The current state of American federalism can be said to be cooperative in nature. To this end, the national, state and local governments cooperate in delivering their mandates to the people. While each government level has clear functions, they all cooperate in implementing mutually agreed goals such as medical care, employee compensation and benefits and infrastructure. The central government funds state programs that seek to achieve a common goal. Nonetheless, each of the governments is autonomous in their own jurisdictions, such that local, state and federal governments do not have to report to each other. To this end, while the federal courts may hear appeals of court rulings decided at lower levels, state and local courts are independent. This ensures balance of power. The balance of power today reflects the era of President Roosevelt, during which the New Deal was signed and the national government used to give state governments tax money to finance their programs. During the said era, each level of government was autonomous in their rights, but they cooperated in the interest of service delivery where it was deemed appropriate.
The Obama Care program is an example of cooperative federalism, whereby the national government cooperates with state and local governments to ensure implementation of the initiative, primarily because it seeks to achieve mutually agreed objectives on the people.
President’s and Congress’ Dominance over Each Other
In the current state of American federalism, the president has dominated the Congress in some ways. A good example is the popular Obama Care initiative which was started by President Obama. The president used his influence and allies to push the agenda through, thereby dominating the congress, most of whose members showed dissidence to the program, citing its inappropriateness.
Months later, in a fashion that appeared as if the Congress was revenging against the president, the Republican representatives in the Congress voted to shut the national government down (Bhavsar 2013). The development was spurred by the Affordable Care Act, which the president and his allies had pushed through against the wish of most Republicans in the house. The congress wanted to shut down the central government to withdraw funds from the Obama Care program.
Human Resource and Classical Theories on the State of Confusion
The motivational theory by Trevor Maynard can be applied in the mentioned State of Confusion to solve its issues and spur development. Seeing that organizations in the state still use old-fashioned, unrevised rules which almost certainly hinder progress, applying the motivation theory would motivate the employees to work devotedly, leading to increased productivity. To do so, the organizations’ leadership would need to create employee-friendly initiatives such as flexible working schedules, employment benefits, rewards and recognition among other actions that will lead to increased job satisfaction and employee productivity (Shafritz and Hyde 2012).
Applying the theory would also lead to review of policies to conform to emerging changes, as well as allowance of employees to explore their creativity and perform duties without unnecessarily close supervision. This would go a long way in improving the state’s agencies since employees, who are the pillar in any organization, would be motivated to work towards achievement of the pre-determined goals.
On the other hand, classical theories underscore the need for change if notable progress will be realized. To this end, Solow’s growth model proposes that optimal development would be realized if state organizations set effective goals and worked with efficiency to achieve them. Unlike the motivational theory which emphasizes employee motivation to bolster the efficiency of agencies, the classical theories emphasize general change in the operation, aimed at realigning the organization with emerging dynamics (Shafritz, Russell and Christopher 2012). The classical theories also underscore the need for incentives in the pursuit of development.
Private Organization versus Public Organization
In the United States of America, there are many differences between public and private organizations. Two firms, General Motors, which is a public organization, and Apple Incorporated, which is a private firm, are compared (Shafritz et al. 2012).
In terms of similarities, the two firms are regulated using similar laws and are liable to legal actions in the event that they violate any of the governing rules. To this end, the two firms, like all other public and private companies, are required to pay all relevant taxes, can be declared bankrupt by courts of law or litigated among other legal actions. Secondly, for most part, the basic organizational structure is similar in most ways, including top leadership and management hierarchy.
On the other hand in terms of difference, while a public organization such as General Motors was established following an act of parliament, Apple was started by private entrepreneurs following the necessary registration. Accordingly, the government has a major stake in General Motors, unlike in Apple Inc. which is a privately owned firm. Secondly, in the event that General Motors goes bankrupt as happened a few years ago, the government can bail it out using tax money. This is unlike Apple Inc., which is private, and the government cannot use tax money to bail it following bankruptcy.
Works Cited
Bhavsar, Neil. 3 Reasons the 2013 Government Shutdown is Nothing Like 1995. Policy Mic,
216 Oct. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.
Shafritz, J. Russell, E.W., and Christopher Borck. (2012). Introducing public administration. 8th
Ed. New York: Pearson Publishing., 2012. Print.Shafritz, J. Hyde, A. Classics of Public Administration. 7th Ed. New York: Cengage Publishing,
2012. Print.
