederate South (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002).

Derthick, M., Keeping the Compound Republic: Essays on American Federalism (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2001), 17.

Hammer v. Dagenhart , 247 US 251 (1918). A similar logic prevented the US government from using taxation powers to the same end. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company , 259 US 20 (1922).

Horwitz, T., Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War (New York: Random House, 1998).

Martinez, J. M., William D. Richardson, and Ron McNinch-Su, eds., Confederate Symbols in the Contemporary South (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2000).

McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).

McDonald, F., States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000), 38–43.

McPherson, J. M., Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).

Morone, J. A., Hellfire Nation: The Politics of Sin in American History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), chaps. 8–11.

Morris, T. D., Free Men All: The Personal Liberty Laws of the North, 1780–1861 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974).

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel , 301 US 1 (1937).

Peterson, P. E., Barry George Rabe, and Kenneth K. Wong, When Federalism Works (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1986), especially chap. 5

Shapiro, D. L., Federalism: A Dialogue (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1995), 98 n. 139.

Texas v. White , 7 Wall. 700 (1869).

United States v. Darby , 312 US 100 (1941)

United States v. E. C. Knight , 156 US 1 (1895).

Walker, D. B., The Rebirth of Federalism: Slouching toward Washington (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1999), 99.

Wickard v. Filburn , 317 US 111 (1942).

  • An encyclopedic account of this case is Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978). ↵
  • All quotes come from “Dems Battle over Confederate Flag,” CNN, November 2, 2003, http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/01/elec04.prez.dean.confederate.flag . ↵
  • “Dean: ‘I Apologize’ for Flag Remark,” CNN, November 7, 2003, http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/06/elec04.prez.dean.flag . ↵
  • The term “competitive federalism” is developed in Thomas R. Dye, American Federalism: Competition among Governments (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990). ↵
  • This definition is drawn from Michael Fix and Daphne Kenyon, eds., Coping with Mandates: What Are the Alternatives? (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1988), 3–4. ↵

American Government and Politics in the Information Age Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

To tackle urban problems, city governments have to get smarter

Although 80 percent of Americans live in cities, urban issues are often put on the nation’s back burner. But residents still expect their city governments to deliver the day-to-day services that make or break their quality of life.

The recently concluded U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) brought together local officials from all over the country. Under the leadership of the new USCM president, Columbia, S.C., Mayor Steve Benjamin, they discussed three major themes: infrastructure, innovation and inclusion. Their constituents are impatient to see progress in all of these areas — and cities have to figure out how to deliver it in the face of serious fiscal constraints.

One path to solving those problems is making their cities “smarter” — that is, harnessing data and digital technology to meet the challenge of doing more with less. Technology alone can’t solve every urban problem. But it’s a powerful and cost-effective tool for helping cities accelerate progress. In fact, newly published research from the McKinsey Global Institute finds that cities could use smart technologies to improve the quality of life in tangible ways — for instance, shortening the average commute by up to 30 minutes or reducing crime incidents by 20 to 30 percent.

Local governments have been sounding the alarm about aging and inadequate infrastructure for years. As anyone who spends rush hour fuming in traffic every day can tell you, traffic and transit have become major quality-of-life issues in cities from coast to coast. Everyone wants better infrastructure, but public budgets are tight.

Smart technologies, from the Internet of Things to predictive analytics systems, can make infrastructure investments go further. They can extend the useful life of roads, bridges and transit systems while helping them carry more capacity. They can smooth the flow of traffic, offer new commuting options, and respond to changing demand patterns. If population growth surges in a far-flung neighborhood, adding a new subway line may take years and cost billions. By contrast, an on-demand minibus service geared to current commuting patterns could be up and running much faster — and it could be funded by a private operator.

In a digital world, local governments have new flexibility to innovate and iterate. Every city generates oceans of data, and local agencies are starting to get creative in what they do with it. They are learning to experiment, not only with digital systems but with bolder urban-planning policies that complement those technologies.

The drive to make cities smarter isn’t just about what government agencies do. It’s also about creating environments where companies, universities and nonprofits bring innovation to bear on public problems. Many digital solutions that are changing the urban fabric, from e-ride-hailing to telemedicine, come from the private sector.

In some cases, the key is putting real-time information into the hands of the public, empowering them to make better decisions and contribute to overall city performance. Smart apps encourage people to use transit during off-hours, to change routes, to use less energy and water and to do so at different times of day, and to reduce strains on the health-care system through preventive self-care.

Smart cities may sound like playgrounds for the young, affluent and tech-savvy. But they don’t have to be. Local governments can use digital tools to build more inclusive communities. They can use data and technology to connect vulnerable populations with vital services, engage with seniors, and help people with disabilities navigate the urban environment.

Technology is already changing the relationship between municipal governments and the people they serve. Constituents can have two-way conversations with public officials via social media. Cities can use mobile apps to crowdsource data and invite the public to report problems, gaining thousands of eyes and ears on the ground.

Although the United States now trails most other developed nations in voter turnout, cities can revitalize civic participation at the local level, creating digital channels that invite the public to weigh in on planning issues and budget priorities. These types of platforms can be implemented with relatively little investment, but they can make people feel that their voices are being heard.

Cities have an opportunity to step up and lead at this critical time. The economy is humming, and interest rates are still low enough to invest in our future. Most important, we are in the midst of a digital revolution, and we have only seen a glimpse of how digital tools and data might transform the urban environment.

State governments and federal agencies can accelerate change by sharing best practices, pooling demand for technologies across multiple cities, providing infrastructure and helping mid-size cities make the leap. Cities have always been the world’s laboratories for solutions — and there’s every reason to hope they will put technology to work in ways that will make a real difference to the people who call them home.

This article ran first in GovTech .

Navjot Singh is managing partner of McKinsey & Company’s Boston office and a leader of McKinsey’s Public Sector Practice. Jonathan Woetzel is a director of the McKinsey Global Institute, where Jaana Remes is a partner.

Explore a career with us

Stanford Social Innovation Review Logo

  • Arts & Culture
  • Civic Engagement
  • Economic Development
  • Environment
  • Human Rights
  • Social Services
  • Water & Sanitation
  • Foundations
  • Nonprofits & NGOs
  • Social Enterprise

Collaboration

  • Design Thinking
  • Impact Investing
  • Measurement & Evaluation
  • Organizational Development
  • Philanthropy & Funding
  • Current Issue
  • Sponsored Supplements
  • Global Editions
  • In-Depth Series
  • Stanford PACS
  • Submission Guidelines

At the Intersection

Two excerpts from the edited collection, The Intersector, on building public trust through cross-sector collaboration between the public, nonprofit, and private sectors.

  • order reprints
  • related stories

By Daniel P. Gitterman , Neil Britto , Sonal Shah & Zia Khan Nov. 16, 2021

how do governments work together to solve problems

The Intersector: How the Public, Nonprofit and Private Sectors Can Address America's Challenges

Daniel P. Gitterman & Neil Britto

305 pages, Brookings Institution Press, 2021

Buy the book »

Many people tend to think of the public, nonprofit, and private sectors as being distinctive components of the economy and society—each with its own missions and problems to address. Our edited collection on cross-sector collaboration, The Intersector: How the Public, Nonprofit and Private Sectors Can Address America's Challenges , describes how the three sectors can work together toward common purposes, accomplishing much more than if they work alone. Scholars from a range of disciplines discuss concepts that advance understanding of cross-sector collaboration. Practitioners and philanthropists show how cooperation among sectors is relevant to their core missions. Cross-sector collaborations and partnerships are more crucial than in the past as the country tries to recover from the economic, health, and social dislocations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a time when trust in institutions, public and private, is at an all-time low, cooperation among the sectors can be a confidence-inspiring approach to addressing public problems. It is important that Americans, including those who were most hard hit by the pandemic, believe that government can be responsive to the challenges in their daily lives. More than anything, Americans yearn for responsive governance, which demands that policy makers effectively address people’s needs.

In the first excerpt, Sonal Shah, former deputy assistant to President Obama and director of the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and president of the Asian American Foundation writes, “ People trust leaders to solve problems. To build trust, we need to be honest about how we talk about the problems we are addressing and how we are working to bring people together to solve them.” With extensive experience in all three sectors, Sonal Shah's excerpt below reminds us how cross-sector collaboration can change lives.  

In the second excerpt, Zia Khan, vice president for innovation at the Rockefeller Foundation, explains how philanthro­pies exist, in many ways, to drive broader collaboration. They have the capital, the expertise, and the convening powers to catalyze big collaboration between government, the pri­vate sector, civil society, and the communities they want to serve. However, Khan, in the excerpt below, “warns that well-intentioned collaborations “often go awry due to in­sufficient upfront attention to what specifically the collaboration is meant to achieve, and how to achieve it.”— Daniel P. Gitterman and Neil Britto 

From Chapter 10: “Creating Cross-Sector Collaborations to Change Lives” by Sonal Shah

What is cross-sector collaboration and why does it matter? In sum, it is about bringing together different groups that are working on similar problems and combining their efforts to achieve even more powerful results. Such coopera­tion is essential to address today’s multifaceted problems. Most people have no idea what cross-sector collaboration or the “intersec­tor” means. When we start a sentence with the phrase “cross-sector collabo­ration,” people are likely to tune it out. As a result, they miss the conversation about the actual problem being addressed. Those of us who recognize the ne­cessity of this cooperation need to be able to show our fellow citizens we are solving problems, not merely offering technocratic tools or details of a process. That is why it is important to talk about the human side of what we do—and to listen to the challenges people face in their daily lives rather than make assumptions about what they are experiencing.

To do cross-sector collaboration well requires experts and expertise, but it also requires a willingness to collaborate, learn, and iterate. From my tenure as deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation in the Obama administration, I learned three lessons about cross-sector collaborations. First, leadership at the top matters. Either the president, the secretary, or someone in senior leader­ship needs to make cross-sector collaboration a priority.

Second, collaboration is not just within the public sector; it requires bring­ing people together within and outside of government. Within government, we need both political and civil servants who can solve problems, work across agencies to make things happen, and deliver results by focusing on outcomes. Too often, the day-to-day takes over and we forget to bring other voices into the conversation. Accomplishing this requires leaders at each table to ask who else needs to be part of the problem-solving conversation. The Social Inno­vation Fund was a great example, as was Challenge.gov, where we brought together agencies, experts, and communities and gave people the permission to test out new ideas (in small ways). We were constantly asking: Who is doing this well? How did they do it? What can we learn? How do we scale it? It takes management, intentionality, and persistence to achieve true cross-sector col­laboration, but we found that if we were committed, there were many partners eager to join us.

A third and important lesson regarding effective cross-sector collaboration involves strategy: start small and prove it can work, replicate, and scale. There is pressure in the federal government to do everything and make big change quickly. However, effective change requires clarity about the problem being addressed and prioritization of achievable goals. For example, First Lady Mi­chelle Obama’s healthy food initiative started small, with something everyone could identify with: a “garden.” That led to a larger conversation about healthy food, eating, and exercise. The first lady brought students and families to the White House to help with the garden. Soon communities and schools around the country started their own gardens. Then, she expanded the conversation about access to healthy food, diet, and exercise. As the initiative grew in popu­larity, she partnered with companies, nonprofits, and sports organizations like the NFL. In sum, she started with her commitment and brought a country community together. Solving big problems requires starting with small steps and a commitment to keep doing more.

One of the government’s greatest assets is the ability to bring people and groups together and cultivate an “ecosystem”—a network or interconnected system—by putting the spotlight on what matters and on the things that can be done. For example, when we created the Social Innovation Fund (SIF), we started conversations with communities across the nation, including founda­tions, nonprofit organizations, and social entrepreneurs, about how to design a new fund and how it could make a difference in the communities. The final design of the SIF required local match funding from cities, philanthropies, non­profit organizations, and individuals. This created a sense of community and mutual commitment: it was not just government doing the problem-solving. The success of this one cross-sector collaboration inspired other agencies to think about how to build other models of cross-sector collaboration in their own areas.

Companies and philanthropies also are important to create effective cross-sector collaborations. One example I witnessed while working with Google.org was the creation of the Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE) in 2009. At the time, there were many funders interested in growing and scaling small and medium size businesses globally (before it was called impact investing). In response, the Aspen Institute initiated conversations that led to ANDE, a network that taps into impact investing to support small businesses. But ANDE has done even more by sparking another set of conver­sations to support entrepreneurs and communities, not just with micro finance but with actual finance to help people grow their businesses. ANDE has helped create an ecosystem. It was a bottom-up approach, not a top-down one. Groups of entrepreneurs and networks came together, saying, “There are the things we need.” It was an important investment in developing the Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SME) ecosystem. Sometimes it requires creating an organi­zation that can foster an ecosystem and cross-sector collaboration.

To truly address this crisis, we must bring everyone to the table, including companies, philanthropies, and nonprofits, to work with communi­ties. Consider the example of contact tracing to stem the spread of COVID-19 and other diseases. The government can take the leadership, provide clarity of direction and access to data, and build public trust. Philanthropies can support local organizations to get data and information for effective delivery. This also can be a global conversation, as mayors and counties across the country and government officials around the world face similar challenges. For instance, former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, through Bloomberg Philan­thropies, has taken leadership in bringing together mayors globally to address climate change at local levels. Having worked for Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s pres­idential campaign as national policy director, I have an even greater apprecia­tion for mayors who already are taking on crucial leadership. We need to bring mayors and county officials to the national table to take on significant leader­ship, and spotlight them when and where they are making a difference. They are doing the essential bottom-up work.

Solving some of our toughest challenges requires working together. We need new models of partnership, we need commitment to clear goals, and we need to operate differently within government and outside government. However, to achieve success requires the right people: people who can trans­late between sectors, and people who know how to pull together partnerships that deliver results for people. This is more than public relations; it needs to be about outcomes for people and for society. We need to attract people who can move between sectors, pull partnerships together, and inspire confidence in a new generation of leaders to create transformational change. Let us begin that work together.

From Chapter 12: “Challenges in Cross-Sector Collaboration and Learning from Doing” by Zia Khan

The clamor for cross-sector collaboration is often deafening across the non-profit and philanthropic worlds. Tackling a challenge in unison, goes the thinking, always beats doing it alone. And it often does. Nevertheless, there is good reason to scrutinize this premise, and pause before leaping in. Philanthropies, especially large ones like the Rockefeller Foundation, exist, in many ways, to drive broader collaboration. They have the capital, the expertise, and the convening powers to catalyze big collaboration between government, the private sector, civil society, and the communities they want to serve.

However, well-intentioned collaborations often go awry due to insufficient upfront attention to what, specifically, the collaboration is meant to achieve and how to achieve it. Creating the right blend of different groups’ organizational capabilities is essential for collaboration to be an impact multiplier rather than a tax. This is particularly true concerning the softer aspects of each group’s makeup: its internal culture, its networks, and the motivations of its members. Teams can have more impact when they resist the pressure to deliver quickly on a collaboration’s promised outcomes and, instead, invest time in designing and building mechanisms that consider those differences and transform them into advantages for the cross-sector collaboration.

Unfortunately, cross-sector collaboration has become more of an end goal than a means. This is the first common flaw of most failed cross-sector collaborations. It is hard to argue against the spirit of partnership and the advantage of leveraging each other’s resources. People want to collaborate and to be collaborative. Given that measurable change is often a long way off when confronting intractable social challenges, people start to focus on near-term process accomplishments as a proxy. That leads to the risk of the launching of cross-sector collaborations becoming the measure of success, rather than being simply a fit-to-purpose organizational structure for accomplishing a goal.

The second common flaw is incomplete design for collaborative structures that overemphasizes the formal over the informal elements of organization. Sometimes these are called the “hard” and “soft” sides of an organization, but those terms are not ideal because the informal elements are the hard ones to get right. Thinking about “rules” and “rituals” is perhaps more helpful.

I wrote about the distinction a few years ago, exploring how to drive systems change using results-based funding. Any system built to achieve an outcome is inevitably a mix of rules and rituals. Goals, strategies, processes, etc., comprise the formal part of the process, the rules most easily scribed onto paper as organizers lay out a planned collaboration. Leaders like this formal side of the system because it is rational and easy to communicate.

The rituals, on the other hand, are the informal part of the system, the values and traditions and personal networks built up within an organization. They are the organization’s sources of pride. Rules speak to the head, and rituals speak to the heart. Our behaviors are driven by both. Most results-based funding tends to focus on the rules. The people driving the process produce thoughtful reports steeped in the logic of incentives, financial flows, and desired outcomes. They tend to come from very “head-driven” backgrounds in policy, finance, and strategy. But if others from more “heart-driven” fields were pulled in—people like marine drill sergeants, call center managers, and schoolteachers, who speak to people’s emotions to create commitment and motivate behaviors—a lot more questions about the tactics likely to work best to motivate the players throughout the process to assure the desired outcome would be heard.

Attention to the rituals matters even more in cross-sector collaborations, where there can be big differences in people’s backgrounds, organizational cultures, and motivations. This is especially important when the collaboration is designed to last for years, well beyond a foundation’s early involvement, and to tackle far-ranging challenges. However, whether the collaboration is short term or long, foundations can be uniquely suited to identify and overcome these differences from the outset and help in the design and launch of successful cross-sector initiatives.

It is generally assumed that the main role for foundations is to fund activities that are collectively important but hard to resource by other actors. That is certainly true. Nevertheless, beyond money, their power comes from the special abilities they can use to convene and amplify the powers and ideas of others, as illustrated by previous the stories.

In 2020, regular convenings became very difficult due to the pandemic. People turned to video convenings; first simply having meetings online and then, increasingly, incorporating the unique attributes of virtual technologies into convening design. Convening has long been a part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s approach, particularly through the Bellagio Center in Italy, which was forced to close due to the early COVID-19 outbreak in that region. The foundation took a step back to build out convening methodologies, leveraging the latest thinking in meeting design, behavioral science, and virtual technologies. After significant research and testing, they developed specific convening methodologies that can be catalytic to helping cross-sector collaborative.

These include:

Discovery: Shape new ideas and approaches from a group’s collective creativity.

Direction Setting: Help groups strategize and align around an agenda.

Bridge Building: Overcome intractable challenges to collaboration and collective results.

Launch: Build partnerships and commitment to get a collaborative action underway.

Note that each sector has different practices and norms for each of these kinds of convenings. For example, businesses often will be more analytical and objective in direction setting because they are usually optimizing for quantitative goals. Government, on the other hand, will think about direction setting through the lens of political agendas and narrative. As a result, the design of cross-sector convenings needs to sort out the implicit norms from different sectors and explicitly craft a common language and approach for participants. It is rare that any convening will be a pure breed of one single methodology, as the methodologies are building blocks that are packaged together either within a convening or as ingredients for a series of convenings that are part of a longer strategic journey.

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

Read our research on: Immigration & Migration | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Trust and distrust in america, many americans think declining trust in the government and in each other makes it harder to solve key problems. they have a wealth of ideas about what’s gone wrong and how to fix it.

BY LEE RAINIE , SCOTT KEETER AND ANDREW PERRIN

(Hero Images)

Trust is an essential elixir for public life and neighborly relations, and when Americans think about trust these days, they worry. Two-thirds of adults think other Americans have little or no confidence in the federal government. Majorities believe the public’s confidence in the U.S. government and in each other is shrinking, and most believe a shortage of trust in government and in other citizens makes it harder to solve some of the nation’s key problems.

As a result, many think it is necessary to clean up the trust environment: 68% say it is very important to repair the public’s level of confidence in the federal government, and 58% say the same about improving confidence in fellow Americans.

Chart showing that Americans think their distrust of the federal government and each other is a problem that gets in the way of solving issues.

Moreover, some see fading trust as a sign of cultural sickness and national decline. Some also tie it to what they perceive to be increased loneliness and excessive individualism. About half of Americans (49%) link the decline in interpersonal trust to a belief that people are not as reliable as they used to be. Many ascribe shrinking trust to a political culture they believe is broken and spawns suspicion, even cynicism, about the ability of others to distinguish fact from fiction.

In a comment typical of the views expressed by many people of different political leanings, ages and educational backgrounds, one participant in a new Pew Research Center survey said: “Many people no longer think the federal government can actually be a force for good or change in their lives. This kind of apathy and disengagement will lead to an even worse and less representative government.” Another addressed the issue of fading interpersonal trust: “As a democracy founded on the principle of E Pluribus Unum, the fact that we are divided and can’t trust sound facts means we have lost our confidence in each other.”

Even as they express doleful views about the state of trust today, many Americans believe the situation can be turned around. Fully 84% believe the level of confidence Americans have in the federal government can be improved, and 86% think improvement is possible when it comes to the confidence Americans have in each other. Among the solutions they offer in their open-ended comments: muffle political partisanship and group-centered tribalism, refocus news coverage away from insult-ridden talk shows and sensationalist stories, stop giving so much attention to digital screens and spend more time with people, and practice empathy. Some believe their neighborhoods are a key place where interpersonal trust can be rebuilt if people work together on local projects, in turn radiating trust out to other sectors of the culture.

The new survey of 10,618 U.S. adults, conducted Nov. 27-Dec. 10, 2018, using the Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, covers a wide range of trust-related issues and adds context to debates about the state of trust and distrust in the nation. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

In addition to asking traditional questions about whether Americans have confidence in institutions and other human beings, the survey explores links between institutional trust and interpersonal trust and examines the degree to which the public thinks the nation is shackled by these issues. This research is part of the Center’s extensive and ongoing focus on issues tied to trust, facts and democracy and the interplay among them.

Here are some of the main findings.

Chart showing that personal trust ranges across a spectrum, with differences in levels of trust tied to race and ethnicity, age, education and household income.

There are some notable demographic variations in levels of personal trust, which, even in these new contexts, follow historic trends captured by the Center and other researchers. The share of whites who show high levels of trust (27%) is twice as high as the share of blacks (13%) and Hispanics (12%). The older a person is, the more likely they are to tilt toward more trustful answers. The more education Americans have, and the greater their household income, the greater the likelihood they are high on the personal trust spectrum. Those with less income and education are markedly more likely to be low trusters.

In other words, personal trust turns out to be like many other personal attributes and goods that are arrayed unequally in society, following the same overall pattern as home ownership and wealth, for example. Americans who might feel disadvantaged are less likely to express generalized trust in other people.

Strikingly, nearly half of young adults (46%) are in the low trust group – a significantly higher share than among older adults. Also, there are no noteworthy partisan differences in levels of personal trust: Republicans and Democrats distribute the same way across the scale.

It is worth noting, of course, that while social trust is seen as a virtue and a societal bonding agent, too much trust can be a serious liability . Indiscriminate trusters can be victimized in any number of ways, so wariness and doubt have their place in a well-functioning community.

Levels of personal trust tend to be linked with people’s broader views on institutions and civic life. The disposition of U.S. adults to trust, or not to trust, each other is connected with their thinking about all manner of issues. For instance, those who are less trusting in the interpersonal sphere also tend to be less trusting of institutions, less sure their fellow citizens will act in ways that are good for civic life and less confident that trust levels can rise in the future.

Chart showing that those with high personal trust have higher confidence in key leadership groups.

Also, Americans’ views on interpersonal trust provide strong clues to how they think their fellow citizens will react in a variety of civic circumstances; their confidence in groups ranging from the military to scientists, college professors and religious leaders; and the strategies they embrace for dealing with others. For example, low trusters are much more likely than high trusters to say that skepticism is the best mindset for most situations (63% of low trusters say this vs. 33% of high trusters). They also are more likely than high trusters to say that being self-reliant is a better choice than working together with others (33% vs. 24%).

When Americans perceive that trust in the federal government has been shrinking, they are right. Long-running surveys show that public confidence in the government fell precipitously in the 1960s and ’70s, recovered somewhat in the ’80s and early 2000s, and is near historic lows today. Although there is a widespread perception that trust in other people also has plummeted, whether that truly has happened is not as clear, partly because surveys have asked questions about personal trust less frequently or consistently.

By and large, Americans think the current low level of trust in government is justified. Just one-in-four (24%) say the federal government deserves more public confidence than it gets, while 75% say that it does not deserve any more public confidence than it gets. Similarly, among U.S. adults who perceive that confidence in each other has dropped, many think there is good reason for it: More than twice as many say Americans have lost confidence in each other “because people are not as reliable as they used to be” (49% support that statement) than take the opposite view, saying Americans have lost confidence in each other “even though people are as reliable as they have always been” (21% say that).

The trust landscape isn’t entirely bleak: Most Americans have confidence others will uphold key civic virtues, though not in every case. Clear majorities of Americans are confident their fellow citizens will act in a number of important pro-civic ways. This includes reporting serious local problems to authorities, obeying federal and state laws, doing what they can to help those in need and honestly reporting their income when paying taxes.

However, this level of confidence does not extend across all civic activities. It seems to plunge as soon as politics enter the picture. U.S. adults render a split verdict on whether they can count on fellow Americans to accept election results regardless of who wins: 53% express “a fair amount” or “a great deal” of confidence that others will accept the results, while 47% say they have “not too much” or “no confidence at all” that others will accept the election outcome. Americans also are split on whether they can rely on others to reconsider their views after learning new information (49% have at least some confidence, 50% little or none), stay informed about important issues and events (49% vs. 51%) and respect the rights of people who are not like them (48% vs. 52%).

Chart showing that many Americans have confidence in others to do the right thing in civic life at times, but not always.

One notable pro-trust finding is that, at least in principle, more adults embrace collaboration than individualism. Asked about the best way to navigate life, 71% say it is better in most situations for people to work together with others, compared with 29% who say it is better to be self-reliant.

These supportive views stand in contrast to the public’s overall lack of confidence in elected officials and corporate leaders: 63% express little confidence in elected officials, and 56% take a similarly skeptical view of business leaders.

Democrats and Republicans think differently about trust, but both groups wish it would rise. Although supporters of the country’s two main political parties hold similar levels of personal trust, Democrats and those who lean Democratic are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to express worry about the state of trust in America. For example, Democratic partisans are more likely to say that trust in the federal government is shrinking (82% vs. 66%) and that low trust in the federal government makes it harder to solve many of the country’s problems (70% vs. 57%).

At the same time, there is bipartisan agreement that it is important to improve trust in both the federal government and in fellow Americans, as well as that there are ways to do so.

There are some partisan differences, too, when it comes to confidence in Americans to act in some civically beneficial ways. For instance, 76% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats (including independents who lean toward each party) have confidence people would do what they can to help those in need. Similarly, 56% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats have confidence the American people respect the rights of people who are not like them.

Partisan differences also show up in the levels of trust extended toward various kinds of leaders, including the military, religious leaders and business leaders (groups toward whom Republicans are more favorable than Democrats) as well as scientists, public school principals, college professors and journalists (groups that generally enjoy more confidence among Democrats than among Republicans).

Chart showing that in some key areas, Democrats tend to worry more about trust-related issues, but members in both parties agree it is important to improve the situation.

There is a generation gap in levels of trust. Young adults are much more pessimistic than older adults about some trust issues. For example, young adults are about half as hopeful as their elders when they are asked how confident they are in the American people to respect the rights of those who are not like them: About one-third (35%) of those ages 18 to 29 are confident Americans have that respect, compared with two-thirds (67%) of those 65 and older.

There is also a gap when it comes to confidence that Americans will do what they can to help others in need. More than four-in-ten young adults (44%) are confident the American people will accept election results no matter who wins, compared with 66% of older adults who believe that’s the case.

At the same time, older Americans are more likely to believe Americans have lost confidence in each other because people are not as reliable as they used to be: 54% of those ages 65 and older take this position, compared with 44% of those 18 to 29.

Chart showing that nearly two-thirds of adults find it hard to tell what’s true when elected officials speak.

Significant shares also assert they face challenges separating the truth from false information when they are listening to elected officials and using social media. Some 64% say it is hard to tell the difference between what is true and not true when they hear elected officials; 48% say the same thing about information they encounter on social media.

On a grand scale of national issues, trust-related issues are not near the top of the list of Americans’ concerns. But people link distrust to the major problems they see, such as concerns about ethics in government and the role of lobbyists and special interests. The Center has asked questions in multiple surveys about how Americans judge the severity of some key issues. This poll finds that 41% of adults think the public’s level of confidence in the federal government is a “very big problem,” putting it roughly on par with their assessment of the size of the problems caused by racism and illegal immigration – and above terrorism and sexism. Some 25% say Americans’ level of confidence in each other is a very big problem, which is low in comparison with a broad array of other issues that Americans perceive as major problems.

Chart showing that Americans’ confidence in government and each other are not seen as top-tier problems.

It is important to note, though, that some Americans see distrust as a factor inciting or amplifying other issues they consider crucial. For example, in their open-ended written answers to questions, numbers of Americans say they think there are direct connections between rising distrust and other trends they perceived as major problems, such as partisan paralysis in government, the outsize influence of lobbyists and moneyed interests, confusion arising from made-up news and information, declining ethics in government, the intractability of immigration and climate debates, rising health care costs and a widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Many of the answers in the open-ended written responses reflect judgments similar to this one from a 38-year-old man: “Trust is the glue that binds humans together. Without it, we cooperate with one another less, and variables in our overall quality of life are affected (e.g., health and life satisfaction).”

Americans offer a range of insights about what has happened to trust, the consequences of distrust and how to repair these problems. The open-ended survey questions invited respondents to write, in their own words, why they think trust in the U.S. government and in fellow Americans has eroded, what impact rising distrust has on government performance and personal relations, and whether there are ways trust might be restored. Some of the main findings:

Why trust in the federal government has deteriorated in the past generation: Some 76% of Americans believe trust in the federal government has declined in the past 20 years. When asked what happened, the respondents to this question offer a wide range of diagnoses, some of which are more commonly cited by Republicans, others of which are Democrat-dominated. Overall, 36% cite something related to how the U.S. government is performing – whether it is doing too much, too little, the wrong things or nothing at all – including how money has corrupted it, how corporations control it and general references to “the swamp.” President Donald Trump and his administration are cited in 14% of answers, and the performance of the news media comes up in 10% of responses. Additionally, 9% of these respondents say distrust in government arises from big social forces that have swept the culture, such as rising inequality and the spread of individualism. Others mention the intractability of problems like climate change or illegal immigration, as well as increasing polarization among the public and its leaders.

Republicans and those who lean Republican are more likely that Democrats and those who lean that way to mention government performance problems and corruption (31% vs. 24%). But Democrats are more likely to cite Trump’s performance as a contributor to problems related to trust in the federal government (24% vs. 3%).

“People are jaded in this day and age. Elected officials cannot be trusted. There is a huge divide between Democrats and Republicans. Social media allows people to air dirty laundry. People are not as friendly and neighborly as they were years ago. Society has drastically changed!” Woman, 46

Why Americans’ trust in each other has deteriorated in the past 20 years: Some 71% think that interpersonal trust has declined. Those who take this position were asked why, eliciting a laundry list of societal and political problems: 11% believe Americans on the whole have become more lazy, greedy and dishonest. Some 16% of respondents make a connection between what they think is poor government performance – especially gridlock in Washington – and the toll it has taken on their fellow citizens’ hearts. About one-in-ten of these respondents say they blame the news media and its focus on divisive and sensational coverage.

“Cultural shift away from close-knit communities. Viewing everything through hyperpartisan political lenses. Lost the art of compromise. Empathy as well as generally attempting to understand and to help each other are all at disturbingly low levels. People are quick to attack and to vilify others, even without clear proof, solely on the basis of accusations or along partisan lines.” Man, 44

What would improve the public’s level of confidence in the federal government: Some 84% of Americans believe it is possible to improve the level of confidence people have in the government. Their written responses urge various political reforms, starting with more disclosure of what the government is doing, as well as term limits and restrictions on the role of money in politics. Some 15% of those who answered this question point to a need for better political leadership, including greater honesty and cooperation among those in the political class. A small share believes confidence will rise when Trump is out of office. Additionally, some offer specific roadmaps for rebuilding trust, often starting with local community-based solutions that rise upward to regional and national levels.

“1. If members of each party would be less concerned about their power and the next election and more concerned with how they can serve their people. Term limits a possibility. 2. Rules about lobbyists/corporate money influencing politicians. 3. Importance of ethics laws and follow through for violators. 4. Promoting fact-based legislation. 5. Better relations among both parties and leaders; this is not a war.” Woman, 63

What would improve Americans’ level of confidence in each other: Fully 86% believe it is possible to improve interpersonal confidence across the nation, and a number of their answers focus on how local communities can be laboratories for trust-building to confront partisan tensions and overcome tribal divisions. One-in-ten make the case that better leaders could inspire greater trust between individuals. Some suggest that a different approach to news reporting – one that emphasizes the ways people cooperate to solve problems – would have a tonic effect.

“Get to know your local community. Take small steps towards improving daily life, even if it’s just a trash pick-up. If people feel engaged with their environment and with each other, and they can work together even in a small way, I think that builds a foundation for working together on more weighty issues.” Woman, 32

Why Americans’ low public confidence in each other and in the federal government is a “very big” problem: Some 25% think this, and the majority of those who explain their views cite their distress over broad social issues, including the shriveling trust neighbors have in each other, the toll political partisanship and tribalism take on interpersonal relations, a rise in selfishness, or a decline in civility and moral behavior. Some mention political leaders.

“Everything is impacted by the lack of trust – and the driver of the declining trust is the head of the federal government. Trust cannot be repaired without truth – which is in short supply.” Woman, 56

The issues that cannot be effectively addressed because Americans do not trust the federal government: Nearly two-thirds (64%) say that low trust in the federal government makes it harder to solve many of the country’s problems. About four-in-ten of those who then give follow-up answers (39%) cite social issues topped by issues in immigration and the border, health care and insurance, racism and race relations, or guns and gun violence. Some also cite environmental issues, tax and budget matters, or political processes like voting rights and gerrymandering.

“The *entire* general functioning of society. Trust in the federal government is low due to, in my opinion, unqualified people running it who are often dishonest. When you can’t trust elected and appointed officials, it impedes essentially everything in the government’s purview from working properly.” Man, 30

  • Our classification of these different groups is explained more fully in Chapter 2 . ↩
  • This survey asked two questions related to public school leaders: one about the public’s confidence in principals and superintendents for K-12 schools, the other just about principals (not referencing superintendents). Some 77% of respondents say they have a great deal/fair amount of confidence in public school principals and superintendents. The findings cited throughout this report are from the question focused only on principals. ↩
  • This survey asked two questions related to journalism: one about the public’s confidence in journalists, the other about confidence in “the news media.” Some 48% of respondents say they have a great deal/fair amount of confidence in the news media. The findings cited throughout this report are from the question about journalists. ↩

Add Pew Research Center to your Alexa

Say “Alexa, enable the Pew Research Center flash briefing”

Report Materials

Table of contents, around the world, people who trust others are more supportive of international cooperation, two-thirds of u.s. adults say they’ve seen their own news sources report facts meant to favor one side, in views of u.s. democracy, widening partisan divides over freedom to peacefully protest, experts predict more digital innovation by 2030 aimed at enhancing democracy, the state of americans’ trust in each other amid the covid-19 pandemic, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

How State and Local Governments Are Leading the Way on Climate Policy

how do governments work together to solve problems

States and cities wield real power over the emissions released within their borders, including from cars, power plants, factories, and buildings. And many aren’t waiting for a top-down approach—they’re taking the lead. 

Fifteen states now have binding plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past two years, since the Trump administration pulled the nation out of the Paris climate accord , many have set emissions-reduction goals or strengthened plans they already had on the books. A bill passed in Maine this year, for example, calls for emissions at 80 percent below 1990 levels by midcentury, with a halfway goal by 2030. And Hawaii’s 2018 legislation sets a goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Connecticut and California, meanwhile, have been working to curb emissions for more than a decade. 

“We are transitioning from a fossil-fuel based economy to a cleaner one,” says Suzanne Tegen, assistant director of Colorado State University’s Center for the New Energy Economy, “but without policy, we won’t get there fast enough.” 

With support from businesses, community groups, and conservation organizations, including Audubon, states and cities are not only working to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. They’re also looking beyond slashing emissions, creating innovative programs to help humans and wildlife adapt to the changes already upon us, and those to come.

Solution: 100 Percent Renewable Energy

Why We Need It:  With 28 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from electricity production, switching to renewables is key. While the cost of solar and wind power, as well as battery storage, was once an obstacle, those costs have dropped dramatically over the past decade; since 2007, installed renewable energy capacity has more than doubled. But that pace still isn’t fast enough. Although renewables now account for more than 17 percent of the nation’s electricity generation, coal and natural gas together represent more than three times that.  Who’s a Pioneer: New York passed the country’s most ambitious climate policy in June. The law requires carbon-free electricity by 2040 and zero emissions statewide by 2050. But it went even further with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, requiring at least 35 percent of clean-energy investments be made in marginalized communities, which are often burdened with pollution from power plants. The law establishes a working group—made up of environmental justice advocates and staff from the Departments of Health and Labor, among others—to ensure disadvantaged groups have access to resources like solar panels and energy-efficiency upgrades.  Other Leaders: Eight states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico now have 100 percent clean-energy goals (which may include nuclear), either through law or executive order, including California, Washington, Maine, and Colorado. Others, such as South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin, are moving toward that target. Based on existing state commitments alone, renewable sources will generate nearly a third of the nation’s electricity by 2050 overall, and 75 percent of electricity in the West.

Solution: Low-carbon Buildings 

Why We Need It:  American buildings are responsible for a staggering amount of CO2 emissions: They surpass those of any single country except China. Heating and cooling systems are the biggest culprit, but lighting and appliances also contribute. Reducing these emissions, which account for roughly 40 percent of our national output, involves moving from fossil-fuel energy to renewable electricity—think replacing gas-powered heating and hot-water systems with high-efficiency electric heat pumps—as well as using high-efficiency appliances and sealing up energy-sucking leaks. Who’s a Pioneer:  California’s building code, the first of its kind in the country, offers a roadmap for radical changes in the built environment. Amended last year, it requires all new residential construction from 2020 to be net-zero energy, meaning a building makes as much electricity as it consumes. The code, which requires solar panels as well as higher-efficiency insulation and windows, also has requirements for new commercial construction and retrofits of existing commercial and state buildings. But the residential savings on energy bills alone could add up to more than $1.7 billion over 30 years, while dramatically reducing emissions.  Other Leaders:  Washington governor Jay Inslee introduced legislation to invest nearly $80 million in net-zero buildings. Meanwhile, many forward-thinking cities are gearing up to decarbonize
their buildings. Last spring New York City capped the carbon emissions large buildings can legally emit; excess will trigger hefty fines, encouraging owners to invest in efficiency upgrades to older buildings. And Boulder, Colorado, where natural gas accounts for roughly a fifth of emissions, has pledged to reduce residential use by 85 percent by midcentury (and commercial and industrial use by 35 percent), largely by replacing gas-powered heating systems with electric pumps.

Solution: Innovative Transportation

Why We Need It : Despite efforts, vehicle miles traveled are heading in the wrong direction, having increased 11 percent from 2000 to 2016. We need cleaner vehicles and fewer of them on the road to truly transform transportation, which accounts for 29 percent of U.S. emissions. Electric vehicles are part of the answer, particularly in places where electricity increasingly comes from renewable sources.  

Who’s a Pioneer:  Transportation is California’s largest source of emissions—more than 40 percent. Over the next two years, the state will invest $30 million to support pilot projects for low-carbon transportation in disadvantaged communities—electric-car sharing, bike sharing, van pools, and more. The program, Clean Mobility Options , aims to reduce local air pollution and
put more low-income people in electric vehicles, while lowering emissions and generally enhancing transportation choices. Based on an index that ranks every census tract according to income level, ethnicity, and pollution levels, it’s an innovative attempt to solve emissions and equity issues together. Marginalized communities tend to be more transit-dependent, while also having less access to alternative transportation options. 

Other Leaders:  Washington state is launching a similar program, and Colorado recently passed a series of laws aimed at increasing infrastructure for electric vehicles. Kansas City partnered with its local utility to install a record 1,000 charging stations. Seattle requires large commercial developments to discourage solo vehicle travel by providing things like bike racks and transit passes; since 2010 downtown car commuters have declined, while transit riders have grown by 40,000. And in 2021 New York City will become the first U.S. city to employ congestion pricing , charging drivers to enter much of Manhattan, which could raise $15 billion for mass transit upgrades by 2024.

Solution: Wildlife Corridors

Why We Need It:  As climate change alters landscapes, wild animals will need to move to find more hospitable homes. In theory, they can simply, walk, or swim to new habitat. But roads, cities, farms, dams, and other barriers make moving between protected areas difficult. Today one in five species in the United States is in danger of extinction, due in large part to habitat loss and fragmentation, and only 41 percent of existing natural areas across the country are connected enough to let plants and animals move as the climate shifts, according to a 2016 study. Large-scale connectivity projects like the nearly 200-mile-long Path of the Pronghorn , the nation’s first federally protected migration route, designated in 2008, have shown that it’s possible to protect migration pathways and even rebuild links between fragmented landscapes. 

Who’s a Pioneer:  For deer, elk, pronghorns, and scores of other animals at risk of being struck by vehicles on New Mexico’s highways, a new state law will help provide safer passage. Passed in March, the Wildlife Corridors Act requires the state’s fish-and-game and transportation departments to identify, prioritize, and maintain corridors for animal movement and to construct highway crossings and other secure means of passage. New Mexico is the first state to pass connectivity legislation. 

Other Leaders:  Six other states have corridor legislation in the works: California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. There is also movement at the federal level: In May a coalition of leaders in the House and Senate introduced the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act , which would build a National Wildlife Corridor system across federal land and allocate $78.5 million toward wildlife passageways on tribal, state, and private land.

Solution: Carbon Farming

Why We Need It:  Growing food accounts for nearly 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. But smarter agricultural practices could turn cropland into a carbon sponge. Plants naturally pull carbon out of the air through photosynthesis; increasing soil health with compost and other practices enables plants to draw down even more of the gas, some of which they inject via their roots into the soil, where microorganisms consume it. More is locked up in decomposing plant pieces left in the soil. Carbon farming, which employs methods that capture and hold carbon, may sequester as much as 1.5 tons of CO2 per acre per year. It also reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers (which contribute to both global warming and marine dead zones) and pesticides, safeguarding our food supply in the process.

Who’s a Pioneer:  Last year, in conjunction with the creation of a carbon-offset program, Hawaii launched a Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Task Force to identify ways to store carbon in its farms and natural areas, such as forests. The state is offering grants, technical support, tax credits, and other incentives to help produce and distribute more compost and to generally build healthier soils.

Other Leaders:  New Mexico’s Healthy Soil Act , signed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in April, offers grants to farmers and ranchers to plant cover crops or native grasses, switch to no-till practices, restore wetlands, use compost, and otherwise explicitly help increase the soil’s “organic matter and carbon content.” Since 2015 politicians have introduced more than 150 soil-health bills in state legislatures, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Roughly 25 have passed, including more than a dozen in California, where dozens of farms have adopted the practice, and many more bills are advancing.

Solution: Coastal Resiliency

Why We Need It:  Coastal counties are home to
 42 percent of the U.S. population and contribute nearly half of the national GDP. Those people, and the economies they support, are increasingly at risk from sea-level rise, storm surges, erosion, flooding, and saltwater intrusion into aquifers. More than 60,000 miles of roads and bridges within coastal floodplains are vulnerable to storms, and awareness of the need for communities to start retreating from shores and restoring natural flood buffers is growing. Most states have buyout programs for flood-prone properties that leverage federal funds, yet few tracts purchased to date are coastal, in part because a 25 percent match from homeowners or local sources is often required. What’s more, many residents bristle at solutions imposed from the top down.

Who’s a Pioneer:  Armed with $40 million from a federal disaster-resistance competition, Louisiana rolled out an innovative initiative in which residents from six parishes designed coastal-resiliency projects. The program, LA SAFE , recruited and trained locals who facilitated more than 70 community meetings. The solutions they decided on include buyouts of houses outside the levee system, wetland restoration, creation of a public harbor where boats can shelter during storms, and services for people experiencing mental health impacts from the stress of living in disaster-prone areas. 

Other Leaders:  A bill moving through the South Carolina legislature would set up a fund to buy flood-prone real estate, giving homeowners loans or grants to cover the 25 percent local match. The legislation also calls for demolishing homes and rebuilding natural buffers in their place. New Jersey’s quarter-century-old Blue Acres Buyout Program , which gained steam after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, prioritizes buyouts of groups of homes to ensure there is enough land to provide an effective buffer. To do that, the program relies on grassroots e orts to band neighbors together. So far, Blue Acres has bought up more than 700 homes in 16 communities across nine counties.

This story originally ran in the Fall 2019 issue as “Action Figures.” To receive our print magazine, become a member by  making a donation today .​

A male Rufous Hummingbird in profile perched on the tip of a budding branch.

Pledge to stand with Audubon to call on elected officials to listen to science and work towards climate solutions.

WATCH: Panel discusses why local governments seem more effective than federal counterparts

Media inquiries.

  • 615-322-6397 Email

Latest Stories

  • Vanderbilt, Metro Nashville Historical Commission spotlight legacy of North Nashville’s Washington Junior High
  • Vanderbilt University joins the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities
  • CLASS OF 2024: Call to nature helps Danait Issac build community and cultural bonds

Nov 8, 2021, 9:00 AM

While national lawmakers are often seen drawing party lines and taking sides, local and regional governments across the nation can typically come to solutions more quickly and easily. A group of former and current municipal leaders came together in a virtual discussion on Nov. 3 to talk about how local governments get things done.

Former chief of staff to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Mitch Weiss , says local government is the ideal place to experiment and innovate ways to solve problems.

“Local government can combine local ingenuity and creativity to try new things at scale,” said Weiss, author of We the Possibility, Harnessing Public Entrepreneurship to Solve Our Most Urgent Problems.

how do governments work together to solve problems

“There’s no Democratic or Republican way to fill a pothole or sweep the streets,” Purcell said.

Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt criticized state and national leaders for treating politics as a game, for pushing partisan agendas on local officials, and for ignoring issues that local governments have to handle.

He called for local leaders to push back and fight for a nonpartisan form of government: “What local officials have got to do is own the system we have and defend why it is so effective.”

The discussion was hosted by the Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy and co-sponsored by the Global Action Platform .

MORE ON THE PANELISTS:

Bill Purcell is an adjunct professor of public policy at Vanderbilt. He served as the fifth mayor of Nashville and Davidson County, elected in 1999 and 2003. In 2008 he was named director of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He was one of three co-chairs of the Harvard University Allston Work Team and is now in private practice of law in Nashville.

Mitch Weiss is the Richard L. Menschel professor of management practice at Harvard Business School. He created and teaches the school’s course on public entrepreneurship. Weiss was chief of staff and a partner to Boston’s Mayor Thomas Menino. Weiss helped shape New Urban Mechanics, Boston’s municipal innovation strategy, and make it a model for peer-produced government and change. He is the author of We the Possibility (HBR Press, 2021).

Mayor David Holt is Oklahoma City’s 36th mayor. He was elected Feb. 13, 2018, receiving the largest vote percentage achieved by a non-incumbent candidate for mayor since 1947. He also became the youngest mayor of Oklahoma City since 1923, the first Native American mayor of Oklahoma City and, at the time of his election, the youngest mayor of a U.S. city with more than 500,000 residents.

ABOUT THE VANDERBILT PROJECT ON UNITY AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY  

The Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy is a nonpartisan initiative that aims to elevate research and evidence-based reasoning into the national conversation. Drawing on original research, evidence-based papers and crucial conversations from Vanderbilt’s world-class faculty and visionary thought leaders of all political persuasions, the timely endeavor aims to give policymakers and the public the tools needed to combat conspiracy and unfounded ideology with evidence, data and respectful discourse. The Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy can make a meaningful contribution to solving society’s most pressing challenges and bridging our deepest differences.

  • Visit our  NEWS & EVENTS  page to view other programs from the Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy.
  • Stay informed  on compelling panels, events, news and information from the Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy through the bi-weekly newsletter,  On Unity .

Explore Story Topics

  • Bill Purcell
  • events at vanderbilt
  • Events on Demand from The Vanderbilt Project on Unity & American Democracy
  • Global Action Platform
  • Mitch Weiss
  • Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy
  • vuhome-events
  • 9.1 What Do Legislatures Do?
  • Introduction
  • 1.1 Defining Politics: Who Gets What, When, Where, How, and Why?
  • 1.2 Public Policy, Public Interest, and Power
  • 1.3 Political Science: The Systematic Study of Politics
  • 1.4 Normative Political Science
  • 1.5 Empirical Political Science
  • 1.6 Individuals, Groups, Institutions, and International Relations
  • Review Questions
  • Suggested Readings
  • 2.1 What Goals Should We Seek in Politics?
  • 2.2 Why Do Humans Make the Political Choices That They Do?
  • 2.3 Human Behavior Is Partially Predictable
  • 2.4 The Importance of Context for Political Decisions
  • 3.1 The Classical Origins of Western Political Ideologies
  • 3.2 The Laws of Nature and the Social Contract
  • 3.3 The Development of Varieties of Liberalism
  • 3.4 Nationalism, Communism, Fascism, and Authoritarianism
  • 3.5 Contemporary Democratic Liberalism
  • 3.6 Contemporary Ideologies Further to the Political Left
  • 3.7 Contemporary Ideologies Further to the Political Right
  • 3.8 Political Ideologies That Reject Political Ideology: Scientific Socialism, Burkeanism, and Religious Extremism
  • 4.1 The Freedom of the Individual
  • 4.2 Constitutions and Individual Liberties
  • 4.3 The Right to Privacy, Self-Determination, and the Freedom of Ideas
  • 4.4 Freedom of Movement
  • 4.5 The Rights of the Accused
  • 4.6 The Right to a Healthy Environment
  • 5.1 What Is Political Participation?
  • 5.2 What Limits Voter Participation in the United States?
  • 5.3 How Do Individuals Participate Other Than Voting?
  • 5.4 What Is Public Opinion and Where Does It Come From?
  • 5.5 How Do We Measure Public Opinion?
  • 5.6 Why Is Public Opinion Important?
  • 6.1 Political Socialization: The Ways People Become Political
  • 6.2 Political Culture: How People Express Their Political Identity
  • 6.3 Collective Dilemmas: Making Group Decisions
  • 6.4 Collective Action Problems: The Problem of Incentives
  • 6.5 Resolving Collective Action Problems
  • 7.1 Civil Rights and Constitutionalism
  • 7.2 Political Culture and Majority-Minority Relations
  • 7.3 Civil Rights Abuses
  • 7.4 Civil Rights Movements
  • 7.5 How Do Governments Bring About Civil Rights Change?
  • 8.1 What Is an Interest Group?
  • 8.2 What Are the Pros and Cons of Interest Groups?
  • 8.3 Political Parties
  • 8.4 What Are the Limits of Parties?
  • 8.5 What Are Elections and Who Participates?
  • 8.6 How Do People Participate in Elections?
  • 9.2 What Is the Difference between Parliamentary and Presidential Systems?
  • 9.3 What Is the Difference between Unicameral and Bicameral Systems?
  • 9.4 The Decline of Legislative Influence
  • 10.1 Democracies: Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential Regimes
  • 10.2 The Executive in Presidential Regimes
  • 10.3 The Executive in Parliamentary Regimes
  • 10.4 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Challenges of Presidential and Parliamentary Regimes
  • 10.5 Semi-Presidential Regimes
  • 10.6 How Do Cabinets Function in Presidential and Parliamentary Regimes?
  • 10.7 What Are the Purpose and Function of Bureaucracies?
  • 11.1 What Is the Judiciary?
  • 11.2 How Does the Judiciary Take Action?
  • 11.3 Types of Legal Systems around the World
  • 11.4 Criminal versus Civil Laws
  • 11.5 Due Process and Judicial Fairness
  • 11.6 Judicial Review versus Executive Sovereignty
  • 12.1 The Media as a Political Institution: Why Does It Matter?
  • 12.2 Types of Media and the Changing Media Landscape
  • 12.3 How Do Media and Elections Interact?
  • 12.4 The Internet and Social Media
  • 12.5 Declining Global Trust in the Media
  • 13.1 Contemporary Government Regimes: Power, Legitimacy, and Authority
  • 13.2 Categorizing Contemporary Regimes
  • 13.3 Recent Trends: Illiberal Representative Regimes
  • 14.1 What Is Power, and How Do We Measure It?
  • 14.2 Understanding the Different Types of Actors in the International System
  • 14.3 Sovereignty and Anarchy
  • 14.4 Using Levels of Analysis to Understand Conflict
  • 14.5 The Realist Worldview
  • 14.6 The Liberal and Social Worldview
  • 14.7 Critical Worldviews
  • 15.1 The Problem of Global Governance
  • 15.2 International Law
  • 15.3 The United Nations and Global Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
  • 15.4 How Do Regional IGOs Contribute to Global Governance?
  • 15.5 Non-state Actors: Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)
  • 15.6 Non-state Actors beyond NGOs
  • 16.1 The Origins of International Political Economy
  • 16.2 The Advent of the Liberal Economy
  • 16.3 The Bretton Woods Institutions
  • 16.4 The Post–Cold War Period and Modernization Theory
  • 16.5 From the 1990s to the 2020s: Current Issues in IPE
  • 16.6 Considering Poverty, Inequality, and the Environmental Crisis

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

  • Describe the different aspects of a legislature’s work.
  • Discuss the general components of the legislative process.
  • Outline how legislatures organize to accomplish their work.
  • Define different ways legislators represent constituents.

Setting aside the challenge of running for reelection, there are many tasks involved in a legislator’s job, including creating new laws to solve emerging policy problems; evaluating existing arrangements to make sure they still work; staying in touch with constituents, both to keep them up to date with legislative work and to find out what they think about current issues; and overseeing other parts of the government to ensure that the will of the legislature is being carried out. This section will examine each part of a legislator’s job in greater detail to better understand the roles that legislatures play in the political world.

Not all legislatures around the world have the same powers and functions. Some legislatures, particularly in non-democracies, have limited roles in governing but provide other important functions. In some systems, the legislature can serve a more consultative role, even if it doesn’t have final decision-making power. Still other legislatures are endowed with powers that make them coequal with the various branches of government. Finally, there are some legislatures that are the supreme decision makers when it comes to policy making. Recognizing that these differences exist is an important component of understanding the roles legislatures play in society. Because legislatures play a particularly important role in democratic systems, much of this chapter focuses on those systems.

What Can I Do?

Critical thinking and legislative analysis.

When people study legislatures, they often examine why members of a legislature voted a certain way on a particular piece of legislation, why a certain member was chosen to serve on a particular legislative committee, or even why some policy elements were or were not included within the text of a proposed piece of legislation. Being able to answer and explain the why requires one of the most important skills that studying political science helps you develop—critical thinking. When you learn how to explain why someone voted yes or no on a piece of legislation, you are really developing the ability to explain anything, in any field or specialization. Critical-thinking skills are among the skills employers value most. 1 The ability to explain complex situations, to solve problems, and to make sense of situations that seemingly defy rational explanations provides the foundation on which you can build many diverse career paths.

Passing Laws: Who Comes Up with Ideas?

One of the legislature’s main jobs is to pass laws in order to solve policy problems. Ideas for these laws come from many places. Constituents might go to members of legislatures for help solving a problem in their community, such as a need for more school funding. A newspaper might publish an investigation that brings attention to an important issue. Often, organizations that work on a particular issue reach out to legislators. A president or prime minister, or another member of the executive branch, routinely offers policy proposals to the legislature for their consideration. Finally, ideas can come from the legislators themselves. It is quite common for a member of a legislature to develop a passion for and expertise in a particular policy area.

In order for a law to be created or changed, a legislator or group of legislators must be willing to work to solve the problem. Often, the person who introduces a piece of legislation is known as its sponsor . The sponsor—or, if a group of legislators introduces legislation, the cosponsors—argues on behalf of a piece of legislation in debate and meets with other legislators to try to get their support for the bill.

Once legislators realize there is a problem they need to solve, they set out to learn more about the policy area. They can do this a number of ways, including by reading research and reports. Often, they hold hearings in which they consult policy experts. Hearings can be useful for bringing many different stakeholders and perspectives together in one place.

How Are Ideas Debated?

Following the information-gathering process, legislators decide how to proceed to fix the problem. In most cases, they decide that the best way to solve a problem is to pass a law. Laws concerning the relationship between the government and individuals that apply to all people are called public laws . The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a good example of a public law, as it made changes to the health care system in the United States that affected US society as a whole. Public laws cover a huge range of topics, including the economy and government operation, health care and civil rights, defense and foreign policy, and everything in between. The process of writing a law involves taking all the ideas proposed and all the information gathered and turning them into a formal text to circulate and debate .

The exact process of debate differs across legislatures, but most require a public debate—that is, a debate that is open to all members—before the legislature votes on the proposed piece of legislation. Most systems have a set of parliamentary procedures , or rules that govern the structure of debate. Common procedural components include the right of the minority to speak in a debate, every member having the right to a vote, and only one piece of business being addressed at a time. 2

How Do Laws Get Passed?

Following the conclusion of debate , legislation is put to a vote to determine whether it will become law. For the passage of ordinary laws, most countries require a bill to gain the votes of a majority of legislators. One of the basic principles of democratic societies is majority rule , or the idea that the decision of the majority—50 percent of the chamber’s membership plus one member—determines the decision of the chamber on most items of business.

However, in some instances, change cannot take place without a supermajority . Supermajority voting rules require more than a majority to pass legislation. These rules come into play most often for decisions that are considered especially important or consequential. For example, countries that allow the legislature to amend the constitution usually require supermajorities to pass such amendments. Supermajority voting rules for constitutional amendments can require anywhere from three-fifths to three-quarters of the chamber’s membership to agree to the proposed measure. For example, changes to the Japanese constitution require the support of two-thirds of each chamber in the Diet (the Japanese national legislature) and a majority in a public referendum .

Countries where the parliament can call early elections also require a supermajority to agree to these elections. In the United Kingdom, at a minimum, parliamentary elections must happen every five years. However, if two-thirds of Parliament agrees, the legislature can be dissolved and early elections will be held. A supermajority may also be required to remove individuals from office. In the United States, the process of impeachment , which is the first step in removing a member of the executive or judicial branch from office, requires only a majority vote in the House of Representatives to move forward to trial in the Senate. Once the trial takes place, however, two-thirds of the Senate must vote in favor of conviction for the individual to be removed. So while the vast majority of laws and legislative action require the support of a simple majority of legislators, some instances require that a higher threshold be met.

In some cases, legislatures implement rules that create supermajority requirements for ordinary legislation. In the United States Senate, there is a tradition of unlimited debate on legislation. This means that a legislator can delay or prevent a vote on a piece of legislation by insisting that there is still more to debate, a practice commonly referred to as a filibuster . 3 In the modern Senate, any member can declare that they are filibustering, or still debating an issue, which stops the issue from coming to a vote. A vote only happens when 60 senators vote in favor of a cloture motion to end the debate. 4 Because any member can invoke a filibuster for any reason, there is essentially a de facto supermajority requirement for legislation to pass in the United States Senate.

The process discussed here—in which ideas come freely from all actors, are debated seriously, and can result in changes—is most characteristic of legislatures in democratic regimes. Legislatures in authoritarian countries may be far less independent, far less capable of policy making and representation, and far more responsive to the authoritarian leader. They do, however, play important roles in their political systems, such as making their governments more stable than authoritarian governments without legislatures. 5 Authoritarian legislatures provide a venue where key social groups may make their voices heard in policy debates, encouraging that stability. 6 Additionally, the legislature maintains a role in the policy process, as the authoritarian leader may choose to delegate decision-making authority in particular policy areas to actors with their own policy preferences. 7 Although legislatures exist on a spectrum of power and independence, with legislatures in democratic systems tending to be more powerful and independent than legislatures in authoritarian regimes, all legislatures play a significant role in their systems of government.

Organizing the Legislature’s Work

The work of legislatures requires a large number of people to collaborate. Every legislator has their own goals, things they want to take credit for, and blame they are trying to avoid—and everyone thinks they are right. Even when individuals agree that a particular policy is worth working on, they may disagree on the exact solution. Legislatures must create structures to keep their members moving productively in roughly the same direction.

Political Parties

One of the main ways legislatures organize themselves is through political parties (which are discussed in detail in Chapter 8: Interest Groups, Political Parties, and Elections ). Political parties are groups of people who typically have similar ideas on policy that they use to help candidates run for election and govern. 8 One of the ways political parties help govern is in determining decision-making authority. Because most votes require a majority to pass, many political systems give additional decision-making and leadership authority to the political party that holds a majority of seats. The majority party , or the political party that holds more than 50 percent of seats in the chamber, is often granted the ability to set the schedule for what bills get debated. They also typically control more seats on legislative committees , and because of these powers, they are typically more likely to get their preferred policies enacted into law. A minority party is any political party that does not have more than 50 percent of seats in the chamber. In democracies, minority parties can play an important legislative role, as they provide official expression of political and policy ideas that differ from those of the majority. They present their ideas in debate and vote against legislation they disapprove of, even when that legislation is likely to pass and become law. 9

The exact nature of the relationship between the majority and the minority depends on the number of parties in the legislature, and that number depends on what electoral system is in place. Some systems result in the dominance of two main political parties. In the US government, for example the Democratic and Republican Parties have primary control. Other systems make it easier for many parties to end up with seats in the legislature. In legislatures where many political parties hold seats, parties often need to join together in coalitions to create a majority in the chamber. For example, in the 2020 Irish elections, no single party gained a majority. The party that gained the most votes, Fianna Fáil, joined with two supporting parties, Fine Gael and the Green Party, to form a majority coalition. 10 Coalition governments can be more fragile than outright majority governments because if the relationship between the parties in the agreement breaks down, a party might withdraw its support from the coalition, throwing the balance of power in the legislature back into question.

Ireland Coalition Deal: Fiana Fáil, Fine Gael, and Greens to Form Coalition Government

Why might some parties want to be a part of a coalition government? Why might some parties not want to be in a coalition government? In this news segment, members of the Irish parliament from different parties discuss what their parties were looking for from a new governing coalition following the 2020 elections.

Another way legislatures organize is through legislative committees , groups of lawmakers who work together on the same policy area. Legislatures try to have enough committees to cover all major policy areas, and while the number of members on each committee varies, most systems require that all parties be allowed space on a committee. That means individual members of small parties typically serve on more committees than members of bigger parties, which can afford to spread their members around.

Organizing legislative work through committees facilitates specialization and legislative delegation . When individual legislators specialize, they delve more deeply into one or two policy areas and develop expertise on those issues. This expertise helps them better understand the nature of the problem and analyze different solutions. Legislative delegation goes hand in hand with specialization: when a legislator is tasked with voting on an issue outside their areas of expertise, rather than having to do extensive research, that legislator can rely on the opinion of members of their political party who are on the relevant policy committee. If those members support the legislation, it can help the legislator decide whether they should support the legislation, too. The party delegates responsibility for learning about that issue to party members who sit on the relevant committee.

Often, when people think of legislators, they think of people for whom writing laws and doing the work of government is a full-time job. While that may be true in many situations, not every legislature is a professional legislature . Professional legislatures meet year-round. The work of the legislature is the legislators’ only or primary job, they have paid professional staff, and they earn a salary that reflects the status of the office and the effort it requires. For example, the California State Assembly, the lower chamber of the California State Legislature, is in session from January to September every year; during the September to December period, members are often in their home districts, continuing to do work and preparing for the next legislative session. Members earn a salary of approximately $115,000 per year plus per diem. 11 In contrast, nonprofessional legislatures , sometimes also called citizen legislatures, are part-time legislatures where members meet for a set period of time and then, once the legislative session ends, go home to their districts to the job they held prior to the session or to other work. The Texas Legislature is an example of a nonprofessional legislature: members meet starting on the second Tuesday in January for 140 days in odd-numbered years and make $7,200 per year plus a per diem when in Austin, the state capital. 12 The governor, who has the power to recall the legislature to special sessions for 30 days at a time, generally handles any decisions that need to be made in between sessions. This tends to make governors in states with nonprofessional legislatures very powerful.

Legislative professionalism can have a substantial impact on a legislature’s capacity to do its work. Short legislative sessions limit the amount that legislatures can accomplish in a given session, requiring clear prioritization and swift leadership. Proponents of nonprofessional legislatures argue that shorter sessions help constrain the cost of legislators’ salaries and the size of their staffs and that they prevent the expansion of government. 13 While each government must decide for itself whether a professional or a nonprofessional legislature is the correct fit, it is certainly true that the capacity of nonprofessional legislatures is limited.

Representation of Constituents

Every member of a legislature has constituents , the people they are elected to represent. The connection between legislator and constituent can take many forms, and the particular form can have a substantive impact on the relationship.

Single-Member Districts versus Multimember Districts

The way in which legislators are assigned to their districts affects the legislator-constituent relationship. In some systems, each legislator is elected to represent a specific geographic district. For example, in Canada, the House of Commons represents 338 ridings. The member of Parliament elected from Halifax, Nova Scotia, is only responsible for representing the constituents in Halifax, and only the voters in that district can vote in the election to select the representative for that district. This type of system can allow a legislator to become familiar with the particular issues that affect their district and to potentially be more responsive to their constituents; however, it can also heighten geographic differences and potential tensions between regions.

This contrasts with countries such as Mozambique or Israel, where the legislature represents the country as a whole, without any geographic divisions. For example, in Israel, voters indicate their preferred party, and regardless of whether they are voting in Eilat in the south or Haifa in the north, they are voting for and will be represented by the same politicians. In these systems of national legislatures, members are less likely to have particular regional loyalties that could affect policy making; however, political parties often play a larger role, so whether specific geographic or national legislative districts produce better representation is debatable. 14

Whether or not members of the legislature are elected from specific geographic districts, there is considerable variation in the number of legislators who can represent a single district. National-level districts such as Mozambique, where every member of the legislature could potentially be elected by every voter, are the extreme, but many systems have multimember districts , where multiple legislators represent a single geographic district. Depending on the rules of the system, these members may be elected at the same time or at different times, and they may be from the same party or different parties. For example, in the United States Senate, each state is its own electoral district with two members, each of whom is elected on separate six-year cycles. These two members may or may not be of the same political party. After the 2020 electoral cycle, Jon Tester, a Democrat who will be up for reelection in 2024, and Steve Daines, a Republican who will be up for reelection in 2026, both represented Montana.

The number of seats allotted per district can vary considerably in multimember districts. In the Folketing , or Danish Parliament, there are 12 constituencies. The smallest constituencies have two seats in Parliament, and the largest district has 20 seats. The division of seats across constituencies is often done to recognize differences in population density. One of those smaller constituencies is Bornholm, which had 31,214 voters in 2019 and elected two members to Parliament, one each from the two largest parties in the legislature: Venstre, also known as Denmark’s Liberal Party, and Socialdemokratiet, or the Social Democrats. 15 Compare this with the largest constituency in the country, Sjællands, which had 628,910 voters and divided 20 seats across eight different political parties based on the percentage of the vote that each of those parties received in the constituency. 16

By contrast, some electoral systems use single-member districts . In these systems, the legislature is made up of many geographic districts, with only one legislator representing each district. The US House of Representatives uses a single-member district system in which the total number of seats in the chamber is distributed across the states based on population, with more populous states receiving many more seats. Each state can decide how it wants to draw its individual districts.

The relationship between the legislator and the constituent, which varies depending on whether a political system uses single-member or multimember districts , has been the subject of considerable research. Some scholars argue that geographically based single-member districts can better represent racial and ethnic minorities because members of a community who are clustered together can elect a representative from that community, 17 but scholars have also found that multimember districts can better ensure that women are elected to public office because each community can select more than one representative. 18 Some scholars contend that multimember districts can result in poorer representation of constituents overall, as the greater the number of seats in a district, the harder it is for constituents to monitor legislator behavior—and the greater the likelihood that legislators will make decisions that are not in line with the majority of constituents’ preferences. 19

THE CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

The changing face of legislatures.

As discussed in Chapter 8: Interest Groups, Political Parties, and Elections , in the 21st century, the US Congress has grown more and more diverse. In 2001, only 12 percent of members of Congress were people of color, and 13 percent were women. By 2021, 24 percent of members identified as people of color, and 27 percent identified as women. 20 Indeed, this pattern of increasing representation is true in most places around the world. For example, the percentage of seats held by women in legislatures globally has increased from 18 percent in 2008 to 24 percent in 2019. 21 Though the membership of the US Congress is not yet as diverse as the US population, the trend in membership demographics echoes the country’s growing diversity. Why is this increasing diversity important? Increased diversity translates to a greater variety of life experiences and perspectives. A woman whose parents came to the United States as refugees will have a different perspective on the world from that of a man whose family has been in the United States for generations. Representatives bring their life experiences and nuances to policy making, potentially better representing their constituents. The idea that underrepresented minorities receive better representation from people with similar demographic characteristics is called descriptive representation . In contrast, substantive representation is the phenomenon in which people are represented by legislators who hold the same ideological or policy beliefs, regardless of demographic characteristics. There is no guarantee that a match between a legislator’s ethnicity or gender and some subset of their constituents means the legislator will represent the political interests of that constituency—or that a mis match between a legislator’s demographic identity and their primary constituency means they will not represent their constituents’ interests. However, descriptive representation has been found to improve the probability that a demographic group’s interests will be represented. 22 A legislator’s identity may help them represent their constituents, but it is not a guarantee; a legislator may also effectively represent individuals of genders, races, and ethnicities other than their own.

Types of Representation

In democracies, those who are elected to office are entrusted with acting in the interest of the people they represent, but how do elected officials decide what is in the best interests of those constituents? Edmund Burke , a political philosopher who served in the British Parliament in the 18th century, posited two primary ways legislators can act to represent their constituents. 23 In one view, the legislator is a delegate of the people who elected them. The legislator’s obligation is to learn the people’s policy preferences and their views about different issues and to directly convey those preferences via legislative action. The delegate model rests on the ideas that people understand politics and policy well enough to form thoughtful opinions and to convey them to their representatives and that the legislator’s personal preferences should be set aside.

Alternatively, the legislator can be a trustee for their constituents. In the trustee model, though the legislator should still learn about the voters’ preferences, once in government they must use their own judgment and knowledge of policy to decide what is in constituents’ best interests, even if it is contrary to those constituents’ views. The trustee model is based on the idea that the average voter is either not sufficiently informed about politics and policy or does not have enough time to develop that knowledge in order to know what is actually in their best interests. Consequently, the representative, whose job it is to learn these facts, is better situated to make these decisions.

If the delegate and trustee models are at opposite ends of the spectrum, in practice, most legislators fall somewhere in between the two extremes. This kind of representation, where the legislator seeks a balance between delegate and trustee approaches, is sometimes also called the politico model of representation. 24 In this model, a legislator relies on the delegate approach, weighing the opinion of their constituents quite heavily in their decision-making, particularly when their constituents feel strongly about an issue, but in policy areas where either the legislator has more policy knowledge or there is a lack of public interest, they will rely on their own judgment.

The issue of foreign aid in the United States provides a classic example of this dichotomy. When asked in opinion polls, Americans often say the United States government spends too much on aid to other countries. 25 However, in reality, foreign aid accounts for only about 1 percent of the federal budget and has broad support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. 26 Despite the expressed opinions of constituents, members of Congress often support these policies because of a discrepancy in information between legislators and constituents, where the legislators have far more information than the average constituent about the costs and benefits of the programs.

Show Me the Data

Foreign policy demonstrates the complexity of delegate representation. Many Americans have only a little bit of knowledge about how much the United States spends on foreign aid, generally believing that the United States spends a significant portion of the budget in that policy area. However, when Americans are presented with information about how much the United States actually spends, their opinions tend to change, with more respondents saying that the United States spends either “too little” or “the right amount.” This gap between constituents’ knowledge and their opinions means that legislators must decide when, on which policies, and to what degree to weigh their constituents’ preferences against their own.

A fourth type of representation, partisan representation , differs from the other three. In delegate , trustee , and politico representation, the primary relationship is between the elected official and the constituent. In partisan representation, the primary relationship is between the legislator and the political party. Partisan representation relies on the idea that legislators must always vote with their political party. Depending on the wishes of the constituents, partisan representation can appear very similar to delegate or trustee representation, but it is motivated not directly by the desires of the constituents about a particular policy area but instead by a legislator’s belief that their constituents want them to be a loyal party member across all issues. 27 The prevalence of partisan representation varies across countries, as in some political systems, the baseline expectation is that legislators will vote with their parties the vast majority of the time, while in other political systems, members are allowed more freedom from their political parties. 28

Where Can I Engage?

Contact your representative.

In many democracies, members of the legislature care what their constituents think about various issues. They want to know which issues their constituents think are important, whether there is support or opposition for particular pieces of legislation, and whether or not their constituents approve of their performance in their job. This means that it is very important for constituents to reach out to their representatives. There are a number of ways you can contact your representative: via letter, email, or phone call. Check USAGov to find contact information for national, state, and local representatives. While every legislator prioritizes what kinds of communications they take most seriously, 29 research suggests that many forms of contact will have at least some effect on legislators. 30 It’s easy these days to find contact information for your legislator on the Internet, so use your voice to reach out. Some key things to keep in mind: be polite, be clear about which issue or concern you are contacting them about and whether you support or oppose it, and remember: you are most effective when you are contacting your own representative!

The Legislature’s Oversight Role

The process of regularly monitoring and reviewing the actions of agencies or other political actors, oversight , is important in democracies where a system of checks and balances between the different branches of government is designed to ensure that power is shared across the system. In these democracies, legislative oversight of the bureaucracy provides an important check on the power of the executive branch. 31

Just as committees hold hearings to learn more about policy areas, they can also hold hearings to conduct legislative oversight. In these hearings, committees can gather information to ensure that an agency’s actions are in line with that agency’s assigned mission. Committees and agencies are often paired up based on relevant policy jurisdiction. For example, in the UK Parliament, the Health and Social Care Select Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Social Care and its 29 agencies and public bodies, which include the National Health Service (NHS). The committee regularly holds inquiries into issues in its domain, which in 2020 included the delivery of core NHS services during the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of maternity services in England, among others. 32

Parliamentary Questions

Hearings are not the only way legislatures get information. In many systems, particularly parliamentary systems, a formal process allows legislators to ask questions of the bureaucracy that the bureaucracy is then required to answer. This process can take many forms. In some countries, there is a designated time during the week when legislators can question ministers, including the prime minister, in person. In other countries, legislators must submit questions in writing, but they can do so at any time, and the bureaucracy must respond in writing by a specific deadline. Sometimes governmental systems have a mechanism for both in-person and written questions. For example, in the German Bundestag , after every weekly cabinet meeting, ministers are available to answer questions about current policy for 35 minutes. This is followed by a two-hour question-and-answer session relating to questions submitted in advance. 33

Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), 28 April 2021

In this video, Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom takes questions from the leader of the opposition and other members of Parliament about policy and government administration.

Parliamentary questions have one key advantage over hearings: any individual legislator may submit a question. One way or another, hearings require the cooperation of multiple members of Parliament. That cooperation may be passive, as when members of the committee who are not interested in the issue choose not to participate in the hearing, or it may be active, as when members help organize the panel of witnesses or reinforce a line of questioning after a colleague’s time to speak expires. Questions, whether written or oral, do not require cooperation from any other member of the legislature. This makes questions a potent tool for members of minority parties. 34 They can launch inquiries into issues via questions in cases where they might not be able to get cooperation for a hearing in a committee.

In addition, any member of a legislative body can ask a question related to any policy area. They need not be a member of the relevant committee to participate in parliamentary questioning. 35 This means that legislators are not restricted from participating in policy areas that interest them simply because of jurisdiction.

In many democratic systems, the legislative branch is in charge of what is sometimes referred to as the appropriations process , whereby the legislature allocates the government’s money to the various agencies in charge of implementing policy.

This “power of the purse” is both a carrot and a stick that legislatures can use to gain compliance with their policy-making priorities. 36 A legislature is likely to allocate more money to those agencies that follow the legislature’s direction and do what members of the legislature consider important work—and to cut the budgets of those agencies that either do not follow the legislature’s directives or do work the majority of legislators consider relatively unimportant. For agencies, this is critical; nothing gets done without money. The legislature’s budgetary authority can be one of its greatest tools to ensure the compliance of the agencies of the executive branch.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction
  • Authors: Mark Carl Rom, Masaki Hidaka, Rachel Bzostek Walker
  • Publisher/website: OpenStax
  • Book title: Introduction to Political Science
  • Publication date: May 18, 2022
  • Location: Houston, Texas
  • Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction
  • Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/9-1-what-do-legislatures-do

© Jan 3, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Globalization 4.0 Your perspective

Today’s global risks need global solutions. We’ve identified 6 key questions we must address to make Globalization 4.0 work for all. The answers to challenges we face don’t just lie with governments and businesses. They should come from you. Here are some ideas on the challenges we face.

how do governments work together to solve problems

News from the Columbia Climate School

How Community Partnerships Are Helping to Address Environmental Concerns

David Maurrasse and Victoria Bortfeld

David Maurrasse

hands on a tree

Hurricane Matthew made landfall in southeastern North Carolina in October 2016 . It caused major flooding and killed 28 people. The flooding remained at high levels for weeks following the storm, creating lasting impacts on the poorest counties in the state. Unlike normal Atlantic hurricanes, Matthew more directly hit inland and stalled before leaving land. Such slow movement caused unanticipated and major flooding across the region.

In light of the devastating impacts of climate change and its effects — such as hurricanes that are increasing in number, intensity, and human impacts — and the many environmental issues facing our society, we need creative and comprehensive solutions that center the communities being directly impacted. One such approach is the creation of community partnerships. Climate change is a global reality requiring coordinated action among nations and across sectors internationally. But simultaneously, collaboration in localities will be increasingly required in order to confront a range of environmental concerns. Community partnerships harness the expertise and resources among an institutional ecosystem within a geographic area, such as a city, town, county, or metropolitan region. These collaborative efforts transcend sectors, bringing together government, the nonprofit sector, and, in some instances, the private sector as well, in order to solve problems facing localities. They leverage private philanthropy as well as locally-based anchor institutions — enduring organizations that remain in their geographic areas, and play a vital role in their local communities and economies, such as universities and hospitals.

One such community partnership grew out of the long-lasting impacts of Hurricane Matthew. The Hurricane Matthew Disaster Recovery and Resilience Initiative engages faculty and students from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University as well as professional planning experts in addressing community and state-level needs associated with recovery from Hurricane Matthew. North Carolina Policy Collaboratory, North Carolina Division of Emergency management, North Carolina State Legislature, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate are organizations that support the Initiative’s work through funding, staff support, data, office space, and other resources.

The Initiative provides sustained levels of assistance to six communities: Fair Bluff; Kinston; Lumberton; Princeville; Seven Springs; and Windsor. For example, due to floodwaters from Hurricane Matthew, the nearby Lumber River rose approximately 15 feet, damaging Fair Bluff homes and infrastructure. Through the Initiative, the North Carolina State University College of Design proposed multiple housing types for relocation, elevation, and further protection of future town infrastructure, as well as green space designation. The Initiative has provided Fair Bluff multiple levels of support through recovery plans, flood retrofitting reports, and land and economic analyses.

Community partnerships can help localities become more resilient and more effectively manage future environmental challenges. Responses to natural disasters require more than immediate relief; in order to better handle future climate-related adversity, localities must be more resilient.

One part of the U.S. that is considered particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and other environmental considerations is South Florida. As awareness of this vulnerability increases, local governments, nonprofits, anchor institutions, and others are exploring new collaborative strategies. One such example is the Resilient 305 Collaborative.

This effort is a joint academic-government research partnership among Florida International University, Miami-Dade College, University of Miami, and government and non-government organization leaders of the Greater Miami and Beaches region. It began in 2016 as an outcome of the MetroLab Network and was created to work in support of comprehensive resilience research and learning. The different city groups came together to lead development of their community’s resilience under the 100 Resilient Cities Network, pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation. In the piloting of its research strategy, the Collaborative focuses on an area called the “Little River to North Beach Resilience District” — a diverse area that spans communities with varying degrees of exposure to natural hazards, socioeconomic conditions, and technological capacities. The research strategy will help quantify the benefits and investments resulting from ongoing programs and policies identified in the Resilient 305 strategy.

Through intergovernmental and community collaboration, the Collaborative looks to help build existing networks and endeavors to safeguard South Florida people, homes, and livelihoods by connecting, engaging, and empowering every voice in the community. In public meetings, surveys and focus groups, the partnership engaged stakeholders to help shape the strategy and make sure it reflected the input from a wide range of people who have diverse areas of expertise, representing a wide variety of ages, ethnicities, cultures, income levels, and geographic areas. The Collaborative will continue to expand to include all municipalities, community organizations, and anchor institutions in implementation.

There are many other opportunities for community partnerships to address other pressing local and regional environmental concerns. Another example of an environmental community partnership is based in Fresno, California.

Fresno has faced long-standing environmental, health, and economic disparities . More than 100 square miles in the city have been consumed by suburban sprawl, including areas which have valuable agricultural land. As a result, the urban center and historic neighborhoods, such as Southwest Fresno and Chinatown, have some of the highest concentrations of poverty nationwide. At the same time, these communities struggle with high levels of air pollution and also lack access to green space and healthy foods. Through the Fresno Transformative Climate Communities Collaborative, the city is working to address local environmental, health, economic, and social equity concerns.

The Fresno Transformative Climate Communities Collaborative, formed by residents and other community stakeholders, employed a participatory process to identify a series of projects to implement in the Downtown, Chinatown, and Southwest Fresno Areas. The approved project, Transform Fresno , is a community-driven initiative to transform the 4.9-square-mile project area through multiple projects and plans that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also providing local environmental, health, and economic and social equity benefits. The California Strategic Growth Council awarded Transform Fresno with a grant of $66.5 million in November 2016 to start this project. The suite of projects enveloped in Transform Fresno involved multiple different types of partners. For example, its Displacement Avoidance Plan involves the city, Fresno Anti Displacement Task Force, Central Valley Business Diversity Partnership, Wells Fargo, and Fresno Regional Workforce Development Board. Another project, the Clean Shared Mobility Network, involves Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce, San Joaquin Valley Latino Environmental Advancement and Policy, Inspiration Transportation, Shared Use Mobility Center, and Bethel Temple Early Readers Preschool.

Community partnerships have been emerging as important pathways to various types of local solutions. They seem to have particular relevance regarding environmental challenges, which can only be sufficiently addressed through multi-stakeholder, cross-sector collective action. With each passing year, we are reminded of the urgency of present and future environmental challenges. This is particularly the case for the most vulnerable populations. It is not only important to create, maintain, and strengthen local environmental community partnerships, but these initiatives must also intentionally bring an equity and racial equity lens.

Too often, the most pressing environmental concerns are experienced most significantly by those with limited resources. We are witnessing the development of an important basis for new collaborative strategies that can lead to more sustainable, resilient, and equitable communities. None of this work happens automatically. It requires substantial time, resources, trust-building, inclusion, and alignment. Raising awareness about what it takes to develop effective community partnerships is an important aspect of the journey toward proliferating and strengthening creative and impactful collaboration.

In addition to being a research scholar at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, David J. Maurrasse is the president and founder of Marga Inc., a consulting firm providing advice and research to strengthen philanthropy and innovative cross-sector partnerships to address some of today’s most pressing social concerns. He is the author of  Philanthropy and Society and the soon to be published  Strategic Community Partnerships, Philanthropy and Nongovernmental Organizations . He is also beginning research toward the production of another book, Community Partnerships Toward Sustainable and Equitable Communities.

Victoria Bortfeld is a recent Master of Public Health graduate from the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health’s Environmental Health Sciences Department. She works as an intern with David on his book projects. Her focuses include environmental health policy, environmental justice advocacy, and climate change action.

Related Posts

Science for the Planet: In these short video explainers, discover how scientists and scholars across the Columbia Climate School are working to understand the effects of climate change and help solve the crisis.

Very informative article, as someone living in and witnessing social and environmental challenges in South Florida it is very urgent that we foster more partnerships across sectors!

Sign up for the Columbia Climate School Newsle tter →

Fact-based policy: How do state and local governments accomplish it?

  • Policy brief

Subscribe to the Economic Studies Bulletin

Justine hastings justine hastings professor of economics and international and public affairs - brown university, founding director - research improving people’s lives.

January 31, 2019

The Problem

Fact-based policy is essential to making government more effective and more efficient, and many states could benefit from more extensive use of data and evidence when making policy. Private companies have taken advantage of declining computing costs and vast data resources to solve problems in a fact-based way, but state and local governments have not made as much progress.

The Proposal

Drawing on her experience in Rhode Island, Hastings proposes that states build secure, comprehensive, integrated databases, and that they transform those databases into data lakes that are optimized for developing insights. Policymakers can then use the insights from this work to sharpen policy goals, create policy solutions, and measure progress against those goals. Policymakers, computer scientists, engineers, and economists will work together to build the data lake and analyze the data to generate policy insights.

Economic Studies

The Hamilton Project

Jason Hsu, Akira Igata, Sarah Kreps, Joshua P. Meltzer, Mireya Solís, David Wessel, Myung-hee Yoo

February 22, 2024

Joseph Parilla, Glencora Haskins, Lily Bermel, Lisa Hansmann, Mark Muro, Ryan Cummings, Brian Deese

February 13, 2024

1:00 pm - 12:45 pm EDT

Cart

  • SUGGESTED TOPICS
  • The Magazine
  • Newsletters
  • Managing Yourself
  • Managing Teams
  • Work-life Balance
  • The Big Idea
  • Data & Visuals
  • Reading Lists
  • Case Selections
  • HBR Learning
  • Topic Feeds
  • Account Settings
  • Email Preferences

Government Alone Can’t Solve Society’s Biggest Problems

  • William D. Eggers and Paul Macmillan

We need a new, more collaborative economic system.

Rising obesity. Human Trafficking. Re-skilling the workforce. A lack of quality education and safe water for the poor in the developing world. Whose job is it to solve these problems?

  • WE William D. Eggers leads Deloitte’s public sector research and is the author of eight books. Paul Macmillan is the global Public Sector leader for Deloitte Touche Tomatsu. They are the authors of The Solution Revolution: How Business, Government, and Social Enterprises are Teaming up to Solve Society’s Toughest Problems .

Partner Center

How Thinking Like a Startup Helps Governments Solve More Problems

As we work on challenging public problems, embracing the entrepreneurial spirit can help in developing solutions, says Harvard Business School Professor Mitchell Weiss in a new book, We the Possibility: Harnessing Public Entrepreneurship to Solve Our Most Urgent Problems .

Weiss explains in nine chapters how entrepreneurs both inside and outside of government can tackle problems by viewing them as opportunities, trying new ideas, scaling them up, and improving public life.

“I’m not saying we should take all the behaviors of entrepreneurs and import them into government. But we should be adapting the skills and practices of entrepreneurship for the public sector,” he says.

Before joining the HBS faculty and creating the MBA course Public Entrepreneurship, Weiss was chief of staff to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. In 2010, Weiss cofounded the Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics, one of the first big-city innovation offices in the United States. In April 2013, he helped guide the mayor’s office’s response to the attacks on the Boston Marathon. At HBS, he has helped build the Young American Leaders Program and is an adviser to the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative.

One thing he has learned during his years in public service: Officials don’t cut projects loose when they are failing, nor do they scale projects when they are succeeding.

“Anybody who has ever been close to the public sector will recognize this problem of pilots that are left to linger,” Weiss says. “And if public entrepreneurship is going to work, we have to cut off the failing projects and invest in those that are working. So it’s essential for us to try new things in quick and efficient ways and move on from them, eventually, if the original idea does not prove fruitful.”

In an interview, Weiss discussed other key points from the book:

Martha Lagace: What do you mean by “possibility government”?

Mitchell Weiss: Possibility government is the pursuit of novel programs and services by public officials and their outside private partners that, by virtue of their novelty, are only possibly likely to work, which means they probably won’t work. This is in contrast to probability government, which is the pursuit of programs and services that “work” but often achieve middling outcomes. Probability government is what we have most of the time in most places, and possibility government is what we need more of if we are going to truly solve public problems anywhere.

If there were ever a time for it, this is it. Given the loss of faith in governments around the world, we need a new approach. And, given advances in technology, there are opportunities for us to try to make use of them in appropriate and helpful ways now. There’s the mix of a long list of problems, potential solutions, potential solution providers among entrepreneurs in and outside of government that’s a call to action. What we’ve witnessed over the last couple years is people turning on each other, and I think possibility might afford a way for them to actually work together and solve problems.

This is already happening, with pockets of public entrepreneurship all around the world. In the US, there are amazing public entrepreneurs in some places. And it is also true elsewhere. We would all be wise to know about what they are doing. When I am with mayors across the globe through our Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative, I have met unbelievably innovative leaders whom some of my American colleagues and counterparts could learn from. Even where we should not replicate precisely what they do in different countries and regimes, we do need to up our sense of urgency, and part of that is seeing and learning from what other people are doing.

Lagace: Why is this book relevant to business managers and leaders not in government?

Weiss: A couple answers. If we are going to move toward possibility, we have to move together. We are going to need public officials who are willing to take on riskier projects and scale them, without taking on more risk. But we are also going to need members of the public who are granting them their permission, encouragement, and even co-participation. More specifically, private entrepreneurs, for example in the govtech space, have been on the increase. Large numbers of entrepreneurs are self-deploying in this space and will be, and large amounts of capital are being deployed and will be. More companies are finding themselves trying to solve public problems.

There are a lot of lessons in the book for how to do that well, whether you are a new startup in govtech or a public sector group at a large company working on public sector cloud solutions, for example.

Another reason is that people not in government, such as private business leaders or philanthropic leaders, may say, “Leave the innovation to us.” And that is not a viable strategy. The book has lessons for private and philanthropic leaders for why you want to have public partners who are as entrepreneurial as they can be.

Lagace: What’s different about public entrepreneurs compared to other entrepreneurs?

Weiss: First, there are similarities worth recognizing. We can have entrepreneurship in the private and public sectors just like we have bureaucracy in the private and public spaces. Big companies, too, struggle to find ways to be new, novel, and innovative. I think we overestimate some of the differences, to our detriment and the detriment of the work in both sectors.

As for differences, clearly public entrepreneurs are ultimately responsible to and accountable to voters, citizens, people living in the community. And that’s different from being mainly responsible to private stakeholders and private customers.

Motivation can also be different. Public entrepreneurs are presumably motivated to solve public problems. There’s a larger sense of mission orientation. Though, many private entrepreneurs say that’s why they got into public work.

And there are the kinds of problems we work on. Public entrepreneurs find themselves working on the most vexing of problems, the ones the private sector has decided they can’t solve on their own. The problems can be harder and more widespread.

Lagace: What is an example of a public startup?

Weiss: James Geurts, who started SOFWERX, was responsible for buying and deploying all the technology and equipment for the US Special Forces. He had at his disposal a large part of the $600-plus billion Department of Defense budget and some of the most inventive people at DARPA, the DoD’s research arm, and other places. And yet he still began a startup outside the confines of the Special Operations command, and sought ideas in non-intuitive places. How SOFWERX unfolds is a fascinating example of why governments struggle to do new things, how entrepreneurs work to remedy those struggles, what they all do to experiment, and what the opportunities and perils are along the way for both parties involved.

Lagace: If you lack that kind of budget and really want to work on public problems, what do you need to be good at?

Weiss: It is vital to engage with the public. Jimmy Chen, who had spent most of his prior career at LinkedIn and Facebook, began public entrepreneurship by doing problem identification and the beginnings of solution identification. To help the hungry, he went to SNAP offices to observe and talk to people applying for food benefits. So, the practicalities involve customer discovery and even some prototyping, but with the public, not to them or at them. As I also explain in the book with an admittedly more fraught example, about TraceTogether—a smartphone app to support community-driven contact tracing to slow the spread of COVID-19—that public entrepreneurs leave their office to ask people for feedback.

Lagace: How do you hire talent for this space?

Weiss: Hire people with strong heads and strong hearts. That is what health tech entrepreneur turned public leader Todd Park said, and I agree. Hire people with a set of modern skills around user-centered design, product management, UX and UI, or software engineering, and who have empathy for people who are facing public problems as well as empathy for public servants already trying to solve these problems. Don’t show up assuming you know everything about the problem and why it hasn’t been fixed.

We absolutely want to bring outsiders in. We also want to bring the insiders out of the woodwork. They’ve been hiding a little bit, not being told they can invent and bring new ideas. They are there. There is amazing talent already inside government.

Lagace: How can public entrepreneurs manage tensions between experimentation and failure?

Weiss: In the book, I quote organizational behavioralist James March, who says the trick is to be impatient with old ideas and patient with new ideas. That’s true. When we start trying a new program or service, it’s not going to roll out perfectly. We do have to give it a meaningful chance. And if it works after some learning, some trying, scale it. And if it doesn’t, we have to try something new.

About the Author

Martha Lagace is a writer based in the Boston area.

[Image: damircudic ]

Click to watch.

Book Excerpt

Chapter 1: problems as opportunities.

By Mitchell Weiss

We the Possibility: Harnessing Public Entrepreneurship to Solve Our Most Urgent Problems

There is a particular and much loved kind of administrative/convergent/scarcity thinking that appears so similar to its opposites that it’s hard to detect. But it is limiting our efforts at imagining new solutions to sticky problems and therefore our abilities to solve them. And that’s “best practices.” Too often in government, the search for a new solution begins and ends with a call for finding the best of what others are doing, and then doing that. I understand the appeal: replicate what works. And we should do that. We could lift up the lives of billions of people around the globe if solutions that had been developed and successfully implemented in some places made their way to all appropriate places. But we also must recognize that in many cases, best isn’t good enough. That “solutions” aren’t really solutions at all, but just the things that are being done. If you asked for best practices on what’s being done today to add affordable housing, reduce congestion, thwart climate change, narrow gaping inequalities, etc., you would get a list of very interesting and sometimes helpful practices. And if you, as a public leader, aren’t doing the things on that list, you should. And if you, the public, aren’t demanding them, you should. But the reality is, if you subjected the list to the test of “Will it be enough? Will it solve the problem?” the answer would likely be no. The best is only the best yet, so I think as possibilitists , we must beware best’s siren call.

Following the [2013 Boston] marathon attacks, the decision was made to cancel that night’s Boston Bruins hockey game, with a city in mourning and terrorists on the loose. Not long after that, Mayor Menino wanted to know if canceling had been my stupid idea, and I could honestly tell him it hadn’t been, because I hadn’t had an idea, stupid or otherwise, since those sobbing people had come streaming toward my home. (I think it was the right call, by the way, and I think eventually he did, too.)

An idea was forming in my head, though. And in his, and in a few others’. And the idea was that we needed to set up a brand-new fund to collect and distribute donations that were going to start coming in from around the world. The mayor was already taking the calls of people asking, “Where can we send help?”

The answer, in most US places affected by tragedy, was a local foundation. Best practices was to have an established, trusted organization collect donations and administer the funds. After the mass shootings in Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown, versions of this process had been put into practice in those locations. My mayor wasn’t inclined in that direction, however. He felt that when money went into foundations (which are the epitome of HBS Professor Howard Stevenson’s “trustee”), it took too long to get out, and that when it ultimately did get out, it went in too many directions and not to those who most needed it. I agreed with that worry. I had, by pure chance, seen articles documenting some of the delays in disbursing funds to the Sandy Hook survivors. The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary had happened 122 days before the marathon bombings, and still the major fund collecting donations hadn’t finalized a process for distributing those donations. In Columbine, it took years for donated funds to make it to victims, and even then they received only 58 percent of what had been collected. After Aurora, it took 259 days—almost a year—for the funds to make it to victims. 22 The idea of best practices is beguiling, but it wasn’t going to be good enough. The mayor insisted, with the governor joining him, that we would start up our own new fund. “You can’t start something new,” we were told, a statement rooted in trusteeship that left unaddressed the matter of doing better. So, I had to tell the foundation head we were going to anyway.

Footnote: 22 Dana Liebelson, “Where Did the Money Donated to Columbine, Aurora, and Virginia Tech Mass-Shooting Victims Go?” Mother Jones , April 8, 2013; Mitchell Weiss, “Lessons from Boston’s Experiment with the One Fund,” Harvard Business Review, January 22, 2016.

Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review Press. Excerpted from We the Possibility: Harnessing Public Entrepreneurship to Solve Our Most Urgent Problems . Copyright 2021 Mitchell Weiss. All rights reserved.

  • 16 Feb 2024
  • Research & Ideas

Is Your Workplace Biased Against Introverts?

  • 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

  • 13 Feb 2024

Breaking Through the Self-Doubt That Keeps Talented Women from Leading

  • 05 Feb 2024

The Middle Manager of the Future: More Coaching, Less Commanding

  • 30 Jan 2024

‘Intrinsic Joy’ Sparks Ideas Better than Cash

Mitchell B. Weiss

  • Government and Politics
  • Social Issues

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

a set of data graphs projected on a surface

How governments handle data matters for inclusion

how do governments work together to solve problems

Professor of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University - Newark

how do governments work together to solve problems

Assistant Professor of Governance, Utrecht University

how do governments work together to solve problems

Associate Professor of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University - Newark

Disclosure statement

Suzanne J. Piotrowski has received funding from the National Science Foundation and the Open Government Partnership.

Gregory Porumbescu has received external funding from the National Science Foundation and the New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education.

Erna Ruijer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Rutgers University - Newark provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Governments increasingly rely on large amounts of data to provide services ranging from mobility and air quality to child welfare and policing programs . While governments have always relied on data, their increasing use of algorithms and artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed the way they use data for public services.

These technologies have the potential to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public services. But if data is not handled thoughtfully, it can lead to inequitable outcomes for different communities because data gathered by governments can mirror existing inequalities . To minimize this effect, governments can make inclusion an element of their data practices.

To better understand how data practices affect inclusion, we – scholars of public affairs , policy and administration – break down government data practices into four activities: data collection, storage, analysis and use.

Governments collect data about all manner of subjects via surveys, registrations, social media and in real time via mobile devices such as sensors, cellphones and body cameras. These datasets provide opportunities to shape social inclusion and equity . For example, open data can be used as a spotlight to expose health disparities or inequalities in commuting .

At the same time, we found that poor-quality data can worsen inequalities. Data that is incomplete, outdated or inaccurate can result in the underrepresentation of vulnerable groups because they may not have access to the technology used to collect the data. Also, government data collection might lead to oversurveillance of vulnerable communities. Consequently, some people may choose to avoid contributing data to government institutions.

A city map with numerous small red, orange and yellow squares

To foster inclusive practices, government practitioners could work with citizens to develop inclusive data collection protocols.

Data storage refers to where and how data is stored by the government, such as in databases or cloud data storage services. We found that government decisions about access to stored data and data ownership might lead to administrative exclusion , meaning unintentionally restricting citizen access to benefits and services. For example, administrative registration errors in applications for services and the difficulty citizens experience when they attempt to correct errors in stored data can lead to differences in how governments treat them and even a loss of public services.

We also found that personal data might be stored with cloud vendors in data warehouses outside the influence of the government organizations that initially created and collected the data. While governments are typically required to follow rigorous data collection practices, data storage companies do not necessarily need to comply with the same standards.

To overcome this problem, governments can set transparency and accountability requirements for data storage that foster inclusion.

One important way governments analyze data to extract information is by using algorithms. For example, predictive policing uses algorithms to predict where crime will occur.

A key question is who is conducting the analysis. Those who might be providing data, such as citizens or civil society organizations, are less likely to analyze the data. Citizens may not have the skills, expertise or the tools to do so. Often, external experts conduct the analysis, and they might be unaware of the historical context, culture and local conditions of the data. In that way, data may also construct and reinforce inequalities.

To foster inclusion, governments could diversify and increase the training of the teams who perform the analyses and write the algorithms so that they can interpret data within its larger historical and political context.

Using the data

Finally, governments are using the results of data analysis to inform public service provision. For example, data-driven visualizations, such as maps, might be used to make decisions about where to direct police officers . However, this might also lead to disproportionate surveillance of different groups.

Another issue is “ function creep .” Data might be collected for one purpose but is often eventually used for other purposes or by other government agencies, possibly leading to misuse of data and the reproduction of inequalities.

Digital literacy programs for both government professionals and the public can facilitate a better understanding of how data is visualized and used.

Building inclusion into the process

It is important to highlight that these activities – collection, storage, analysis and use – are linked. Inequalities in the early stages may eventually lead to inequitable outcomes in the form of policies, decisions and services.

Additionally, we found a conundrum: On the one hand, the invisibility of vulnerable groups in data collection can result in inequalities. Therefore, different groups should be included in the activities of the data process. On the other hand, this can also be problematic because digital footprints can lead to oversurveillance of the same groups.

Reconciling these conflicting concerns requires an ethical reflection : pausing before embracing data and reflecting on its purpose, limitations and long-term implications for inclusion.

The four activities are a repeated rather than linear process in which governments, citizens and third parties embrace inclusive data strategies . This means looking at what was created, including diverse voices and understanding the analysis, results and consequences of decisions. And it means consistently changing aspects of the process that do not foster inclusion.

  • Government data
  • Data analysis
  • Data ethics
  • Vulnerable communities

how do governments work together to solve problems

Research Assistant in Immunology and Virology

how do governments work together to solve problems

General Manager | La Trobe University, Sydney Campus

how do governments work together to solve problems

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Business Law & Taxation

how do governments work together to solve problems

Industrial Officer (Senior)

how do governments work together to solve problems

Supply Chain Management – Open Rank (Tenure-Track)

Internet Explorer 11 is not supported

What could entrepreneurs and government do together, the co-author of a new book suggests that when technology, data and collective effort converge, government, the tech industry and higher education can tackle major challenges while bringing a new generation into the workforce..

TFIC Thumbnail.png

  • Gupta wrote the book to address the growing desire among students for mission-oriented work and the need to harness optimism and innovation to solve societal issues through government collaboration.
  • The book emphasizes the importance of technology in all organizations, including government, citing statistics about the age distribution of tech workers and the role of data in driving innovation and rebuilding trust between citizens and government.
  • Gupta advocates for modernizing infrastructure to attract top talent to government, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary opportunities in academia and partnerships between the public and private sectors at the state level.
  • He discusses the significance of utilizing government data to enhance services and user experiences, stressing the potential for data-driven approaches to address major societal challenges such as climate change and geopolitical conflicts.
  • Gupta encourages a shift in the culture of debate toward facts and data, emphasizing the role of collective effort in creating a better, safer and more sustainable society in the face of existential threats.
  • Arun Gupta, Gerard George and Thomas J. Fewer, Venture Meets Mission: Aligning People, Purpose, and Profit to Innovate and Transform Society , Stanford Business Books, 2024.

TFIC ITW 2.png

February 26, 2024

Winnipeg -4° C , Cloudy with wind

Full Forecast

  • Advertising Contact
  • Send a Letter to the Editor
  • Staff biographies
  • Submit a News Tip
  • Subscribe to Newsletters
  • Notifications
  • Create Account
  • Compact View
  • About the E-Edition
  • Winnipeg Free Press
  • Community Review East
  • Community Review West
  • All Arts & Life
  • Celebrities
  • Environment
  • Food & Drink
  • Life & Style
  • Science & Technology
  • All Business
  • Agriculture
  • Personal Finance
  • Manitoba’s Top Employers
  • All Opinion
  • Editorial Cartoon
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Auto Racing
  • Blue Bombers
  • High School
  • Horse Racing
  • Winnipeg Jets
  • Manitoba Moose
  • Reader Bridge
  • Free Press 101: How we practise journalism
  • Advertising
  • Carrier Positions & Retailer Requests
  • FP Newspapers Inc.
  • Internships
  • Job Opportunities
  • Local Journalism Initiative
  • Privacy Policy
  • Retail Locations
  • Staff Biographies
  • Terms and Conditions
  • All Free Press Community Review News
  • East Edition
  • West Edition
  • Classifieds
  • All Coupons
  • Staples Copy & Print Coupons
  • Ripley's Aquariums Coupons
  • The Bay Coupons
  • Staples Canada Coupons
  • Altitude Sports Coupons
  • Nike Coupons
  • Tuango Coupons
  • Ebay Canada Coupons
  • Sport Chek Coupons
  • Roots Coupons
  • All FP Features
  • Business Hub
  • Drink & Dine
  • Health & Wellness
  • Whiskers & Wings
  • Sponsored Articles
  • Property Listings
  • Featured News
  • Renovation and design
  • Resale homes
  • Newsletters
  • Niigaan and the Lone Ranger
  • Photo and Book store
  • Become a Patron

© 2024 Winnipeg Free Press

Quick Links

  • Publications
  • Sponsored Content

Ways to support us

  • Pay it Forward program
  • Support Faith coverage
  • Support Arts coverage

Replica E-Edition

Arts & Life

  • Photo Galleries

Canstar Community news

notifications banner icon

Notification Settings

This browser doesn't support push notifications at the moment. Check browsers features, update your browser or try to use one from the list of recommended to manage your notifications settings:

  • Firefox (27+)
  • Google Chrome (30+)
  • Safari ( MacOS 13+ with browser 16.1+ and iOS 16.4+ ) / Note make sure Push API support enabled under Settings > Safari > Advanced > Experimental Features
  • Microsoft Edge

If you wish to manage your notification settings from this browser you will need to update your browser's settings for this site. Just click button below and allow notifications for this site

Note Safari 16.4+ working on iOS devices also need this site app to be installed at device's Home Screen for Push Notifications to work

Notifications are blocked for this site. If you wish to manage your notification settings from this browser you will need to update your browser's settings. Usually you'd need to click on site options icon to the left of address bar and change notifications preferences/permissions from there

Breaking News

Urgent and important stories

Recommended Reads

Noteworthy news and features

UN member states are meeting to plan how to tackle the world’s environmental crises

Advertisement

Advertise with us

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The world’s top decision-making body on the environment is meeting in Kenya's capital on Monday to discuss how countries can work together to tackle environmental crises like climate change, pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Read this article for free:

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Monthly Digital Subscription

$19 $0 for the first 4 weeks *

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*No charge for 4 weeks then billed as $19 every four weeks (new subscribers and qualified returning subscribers only). Cancel anytime.

Read unlimited articles for free today:

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The world’s top decision-making body on the environment is meeting in Kenya’s capital on Monday to discuss how countries can work together to tackle environmental crises like climate change, pollution and loss of biodiversity.

The meeting in Nairobi is the sixth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly, and governments, civil society groups, scientists and the private sector are attending.

“None of us live on an island. We live on planet Earth, and we are all connected,” Inger Andersen, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme, which is leading the process, told The Associated Press ahead of the talks. “The only way we can solve some of these problems is by talking together.”

FILE - Salt recovery pools in different degrees of evaporation are visible at an industrial plant that produces lithium carbonate to manufacture lithium batteries, on the outskirts of Llipi, Bolivia, Dec. 15, 2023. The United Nations Environment Assembly is meeting in Nairobi on Monday, Feb. 26, to discuss how countries can work together to tackle environmental crises like climate change, pollution and loss of biodiversity. (AP Photo/Juan Karita, File)

At the meeting, member states discuss a raft of draft resolutions on a range of issues that the assembly adopts upon consensus. If a proposal is adopted, it sets the stage for countries to implement what’s been agreed on.

In the last round of talks in 2022, also in Nairobi, governments adopted 14 resolutions, including to create a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution globally. Andersen described it then as the most significant environmental multilateral deal since the Paris Agreement to limit global warming.

For this year’s talks, countries have submitted 20 draft resolutions for discussion, including on how best to restore degraded lands, combat dust storms and reduce the environmental impact of metal and mineral mining.

But with countries having different priorities, it’s often hard to get consensus on the draft resolutions. However, Andersen said, there’s generally “a forward movement” on all draft resolutions for this year’s meeting, known as UNEA-6.

With this meeting’s focus on multilateralism, UNEP wants to build on past agreements it led between governments, such as the Minamata Convention to put controls on mercury and the Montreal Protocol to heal the hole in the ozone layer, Andersen said.

Björn Beeler, international coordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network, thinks there’ll be slow progress on more complex issues such as financing around chemicals and waste.

Beeler also expects strong opposition on a draft resolution that wants to phase out the use of highly hazardous pesticides. The draft resolution, which was submitted by Ethiopia and is co-sponsored by Uruguay, aims to create a global alliance of U.N. bodies like UNEP, the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization.

Business Weekly

Monday mornings

The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.

Sign up for Business Weekly

“If this does go through, it would be very significant because it would be the first time ever to see global movement on highly hazardous pesticides,” said Beeler, who is attending the talks.

UNEP anticipates more than 70 government ministers and 3,000 delegates at the talks.

“What we should expect at UNEA-6 is decision makers looking into the horizon, being aware of what is it that’s coming to us that could potentially damage our planet, and taking preemptive action to prevent this,” said Andersen.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Advertisement Advertise With Us

Advertise With Us

Featured Local Savings

Israel to send delegation to Qatar amid optimism about hostage deal

Israel has insisted that any deal must allow for the idf to complete its military campaign against hamas..

 Gaza hostage families protest on Ayalon highway on January 18, 2024 (photo credit: LIOR SEGEV)

Netanyahu pressured by White House, Gaza hostages' families

  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

AT&T Says Service Is Restored After Widespread Cellular Outage

White House officials said the incident was under investigation, but it did not appear to be a cyberattack. Verizon and T-Mobile said their networks were operating normally.

The AT&T logo.

By Jenny Gross and David McCabe

Jenny Gross reported from London and David McCabe reported from Washington.

AT&T said on Thursday that it had fully restored service to its wireless network after a widespread outage temporarily cut off connections for users across the United States for many hours, the cause of which was still under investigation.

The outage, which affected people in cities including Atlanta, Los Angeles and New York, was first reported around 3:30 a.m. Eastern time, according to Downdetector.com , which tracks user reports of telecommunication and internet disruptions. At its peak, the site listed around 70,000 reports of disrupted service for the wireless carrier.

Multiple government agencies said they were looking into the incident, although the Biden administration told reporters that AT&T said there was no reason to think it was a cyberattack.

AT&T did not disclose the scope of the outage, nor the reason for it. When the outage first began on Thursday morning, the company listed the cause as “maintenance activity.”

Jim Greer, an AT&T spokesman, apologized in a statement confirming service was restored and said the company was “taking steps to ensure our customers do not experience this again in the future.”

The outage underscored the importance of connectivity to daily life as individuals and businesses were cut off from communications and the ability to use mobile apps. AT&T advised consumers they could make calls over Wi-Fi and sought to respond to angry customers online. Many phones showed an “SOS” symbol on their screen, signaling they could only make emergency calls, while local governments offered alternate ways to reach 911.

Reports of outages on Downdetector began to fall midmorning, and at one point AT&T’s website showed that outages were limited to users in California , though users in other states were still reporting issues. Cricket, which is owned by AT&T, also reported that its users were experiencing wireless service interruptions and said it was working to restore service.

Reports also surfaced early Thursday that FirstNet, the network AT&T maintains for emergency services personnel, had experienced outages, but AT&T said around 10:30 a.m. that the network was fully operational.

Verizon experienced 3,000 reports of outages at one point on Thursday and T-Mobile about half that. Both companies said in statements that their networks were operating normally.

“Some customers experienced issues this morning when calling or texting with customers served by another carrier,” Verizon said. “We are continuing to monitor the situation.”

In an email, T-Mobile said that it did not experience an outage. “Downdetector is likely reflecting challenges our customers were having attempting to connect to users on other networks.”

Officials in Washington said they were working to understand the cause of the outage. A spokesman for the Federal Communications Commission said its inquiry was being handled by its Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, which was in touch with AT&T as well as other providers.

John Kirby, a National Security Council spokesman, said on a call with reporters on Thursday that the Biden administration was told “that AT&T has no reason to think this was a cybersecurity incident,” although he added that they would not be certain until an investigation had been completed.

Mr. Kirby said that, in addition to the F.C.C., the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. were collaborating with technology companies to investigate the outage.

The F.B.I. said in a statement it was in touch with AT&T and would respond accordingly if any malicious activity was found.

Throughout the day, cities urged residents to find alternate ways of reaching emergency or municipal services, like landlines or phones connected to Wi-Fi. The City of Upper Arlington, Ohio , said the fire department might not be notified of fire alarms because of the outage. It urged that any fire alarm be followed up with a 911 call.

The San Francisco Fire Department said on social media that it was aware of an issue affecting AT&T users who were trying to call 911. “We are actively engaged and monitoring this,” the fire department said. “If you are an AT&T customer and cannot get through to 911, then please try calling from a landline.”

The Massachusetts State Police said on social media on Thursday morning that 911 call centers across the state had been flooded with calls from people checking to see if the emergency service worked from their phones. “Please do not do this,” the police said. “If you can successfully place a non-emergency call to another number via your cell service then your 911 service will also work.”

Even in less extreme circumstances, the outage complicated the many elements of life that have come to rely on a reliable connection to the internet.

Staff at the First Watch restaurant in Dania Beach, Fla., had to turn away breakfast customers for a time while the outage prevented them from processing payments.

Debra Maddow, who lives in southwest Houston, said that she first noticed something was off after 7 a.m., when she went to check traffic and Google Maps was offline. Later, she visited a Starbucks to make an urgent call through its free Wi-Fi, she said.

“I’m really frustrated that they’re not telling us anything,” Ms. Maddow said in a phone interview over Wi-Fi. She said she tried to call AT&T for an update, but after a long time on hold, the call was dropped.

Victor Mather , John Keefe , Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

Jenny Gross is a reporter for The Times in London covering breaking news and other topics. More about Jenny Gross

David McCabe covers tech policy. He joined The Times from Axios in 2019. More about David McCabe

Explore Our Business Coverage

Dive deeper into the people, issues and trends shaping the world of business..

A Funding Frenzy:  Anthropic, one of the world’s hottest A.I. start-ups, raised $7.3 billion over 2023. Here’s how the funding spree happened .

A Twist on Home Cooking:  Developers are transforming clusters of old homes into micro restaurants, combining the pleasures of dining out with the nostalgic comforts of home .

The Great Compression:  Soaring home prices in the United States have ushered in the era of the 400-square-foot subdivision house. The change could reshape the market .

A Billionaire’s Moonshots:  The entrepreneur Kam Ghaffarian wants to help build the new space economy , one Prada spacesuit and Jeff Koons-filled lunar lander at a time.

E.V. Uncertainty:  In Michigan, one of six battleground states that could determine the 2024 U.S. presidential election, electric vehicles have emerged as a contested piece of the economic future .

A Climate Retreat:  Many of the world’s biggest financial firms spent the past several years pledging to fight climate change. Now, Wall Street has flip-flopped .

IMAGES

  1. Branches Of Government Worksheet Pdf

    how do governments work together to solve problems

  2. Infographic: How To Solve All Problems According To The Government

    how do governments work together to solve problems

  3. 5 How Governments Work Together

    how do governments work together to solve problems

  4. Government Problem Solving Kit

    how do governments work together to solve problems

  5. government powers under U.S. federalism

    how do governments work together to solve problems

  6. 16 types of governments

    how do governments work together to solve problems

COMMENTS

  1. 3 global issues governments can solve at a local level

    Geopolitics The failure of governments to find multilateral solutions to global problems means that significant challenges are being neglected. Instead governments can begin to solve global issues by taking a pragmatic, local approach to find innovative solutions.

  2. Intergovernmental Relationships: How The Three Levels of Government

    The state governments are constituted on the federal government model where the three arms create a check and balance for each other. The governor heads the executive arm of the state governments while each state has a state supreme court and a legislature. The local governments are set up depending on the requirements of each state's ...

  3. Citizens, Governments Solve Governance Challenges Together

    The GPSA supports civil society and governments working together to solve governance challenges in developing countries. It builds on the World Bank's direct engagement with public sector actors, and a network of Global Partner organizations, to create an enabling environment in which citizen feedback is used to solve critical problems in ...

  4. Six big challenges facing governments in 2021

    Cybercrime has increased dramatically as governments and businesses race to become more digital. In a post-lockdown environment, governments must address risks associated with their digital agenda, in addition to security and stability challenges related to immigration, border management and political events. 5. Climate.

  5. 6.5 Resolving Collective Action Problems

    Community members are more likely than distant governments to understand the problem and to have a stake in remedying it. When Ostrom identified communities around the world that have come together to solve such problems, she observed two necessary details that allow these community solutions to work. First, the community must engage in ...

  6. How Government and Business Can Tackle Big Global Crises Together

    Transcript. May 17, 2022. It feels like a moment of panic for many. While there were some success stories in how public and private sector leaders managed the global pandemic, it isn't over, and ...

  7. 5. Resolving global challenges and crises through international

    Government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the importance of national politics, leadership and values in influencing international STI co-operation (Cohen, 2020[28]). Governments will need to balance national STI priorities and goals with the need for internationally co-ordinated action to address the grand challenges and GPG problems.

  8. 3.2 The Meanings of Federalism

    During the New Deal of the 1930s, cooperative federalism, whereby federal and state governments work together to solve problems, emerged and held sway until the 1960s.

  9. To tackle urban problems, city governments have to get smarter

    Although 80 percent of Americans live in cities, urban issues are often put on the nation's back burner. But residents still expect their city governments to deliver the day-to-day services that make or break their quality of life. The recently concluded U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) brought together local officials from all over the country.

  10. How Can Local, State, and Federal Governments Work Together to ...

    on a problem. Often state and local officials do not have the luxury to wait. While coordination is critical to good governance, it is often the least utilized. In this administration, the federal government has made a greater effort to create sustained interagency collaboration to streamline regulations and funding procedures. State governments

  11. At the Intersection

    Second, collaboration is not just within the public sector; it requires bring­ing people together within and outside of government. Within government, we need both political and civil servants who can solve problems, work across agencies to make things happen, and deliver results by focusing on outcomes.

  12. Americans' Trust in Government, Each Other, Leaders

    Many Americans think declining trust in the government and in each other makes it harder to solve key problems. They have a wealth of ideas about what's gone wrong and how to fix it BY LEE RAINIE, SCOTT KEETER AND ANDREW PERRIN (Hero Images)

  13. How State and Local Governments Are Leading the Way on Climate Policy

    To do that, the program relies on grassroots e orts to band neighbors together. So far, Blue Acres has bought up more than 700 homes in 16 communities across nine counties. This story originally ran in the Fall 2019 issue as "Action Figures." To receive our print magazine, become a member by making a donation today.

  14. WATCH: Panel discusses why local governments ...

    While national lawmakers are often seen drawing party lines and taking sides, local and regional governments across the nation can typically come to solutions more quickly and easily. A group of former and current municipal leaders came together in a virtual discussion on Nov. 3 to talk about how local governments get things done.

  15. 9.1 What Do Legislatures Do?

    Ideas for these laws come from many places. Constituents might go to members of legislatures for help solving a problem in their community, such as a need for more school funding. A newspaper might publish an investigation that brings attention to an important issue. Often, organizations that work on a particular issue reach out to legislators.

  16. How do we get countries working together better?

    We've identified 6 key questions we must address to make Globalization 4.0 work for all. The answers to challenges we face don't just lie with governments and businesses. They should come from you. Here are some ideas on the challenges we face. Video 01 /58.

  17. How Community Partnerships Are Helping to Address Environmental

    One part of the U.S. that is considered particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and other environmental considerations is South Florida. As awareness of this vulnerability increases, local governments, nonprofits, anchor institutions, and others are exploring new collaborative strategies. One such example is the Resilient 305 Collaborative.

  18. Fact-based policy: How do state and local governments ...

    The Problem. Fact-based policy is essential to making government more effective and more efficient, and many states could benefit from more extensive use of data and evidence when making policy ...

  19. Government Alone Can't Solve Society's Biggest Problems

    We need a new, more collaborative economic system. Rising obesity. Human Trafficking. Re-skilling the workforce. A lack of quality education and safe water for the poor in the developing world.

  20. How Thinking Like a Startup Helps Governments Solve More Problems

    As we work on challenging public problems, embracing the entrepreneurial spirit can help in developing solutions, says Harvard Business School Professor Mitchell Weiss in a new book, We the Possibility: Harnessing Public Entrepreneurship to Solve Our Most Urgent Problems. Weiss explains in nine chapters how entrepreneurs both inside and outside of government can tackle problems by viewing them ...

  21. How governments handle data matters for inclusion

    To overcome this problem, governments can set transparency and accountability requirements for data storage that foster inclusion. Analysis One important way governments analyze data to extract ...

  22. What Could Entrepreneurs and Government Do Together?

    Arun Gupta — a venture capitalist, academic and author — champions a union of government, academia and entrepreneurship to solve societal problems, stressing tech and data's key roles in ...

  23. SS.4.CG.2.1

    In this lesson plan, students will learn how citizens can work with local government to solve problems. They will also learn how technological advances in the 1800s affected Florida. They will work in groups to brainstorm ideas of modern-day problems and historical problems that government and citizens may need to solve. Type: Lesson Plan

  24. UN member states are meeting to plan how to tackle the world's

    The United Nations Environment Assembly is meeting in Nairobi on Monday, Feb. 26, to discuss how countries can work together to tackle environmental crises like climate change, pollution and loss ...

  25. Second Grade Social Studies Unit 3: Government

    •Why does the Constitution include the Bill of Rights? Lesson 4: Governments Work Together•How do governments work together to solve problems? •Why was the United Nations created? •How do leaders use diplomacy to solve problems? Exit Skills By the end of Chapter 3, students will be able to: • Acquire and accurately use domain specific ...

  26. U.S. Examined Allegations of Cartel Ties to Allies of Mexico's

    Drug cartels have long infiltrated the Mexican state, from the lowest levels to the upper reaches of government. They pay off the police, manipulate mayors, co-opt senior officials and dominate ...

  27. Israel to send delegation to Qatar amid optimism about hostage deal

    As a reminder, France, together with Qatar, was part of the initiative to deliver medicines to hostages held in Gaza. Qatar announced last week that the medicines have been delivered.

  28. AT&T Says Service Is Restored After Widespread Cellular Outage

    AT&T said on Thursday that it had fully restored service to its wireless network after a widespread outage temporarily cut off connections for users across the United States for many hours, the ...