What is Intergovernmental Relations?
Intergovernmental relations is a relatively new term, used regularly only in the past sixty years. It designates “an important body of activities or interactions occurring between governmental units of all types and levels within the federal system.” In the words of the late political scientist Deil Wright, IGR embraces “all the permutations and combinations of relations among the units of government in our system.” These include national-state and interstate relations, as well as national-local, state-local, interlocal, and national-state-local relations. The consequences of IGR are often unpredictable and decision making is hidden from public view. There is no direct electorate, no policy-making body, no executive, legislative, or judiciary to oversee the results of billions of dollars transferred to states and local governments from the federal government. This lack of consistency leads to considerable inequities in the distribution of federal money to states and cities. Another key feature of IGR is the involvement of public and private, government and nongovernment, officials at all levels. Chief executives and legislators in Washington, state capitals, county seats, and city halls are all involved because they formally promote and enact the programs that constitute IGR. As appointed administrators at all levels of government have assumed greater responsibility and as IGR has become more pervasive, intergovernmental administrative relations have taken on ever greater significance. Many public purposes are also accomplished through nongovernmental institutions and organizations. Thus, IGR also includes the public functions of organizations not formally part of any government, such as voluntary action groups, civic organizations, and the United Way. Action in the federal system is often taken on selected parts of a general problem rather than on the total problem area. Decisions are fragmented rather than comprehensive.
Intergovernmental relations is a relatively new term, used regularly only in the past sixty years. It designates “an important body of activities or interactions occurring between governmental units of all types and levels within the federal system.” In the words of the late political scientist Deil Wright, IGR embraces “all the permutations and combinations of relations among the units of government in our system.” These include national-state and interstate relations, as well as national-local, state-local, interlocal, and national-state-local relations. The consequences of IGR are often unpredictable and decision making is hidden from public view. There is no direct electorate, no policy-making body, no executive, legislative, or judiciary to oversee the results of billions of dollars transferred to states and local governments from the federal government. This lack of consistency leads to considerable inequities in the distribution of federal money to states and cities. Another key feature of IGR is the involvement of public and private, government and nongovernment, officials at all levels. Chief executives and legislators in Washington, state capitals, county seats, and city halls are all involved because they formally promote and enact the programs that constitute IGR. As appointed administrators at all levels of government have assumed greater responsibility and as IGR has become more pervasive, intergovernmental administrative relations have taken on ever greater significance. Many public purposes are also accomplished through nongovernmental institutions and organizations. Thus, IGR also includes the public functions of organizations not formally part of any government, such as voluntary action groups, civic organizations, and the United Way. Action in the federal system is often taken on selected parts of a general problem rather than on the total problem area. Decisions are fragmented rather than comprehensive.