Research Paper on:
Devolution and Balance of Power Issues

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
the affairs of those that are better handled by municipalities (Tannenwald, 1998). Based on this fact, they have argued for a reduction in federal aid, as well as the  conversion of matching grants to block grants, for the sake of greater flexibility for implementing federally funded programs, as well as the curtailment of federal mandates (1998). In other  words, while the federal government appears to have limitless funds, states rather take less money and have more power to do what it wants with any moneys received. Such  a model is referred to as "devolution," or the "devolving" of federal responsibilities to lower levels of government and the controversy remains that the practice has generated the latest chapter  in a debate over optimal intergovernmental arrangements that is as old as the country itself (Tannenwald, 1998). A meeting was held not too long ago with various participants, and experts,  involved in the movement and the only point that was agreed upon by all was that the movement has really not gotten very far (1998). In fact, most  participants believed that a mix of federal and state and local control is desirable, and that optimal arrangements have varied from function to function (1998). They tend to reject extreme  centralization and decentralization of governmental responsibilities, and participants would disagree over the movements advantages and disadvantages, and its probable success in achieving its goals (1998). In other words, most take  a middle ground in regard to balance of power issues. John Kincaid however presented an interesting paradigm that listed six objectives of devolution, which had been that there  would be more efficient provision and production of public services, that there would be better alignment of the costs and benefits of government for a diverse citizenry, and that there