20
policy analysis and provides a point of departure for this preliminary study and
subsequent related research to the development, design and enactment of Section 505. .
I concur with Beam and colleagues that there is a need to reconcile alternative
findings by applying combinations of perspectives drawn from the three schools (as
exemplified in applications of public choice and implementation theories). I argue that
the relative contributions of each school may only be apparent, however, through the
application of comparative analyses. I argue further that the studies reviewed, with the
exception of Peterson, largely sidestep the question of the direction of the dynamic role
of federal/state governance. Where this dynamic is articulated it tends to focus
exclusively on the federal-to-state effect, omitting important contributions of the states.
The efforts to revise governance theory called for by all the papers discussed above will
remain incomplete, however, absent an accounting of the variation or "adaptability" of
the U.S. federalist system including variations in the federal and state roles with
particular regard to normative assumptions about interdependencies and implications of
developmental and redistributive policies and administrative decision making —a
fundamental shift in the dynamic of the dual federalism that Hanson introduces and
which, this paper suggests, now demands further scrutiny.
Institutional Factors Affecting State Policy
In a description of evolving models of the policy making process in the U.S.
federal system, Paul Posner identifies the growing number of interest groups and
increasing interest group power in the face of reduced party politics.
ix
Conlan echoes
Posner's characterization of adopting an "evolutionary" view as an alternative to
traditional views of policy making. Conlan's description of the politics of federalism
Convention