What Trickled Down? Federalism, State Government Fiscal Stress, and Local Government Outcomes
Much has been written about a shift in federal to state relationships during the 1990s. Couched in terms of a renewed fiscal federalism, devolution, or even the heady rhetoric of “reinventing” government both resources and public service authority flowed to the state governments. Somewhat less was said at the time regarding state governments’ relationships with local governments or the extent of federal re-distributions of resources beyond state governments to local governments. This paper is an investigation of some of the federalism transformations that occurred in the past decade or so. In particular, it assesses the flow of resources and spending at all levels of government and sorts out which show changes in relationships.
Theoretical and Practical Issues of Local Government Capacity in an Era of Devolution
The United States is in the midst of massive devolution or decentralization of domestic programs in health care, welfare, and other functions. With devolution come greatly increased responsibilities for local governments. As local governments are assuming more responsibility for policymaking, management, and implementation of important national goals, it is important to consider their capacity or ability to take on these added responsibilities. This article asks critical questions, poses problems entailed in measuring capacity, challenges the question of whether local governments have the necessary capacity to undertake new demands being placed on them, and discusses the special capacity-building needs of local governments. It may be more important for local governments to be able to obtain additional capacity to meet new challenges than for them to have the capacity in order to be ready to receive the new challenges. In a sense, it is irrelevant whether they have the capacity because the federal government with considerable public support has decided that local governments will take on more responsibility for domestic programs. The question, then, is what can be done to help them perform their expanded roles as well as possible. Information sharing, networking, removing barriers to local flexibility and creativity, and technical assistance are some of the opportunities higher-level governments and other technical assistance providers, such as universities, have for increasing the capacity of local governments.
Comparative studies of α-Lactalbumin and lysozyme: Echidna lysozyme
Summaryα-Lactalbumin is a modifier protein for galactosyl transferase in the biosynthesis of lactose and lysozyme catalyses the cleavage of β(1–4) glycosidic linkages. It is now generally believed that α-lactalbumin and lysozyme have diverged from a common ancestor. Comparative studies of these proteins from several species are reported here.The presence of lactose and lactose synthetase activity is shown in mature milk samples from a variety of placental mammals (eutheria) and a pouch bearing mammal (marsupialia). The isolation of the α-lactalbumins involved and their properties are compared.The position is different in the milk samples of monotremes. The α-lactalbumin, lactose and lactose synthetase activity levels in the two platypus samples studied are very low. The levels of lactose and lactose synthetase activity in some echidna(Tachyglossus aculeatus) samples are low, but appreciable in others. No α-lactalbumin is present. The lysozyme activity is appreciable, some samples containing a different lysozyme from that present in others. One of these (designated echidna lysozyme I) is capable of lactose synthetase modifier activity in the presence of bovine “A protein”.The properties of this lysozyme are compared with those of lysozymes and α-lactalbumins from a variety of species and their significance is discussed.