Is the New Deal a Fitting Implementation Model for the Green New Deal?
Luke Fowler and Monica Hubbard
On Feb 7, 2019 Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey released a so-called proposal for a Green New Deal (GND). The resolution “recognizes the duty of the Federal Government” to reoriented America’s economy towards environmental sustainability, much like FDR’s New Deal of 1933 did to modernizing the U.S. economy following the Great Depression. Although a number of goals are set forth, CNN’s Zachary Wolf called it “more of a list of ideas and ideals than an actual proposal.” For implementation, GND calls for a top-down, 10-year national mobilization plan. What the GND fails to account for is that U.S. federalism is not the same as in 1933, and today is driven more from the bottom-up rather than the top-down. By federalism, we are referring to the institutional context in which national, state, and local governments share power and collectively provide public services. Consequently, we argue that, unlike The New Deal, the GND cannot rely on top-down coordination, and instead will have to accommodate bigger roles for subnational governments.
Beyond Top-down Federalism
Although FDR’s New Deal is best known for transforming the American economy, it also transformed existing power structures between federal, state, and local governments. While states dominated their own distinct policy spheres for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, they largely lacked bureaucratic and fiscal capacity to respond the Great Depression. For example, in 1927, state spending on education, public health, law enforcement, and welfare amounted to less than what it did for highways, and by 1940, the federal government was out-spending all state and local governments combined. Despite resistance from established political interests in both Washington and state capitols, FDR used a combination of inducements, mandates, and resource dependencies to forge an interdependent system led from the top. While some programs, such as the Civilian Conservation Corp, were managed by federal agencies, the majority of “relief” funding (e.g., Federal Emergency Relief Administration) was appropriated as matching funds and distributed by state governments. In turn, compliance management was the core role for subnational governments to ensure programs adopted by Congress were appropriately implemented, and state and local governments were allotted little leeway for innovation.
Federalism in 2019, however, is no longer top-down, with subnational governments serving as key policy innovators. In fact, state and local governments have been far more active in climate policies than the federal government over the last two decades, and these trends extend to other policy arenas. Scholars generally ascribe this to increased political competition, federal inaction, and fragmented regulatory regimes. Specific to climate change, effects are more acute at the local-level, so subnational governments are under pressure to respond to direct impacts in their communities. In other words, subnational governments are caught between citizen demands and federal inaction. Complicating matters are the heterogeneously distributed socio-political and technical challenges of mitigating and/or adapting to climate change. Consequently, subnational governments both interpret and react differently to their circumstances, which contributes to a patchwork of policy across the U.S.
Bottom-up Policymaking
The Paris Climate Agreement (COP21) was a landmark international agreement when it was signed by President Barack Obama and the leaders of 147 other countries in April 2016. Despite a majority of Americans supporting participation, the U.S. withdrew in June 2017. As the national government retreated from climate policy, subnational governments began filling the void with more than 400 mayors of U.S. cities signing onto an agreement to uphold COP21’s goals, and 24 states forming the U.S. Climate Alliance. While these are the most high profile examples of subnational governments pushing back against federal inaction, they are part of a broader trend from the last two decades. In 2005, seven northeast states signed on to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; Midwest and Western regional efforts quickly followed. Although regional efforts stalled, more than half of U.S. states adopted climate action plans prior to 2016, and every state has some combination of policies to encourage development and use of renewable energy.
In response to the GND, cities and states are rebranding their environmental efforts. For example, in April 2019, Los Angeles renamed its Sustainable City pLAn to the L.A. Green New Deal. It calls to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2045, achieve zero landfill waste by 2050, and recycle 100% of wastewater by 2035. Numerous other examples exist. On one hand, the challenges the GND addresses are difficult and require us to experiment with “clumsy” solutions, so decentralization allows subnational governments to test policies without risk to other communities. On the other hand, it also contributes to regulatory inconsistency and institutional barrier for collective action, which require us to rethink how our institutions are organized. For instance, the division of regulatory controls between federal and state governments created gridlock to planning and development of power grids in Western states; in response, Regional Transmission Organizations were developed to facilitate vertical and horizontal cooperation in order to overcome the jurisdictional barriers that stood in the way of creating regional energy policies.
The New Deal and the GND
In sum, the GND cannot rely on similar implementation mechanisms of the New Deal as federalism no longer operates as a top-down system, state and local governments already occupy this policy space, and subnational governments are likely unwilling to accept a diminished role. While the Great Depression may be a fitting analogy for the moral imperative to respond to climate change, The New Deal does not offer a fitting implementation model for the GND. On the other hand, Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 addressed many of the same ideals as the GND within the modern context of federalism. For example, the use pass-through funds for energy projects allowed states considerable discretion in how funds were distributed, but was also successful in achieving Obama’s bigger agenda of encouraging both technological innovation and green jobs. As such, advocates of the GND may be able to use the imaginary of The New Deal to sale their proposal, but would be wise to take implementation lessons from more recent history.
Luke Fowler is an Associate Professor & MPA Director at Boise State University’s School of Public Service.
Monica Hubbard is an Assistant Professor at Boise State University’s School of Public Service.