Assignment Prompt & Instructions
see attached
**files (2)**
– ## repliesinstruction.docx
– ## replies.docx
**## repliesinstruction.docx**
**Discussion Ethics in Public Administration reply Assignment Instructions**
you will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Merely posting the same reply in 2 places is not sufficient. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all of the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week. It must also address statecraft as part of a meaningful discussion of effective statesmanship and it must include citations from at least two additional scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.
**Replies:**
· 2 replies
· 200-250 words per reply
· Ideas and citations from required reading and presentations from the Module: Week, as appropriate
· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources per reply
Remember that the art of communication is in many ways the lifeblood of effective political leadership. Everything you write—every paper, post, and email—creates or reinforces an impression of you. Begin to cultivate the communication skills of the statesman and stateswoman—the ability to logically and persuasively speak the truth with compassion and respect. Each response post must include new research and analysis, and must build upon the ideas communicated in the original post. Thus, they must go beyond merely restating and affirming what a classmate has said and instead bring in more depth, research and analysis. Accordingly, each response post must include citations from the required reading and presentations.
Responding to a classmate’s thread requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order
**to move the conversation forward**. Thus, the reply is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon the thread to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced. As such, replies that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous thread(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.
**## replies.docx**
Replies
**Perry**
If I were asked to design a ten-slide presentation for local government managers on Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations (IGR), I would approach it less like a lecture and more like a conversation about how government actually works in practice. Because, honestly, most local managers are already living this model every day whether they call it that or not. The goal would be to connect Wright’s theory to the messy, negotiated, sometimes frustrating reality of intergovernmental work.
The first slide would set the stage by defining intergovernmental relations in practical terms. Not just as interactions between levels of government, but as the everyday coordination required to get things done. Kincaid and Stenberg (2011) raise what they call “big questions” about who is responsible for addressing complex public problems, and that tension would frame the discussion. Local managers often sit right in the middle of those questions, balancing expectations from above while responding to community needs below.
From there, the second slide would briefly walk through Wright’s three models. I would not spend too long here, but it matters to show how the overlapping model differs from the older coordinate and inclusive models. Those earlier frameworks assume clearer lines of authority. In reality, those lines blur quickly. Agranoff and Radin (2015) argue that the overlapping model better reflects contemporary governance because authority is shared and negotiated rather than neatly divided.
The third slide would focus on the core features of the overlapping model. Shared authority sounds straightforward on paper, but in practice it can feel like no one is fully in charge. Local governments, states, and federal agencies all hold pieces of responsibility. At the same time, they depend on one another. That tension between autonomy and interdependence is really the heart of the model.
Slide four would move into what interdependence actually looks like on the ground. Think about something like disaster response or public health coordination. No single government can manage those alone. The McGuire (2006) describes intergovernmental management as involving multiorganizational arrangements that are necessary to address problems that one entity cannot solve independently. That idea rings when you consider how local governments had to coordinate with state health departments and federal agencies during COVID-19. It was not always smooth, but it was unavoidable.
Next, I would shift attention to local governments specifically. Slide five would highlight their role as frontline service providers. The Liberty University material points out that local governments are the closest to citizens and handle day-to-day services that people actually notice (Liberty University, n.d.). At the same time, their authority is often constrained by state rules like Dillon’s Rule. So, while local managers are expected to be responsive and innovative, they do not always have full control over their policy space.
Slide six would explore something that tends to get glossed over in theory: the tension between collaboration and competition. On one hand, governments are expected to work together. On the other, they compete for grants, economic development, and political influence. The Liberty slides mention fragmentation and the difficulty of cooperation among local governments (Liberty University, n.d.). That feels accurate. Regional partnerships exist, but they are often shaped by negotiation and sometimes quiet rivalry.
The seventh slide would look at fiscal relationships, which are often where the overlapping model becomes most visible. Funding rarely comes without strings attached. Local governments depend on federal and state funding streams, and those streams come with requirements that shape local priorities. For example, states may receive a significant portion of their funding from the federal government, and local governments rely on both levels for support (Liberty University, n.d.). So even when local officials want to act independently, financial realities pull them back into the intergovernmental system.
By slide eight, I would turn to contemporary challenges. Kincaid and Stenberg (2011) suggest that many of the key questions in IGR remain unresolved, especially around accountability and leadership. It is not always clear who should take the lead on complex issues. Add in unfunded mandates and shifting policy priorities, and the system can feel reactive rather than coordinated. The Liberty material also points to financial pressures and intergovernmental conflict, which only add to that complexity (Liberty University, n.d.).
Slide nine would build on that by introducing collaborative governance and networks. Agranoff and Radin (2015) make the case that Wright’s overlapping model laid the groundwork for what we now call networked governance. Public agencies increasingly work with nonprofits, private organizations, and regional coalitions. The McGuire (2016) reinforces this by describing collaboration as a routine and necessary part of intergovernmental management. It is not an exception anymore. It is the norm.
Finally, slide ten would bring the discussion back to the audience, focusing on what this means for local managers. Technical knowledge matters, of course, but it is not enough. Managers need to negotiate, build relationships, and understand how decisions at one level ripple across others. They also need to recognize that they are operating in a system where authority is shared, not owned. That can be frustrating, but it also creates opportunities for influence if approached strategically.
Stepping back, Wright’s overlapping model still feels surprisingly relevant. If anything, governance has become even more interconnected since he first introduced it. At the same time, the model does not fully resolve the tensions it describes. Collaboration sounds ideal, but it can be uneven, and power imbalances still shape outcomes. Maybe that is the point. The model does not offer a clean solution. It offers a way to understand why governing often feels complicated.
**References**
Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2015). Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations: The basis for contemporary intergovernmental relationships. Publius, 45(1), 139–159.
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734653Links to an external site.](http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734653)
Kincaid, J., & Stenberg, C. W. (2011). “Big questions” about intergovernmental relations and management: Who will address them? Public Administration Review, 71(2), 196–202.
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061180Links to an external site.](http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061180)
Liberty University. (n.d.).
_State and local government intergovernmental relations: Part II_ [PowerPoint slides].
McGuire, M. (2006). Intergovernmental management: A view from the bottom.
_Public Administration Review, 66_(s1), 677–679.
**Tiara**
Slide 1:
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) as the interaction between federal, state, and local governments. IGR goes beyond the constitutional framework and includes:
– Administration
– Finance
– Regulation
– Daily problem-solving between levels of government.
For local government managers, IGR is important because many local services are dependent on state laws, federal funding, and partnerships with neighboring governments. This slide also shows Wright's Model as a practical method for understanding how authority operates in the real world as opposed to just in theory (Wright, 1988; Elazar, 1987).
Slide 2:
Deil Wright identified three models of intergovernmental authority: they are coordinate authority, inclusive authority, and overlapping authority. Coordinate authority assumes that certain levels of government have distinctly separate functions from one another. Inclusive authority places local governments almost entirely under the jurisdiction of state authorities. Overlapping authority is the most useful of the three models for how intergovernmental relationships function today. The purpose of this slide is to provide local managers with information about how the overlapping model aligns with Wright's larger framework of intergovernmental authority. (Wright, 1988)
Slide 3:
This slide is to highlight the most important characteristics of the overlapping authority model. In an overlapping authority model of government, authority and power are shared rather than strictly divided. National, state, and local governments all exercise some level of authority on various issues, however, no single level of government has complete authority over any particular issue. Many local managers have to deal with an environment of interdependence, limited autonomy, and ongoing negotiation (Wright, 1988, Kettl, 2000).
Slide 4:
This slide will explain why Wright's overlapping model is still relevant today. Many current public issues like transportation, housing, emergency management, economic development, climate resilience and public health rarely occur within one jurisdiction. Because these issues cross jurisdictional boundaries, it is necessary for governments to share finance, share information and share responsibilities. In order to accomplish everything, all levels of government must cooperate.
Slide 5:
This slide offers a means for local government managers to implement the principles and concepts discussed in the earlier parts of this presentation. Local governments typically manage programs funded by one level of government and regulated by another. As a result, managers are required to maintain their accountability to higher levels of government, be responsive to local needs, and have the administrative capacity to manage the various programs provided by multiple sources of funding at the same time. The result is that managing local government is a fundamental component of the overlapping authority system that exists among the three levels of government (Wright, 1988; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
Slide 6:
In terms of the benefits of shared responsibility, it can create more opportunities for policymakers to use more flexible tools when working together (e.g., as a way for two jurisdictions to share their respective resources and skills). Additionally, collaboration helps governments work better together in order to solve complex issues. Furthermore, shared authority helps local managers create collaborations that will enable them to gain additional resources or funding and to expand their ability to deliver services.
Slide 7:
The slide should illustrate how overlapping authorities pose challenges due to their shared responsibility which can confuse citizens on who is held accountable for the results they receive from government activities. Local governments may also encounter unfunded mandates and have difficulties meeting the joint administrative burden of multiple levels of government with conflicting requirements, along with competition for scarce grant funds. In addition, this slide illustrates an important aspect of Wright's model as realistic, as it represents both cooperative (successful working together) and conflict (no agreed-upon solution) among multiple governments that interact with and are affected by each other (Wright, 1988; Conlan, 2006).
Slide 8:
It will point out that a successful overlapping authority model relies on factors beyond just technical management. Local managers must possess good negotiation, coordination, communication, compliance and network management skills. They need to establish trust with other agencies, have a relationship with elected leaders and manage inter-organizational relationships over time. Managers do not just implement policy in one organization, they are also part of a shared governance system, making collaborative leadership one of their most important professional skills (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Kettl, 2000).
Slide 9:
The above slide applies the model to a few specific areas of public policy. Local governments are the first responders in emergency management. Local governments are responsible for the first response, but state governments coordinate resources, while the federal government will generally provide funding and then provide the resources needed to support local governments. Additionally, in public health, local agencies are required to provide services governed by state law while performing federally required duties and guidance. These examples tie Wright’s Theory of Intergovernmental Relations into the operational world familiar to managers. (Wright, 1988; Kettl 2000)
Slide 10:
The concluding content slide would be that the overlapping model developed by Wright provides a useful way to make sense of contemporary local government. The overall message is that local managers should not expect full autonomy or total control from higher levels of government, but rather, they need to learn how to successfully operate in a system of shared authority through negotiation and interdependence. A solid closing for this slide is that effective local management today requires the combination of both administrative competence and intergovernmental skill (Wright, 1988; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
**References**
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003).
_Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments_. Georgetown University Press.
Conlan, T. J. (2006). From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: Reflections on the half-century anniversary of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
_Public Administration Review, 66_(5), 663–676.
Elazar, D. J. (1987).
_Exploring federalism_. University of Alabama Press.
Kettl, D. F. (2000).
_The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century_. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wright, D. S. (1988).
_Understanding intergovernmental relations_ (3rd ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
**## replies.docx**
Replies
**Perry**
If I were asked to design a ten-slide presentation for local government managers on Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations (IGR), I would approach it less like a lecture and more like a conversation about how government actually works in practice. Because, honestly, most local managers are already living this model every day whether they call it that or not. The goal would be to connect Wright’s theory to the messy, negotiated, sometimes frustrating reality of intergovernmental work.
The first slide would set the stage by defining intergovernmental relations in practical terms. Not just as interactions between levels of government, but as the everyday coordination required to get things done. Kincaid and Stenberg (2011) raise what they call “big questions” about who is responsible for addressing complex public problems, and that tension would frame the discussion. Local managers often sit right in the middle of those questions, balancing expectations from above while responding to community needs below.
From there, the second slide would briefly walk through Wright’s three models. I would not spend too long here, but it matters to show how the overlapping model differs from the older coordinate and inclusive models. Those earlier frameworks assume clearer lines of authority. In reality, those lines blur quickly. Agranoff and Radin (2015) argue that the overlapping model better reflects contemporary governance because authority is shared and negotiated rather than neatly divided.
The third slide would focus on the core features of the overlapping model. Shared authority sounds straightforward on paper, but in practice it can feel like no one is fully in charge. Local governments, states, and federal agencies all hold pieces of responsibility. At the same time, they depend on one another. That tension between autonomy and interdependence is really the heart of the model.
Slide four would move into what interdependence actually looks like on the ground. Think about something like disaster response or public health coordination. No single government can manage those alone. The McGuire (2006) describes intergovernmental management as involving multiorganizational arrangements that are necessary to address problems that one entity cannot solve independently. That idea rings when you consider how local governments had to coordinate with state health departments and federal agencies during COVID-19. It was not always smooth, but it was unavoidable.
Next, I would shift attention to local governments specifically. Slide five would highlight their role as frontline service providers. The Liberty University material points out that local governments are the closest to citizens and handle day-to-day services that people actually notice (Liberty University, n.d.). At the same time, their authority is often constrained by state rules like Dillon’s Rule. So, while local managers are expected to be responsive and innovative, they do not always have full control over their policy space.
Slide six would explore something that tends to get glossed over in theory: the tension between collaboration and competition. On one hand, governments are expected to work together. On the other, they compete for grants, economic development, and political influence. The Liberty slides mention fragmentation and the difficulty of cooperation among local governments (Liberty University, n.d.). That feels accurate. Regional partnerships exist, but they are often shaped by negotiation and sometimes quiet rivalry.
The seventh slide would look at fiscal relationships, which are often where the overlapping model becomes most visible. Funding rarely comes without strings attached. Local governments depend on federal and state funding streams, and those streams come with requirements that shape local priorities. For example, states may receive a significant portion of their funding from the federal government, and local governments rely on both levels for support (Liberty University, n.d.). So even when local officials want to act independently, financial realities pull them back into the intergovernmental system.
By slide eight, I would turn to contemporary challenges. Kincaid and Stenberg (2011) suggest that many of the key questions in IGR remain unresolved, especially around accountability and leadership. It is not always clear who should take the lead on complex issues. Add in unfunded mandates and shifting policy priorities, and the system can feel reactive rather than coordinated. The Liberty material also points to financial pressures and intergovernmental conflict, which only add to that complexity (Liberty University, n.d.).
Slide nine would build on that by introducing collaborative governance and networks. Agranoff and Radin (2015) make the case that Wright’s overlapping model laid the groundwork for what we now call networked governance. Public agencies increasingly work with nonprofits, private organizations, and regional coalitions. The McGuire (2016) reinforces this by describing collaboration as a routine and necessary part of intergovernmental management. It is not an exception anymore. It is the norm.
Finally, slide ten would bring the discussion back to the audience, focusing on what this means for local managers. Technical knowledge matters, of course, but it is not enough. Managers need to negotiate, build relationships, and understand how decisions at one level ripple across others. They also need to recognize that they are operating in a system where authority is shared, not owned. That can be frustrating, but it also creates opportunities for influence if approached strategically.
Stepping back, Wright’s overlapping model still feels surprisingly relevant. If anything, governance has become even more interconnected since he first introduced it. At the same time, the model does not fully resolve the tensions it describes. Collaboration sounds ideal, but it can be uneven, and power imbalances still shape outcomes. Maybe that is the point. The model does not offer a clean solution. It offers a way to understand why governing often feels complicated.
**References**
Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2015). Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations: The basis for contemporary intergovernmental relationships. Publius, 45(1), 139–159.
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734653Links to an external site.](http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734653)
Kincaid, J., & Stenberg, C. W. (2011). “Big questions” about intergovernmental relations and management: Who will address them? Public Administration Review, 71(2), 196–202.
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061180Links to an external site.](http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061180)
Liberty University. (n.d.).
_State and local government intergovernmental relations: Part II_ [PowerPoint slides].
McGuire, M. (2006). Intergovernmental management: A view from the bottom.
_Public Administration Review, 66_(s1), 677–679.
**Tiara**
Slide 1:
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) as the interaction between federal, state, and local governments. IGR goes beyond the constitutional framework and includes:
– Administration
– Finance
– Regulation
– Daily problem-solving between levels of government.
For local government managers, IGR is important because many local services are dependent on state laws, federal funding, and partnerships with neighboring governments. This slide also shows Wright's Model as a practical method for understanding how authority operates in the real world as opposed to just in theory (Wright, 1988; Elazar, 1987).
Slide 2:
Deil Wright identified three models of intergovernmental authority: they are coordinate authority, inclusive authority, and overlapping authority. Coordinate authority assumes that certain levels of government have distinctly separate functions from one another. Inclusive authority places local governments almost entirely under the jurisdiction of state authorities. Overlapping authority is the most useful of the three models for how intergovernmental relationships function today. The purpose of this slide is to provide local managers with information about how the overlapping model aligns with Wright's larger framework of intergovernmental authority. (Wright, 1988)
Slide 3:
This slide is to highlight the most important characteristics of the overlapping authority model. In an overlapping authority model of government, authority and power are shared rather than strictly divided. National, state, and local governments all exercise some level of authority on various issues, however, no single level of government has complete authority over any particular issue. Many local managers have to deal with an environment of interdependence, limited autonomy, and ongoing negotiation (Wright, 1988, Kettl, 2000).
Slide 4:
This slide will explain why Wright's overlapping model is still relevant today. Many current public issues like transportation, housing, emergency management, economic development, climate resilience and public health rarely occur within one jurisdiction. Because these issues cross jurisdictional boundaries, it is necessary for governments to share finance, share information and share responsibilities. In order to accomplish everything, all levels of government must cooperate.
Slide 5:
This slide offers a means for local government managers to implement the principles and concepts discussed in the earlier parts of this presentation. Local governments typically manage programs funded by one level of government and regulated by another. As a result, managers are required to maintain their accountability to higher levels of government, be responsive to local needs, and have the administrative capacity to manage the various programs provided by multiple sources of funding at the same time. The result is that managing local government is a fundamental component of the overlapping authority system that exists among the three levels of government (Wright, 1988; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
Slide 6:
In terms of the benefits of shared responsibility, it can create more opportunities for policymakers to use more flexible tools when working together (e.g., as a way for two jurisdictions to share their respective resources and skills). Additionally, collaboration helps governments work better together in order to solve complex issues. Furthermore, shared authority helps local managers create collaborations that will enable them to gain additional resources or funding and to expand their ability to deliver services.
Slide 7:
The slide should illustrate how overlapping authorities pose challenges due to their shared responsibility which can confuse citizens on who is held accountable for the results they receive from government activities. Local governments may also encounter unfunded mandates and have difficulties meeting the joint administrative burden of multiple levels of government with conflicting requirements, along with competition for scarce grant funds. In addition, this slide illustrates an important aspect of Wright's model as realistic, as it represents both cooperative (successful working together) and conflict (no agreed-upon solution) among multiple governments that interact with and are affected by each other (Wright, 1988; Conlan, 2006).
Slide 8:
It will point out that a successful overlapping authority model relies on factors beyond just technical management. Local managers must possess good negotiation, coordination, communication, compliance and network management skills. They need to establish trust with other agencies, have a relationship with elected leaders and manage inter-organizational relationships over time. Managers do not just implement policy in one organization, they are also part of a shared governance system, making collaborative leadership one of their most important professional skills (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Kettl, 2000).
Slide 9:
The above slide applies the model to a few specific areas of public policy. Local governments are the first responders in emergency management. Local governments are responsible for the first response, but state governments coordinate resources, while the federal government will generally provide funding and then provide the resources needed to support local governments. Additionally, in public health, local agencies are required to provide services governed by state law while performing federally required duties and guidance. These examples tie Wright’s Theory of Intergovernmental Relations into the operational world familiar to managers. (Wright, 1988; Kettl 2000)
Slide 10:
The concluding content slide would be that the overlapping model developed by Wright provides a useful way to make sense of contemporary local government. The overall message is that local managers should not expect full autonomy or total control from higher levels of government, but rather, they need to learn how to successfully operate in a system of shared authority through negotiation and interdependence. A solid closing for this slide is that effective local management today requires the combination of both administrative competence and intergovernmental skill (Wright, 1988; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
**References**
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003).
_Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments_. Georgetown University Press.
Conlan, T. J. (2006). From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: Reflections on the half-century anniversary of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
_Public Administration Review, 66_(5), 663–676.
Elazar, D. J. (1987).
_Exploring federalism_. University of Alabama Press.
Kettl, D. F. (2000).
_The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century_. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wright, D. S. (1988).
_Understanding intergovernmental relations_ (3rd ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
**## repliesinstruction.docx**
**Discussion Ethics in Public Administration reply Assignment Instructions**
you will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Merely posting the same reply in 2 places is not sufficient. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all of the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week. It must also address statecraft as part of a meaningful discussion of effective statesmanship and it must include citations from at least two additional scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.
**Replies:**
· 2 replies
· 200-250 words per reply
· Ideas and citations from required reading and presentations from the Module: Week, as appropriate
· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources per reply
Remember that the art of communication is in many ways the lifeblood of effective political leadership. Everything you write—every paper, post, and email—creates or reinforces an impression of you. Begin to cultivate the communication skills of the statesman and stateswoman—the ability to logically and persuasively speak the truth with compassion and respect. Each response post must include new research and analysis, and must build upon the ideas communicated in the original post. Thus, they must go beyond merely restating and affirming what a classmate has said and instead bring in more depth, research and analysis. Accordingly, each response post must include citations from the required reading and presentations.
Responding to a classmate’s thread requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order
**to move the conversation forward**. Thus, the reply is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon the thread to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced. As such, replies that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous thread(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.
**## replies.docx**
Replies
**Perry**
If I were asked to design a ten-slide presentation for local government managers on Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations (IGR), I would approach it less like a lecture and more like a conversation about how government actually works in practice. Because, honestly, most local managers are already living this model every day whether they call it that or not. The goal would be to connect Wright’s theory to the messy, negotiated, sometimes frustrating reality of intergovernmental work.
The first slide would set the stage by defining intergovernmental relations in practical terms. Not just as interactions between levels of government, but as the everyday coordination required to get things done. Kincaid and Stenberg (2011) raise what they call “big questions” about who is responsible for addressing complex public problems, and that tension would frame the discussion. Local managers often sit right in the middle of those questions, balancing expectations from above while responding to community needs below.
From there, the second slide would briefly walk through Wright’s three models. I would not spend too long here, but it matters to show how the overlapping model differs from the older coordinate and inclusive models. Those earlier frameworks assume clearer lines of authority. In reality, those lines blur quickly. Agranoff and Radin (2015) argue that the overlapping model better reflects contemporary governance because authority is shared and negotiated rather than neatly divided.
The third slide would focus on the core features of the overlapping model. Shared authority sounds straightforward on paper, but in practice it can feel like no one is fully in charge. Local governments, states, and federal agencies all hold pieces of responsibility. At the same time, they depend on one another. That tension between autonomy and interdependence is really the heart of the model.
Slide four would move into what interdependence actually looks like on the ground. Think about something like disaster response or public health coordination. No single government can manage those alone. The McGuire (2006) describes intergovernmental management as involving multiorganizational arrangements that are necessary to address problems that one entity cannot solve independently. That idea rings when you consider how local governments had to coordinate with state health departments and federal agencies during COVID-19. It was not always smooth, but it was unavoidable.
Next, I would shift attention to local governments specifically. Slide five would highlight their role as frontline service providers. The Liberty University material points out that local governments are the closest to citizens and handle day-to-day services that people actually notice (Liberty University, n.d.). At the same time, their authority is often constrained by state rules like Dillon’s Rule. So, while local managers are expected to be responsive and innovative, they do not always have full control over their policy space.
Slide six would explore something that tends to get glossed over in theory: the tension between collaboration and competition. On one hand, governments are expected to work together. On the other, they compete for grants, economic development, and political influence. The Liberty slides mention fragmentation and the difficulty of cooperation among local governments (Liberty University, n.d.). That feels accurate. Regional partnerships exist, but they are often shaped by negotiation and sometimes quiet rivalry.
The seventh slide would look at fiscal relationships, which are often where the overlapping model becomes most visible. Funding rarely comes without strings attached. Local governments depend on federal and state funding streams, and those streams come with requirements that shape local priorities. For example, states may receive a significant portion of their funding from the federal government, and local governments rely on both levels for support (Liberty University, n.d.). So even when local officials want to act independently, financial realities pull them back into the intergovernmental system.
By slide eight, I would turn to contemporary challenges. Kincaid and Stenberg (2011) suggest that many of the key questions in IGR remain unresolved, especially around accountability and leadership. It is not always clear who should take the lead on complex issues. Add in unfunded mandates and shifting policy priorities, and the system can feel reactive rather than coordinated. The Liberty material also points to financial pressures and intergovernmental conflict, which only add to that complexity (Liberty University, n.d.).
Slide nine would build on that by introducing collaborative governance and networks. Agranoff and Radin (2015) make the case that Wright’s overlapping model laid the groundwork for what we now call networked governance. Public agencies increasingly work with nonprofits, private organizations, and regional coalitions. The McGuire (2016) reinforces this by describing collaboration as a routine and necessary part of intergovernmental management. It is not an exception anymore. It is the norm.
Finally, slide ten would bring the discussion back to the audience, focusing on what this means for local managers. Technical knowledge matters, of course, but it is not enough. Managers need to negotiate, build relationships, and understand how decisions at one level ripple across others. They also need to recognize that they are operating in a system where authority is shared, not owned. That can be frustrating, but it also creates opportunities for influence if approached strategically.
Stepping back, Wright’s overlapping model still feels surprisingly relevant. If anything, governance has become even more interconnected since he first introduced it. At the same time, the model does not fully resolve the tensions it describes. Collaboration sounds ideal, but it can be uneven, and power imbalances still shape outcomes. Maybe that is the point. The model does not offer a clean solution. It offers a way to understand why governing often feels complicated.
**References**
Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2015). Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations: The basis for contemporary intergovernmental relationships. Publius, 45(1), 139–159.
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734653Links to an external site.](http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734653)
Kincaid, J., & Stenberg, C. W. (2011). “Big questions” about intergovernmental relations and management: Who will address them? Public Administration Review, 71(2), 196–202.
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061180Links to an external site.](http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061180)
Liberty University. (n.d.).
_State and local government intergovernmental relations: Part II_ [PowerPoint slides].
McGuire, M. (2006). Intergovernmental management: A view from the bottom.
_Public Administration Review, 66_(s1), 677–679.
**Tiara**
Slide 1:
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) as the interaction between federal, state, and local governments. IGR goes beyond the constitutional framework and includes:
– Administration
– Finance
– Regulation
– Daily problem-solving between levels of government.
For local government managers, IGR is important because many local services are dependent on state laws, federal funding, and partnerships with neighboring governments. This slide also shows Wright's Model as a practical method for understanding how authority operates in the real world as opposed to just in theory (Wright, 1988; Elazar, 1987).
Slide 2:
Deil Wright identified three models of intergovernmental authority: they are coordinate authority, inclusive authority, and overlapping authority. Coordinate authority assumes that certain levels of government have distinctly separate functions from one another. Inclusive authority places local governments almost entirely under the jurisdiction of state authorities. Overlapping authority is the most useful of the three models for how intergovernmental relationships function today. The purpose of this slide is to provide local managers with information about how the overlapping model aligns with Wright's larger framework of intergovernmental authority. (Wright, 1988)
Slide 3:
This slide is to highlight the most important characteristics of the overlapping authority model. In an overlapping authority model of government, authority and power are shared rather than strictly divided. National, state, and local governments all exercise some level of authority on various issues, however, no single level of government has complete authority over any particular issue. Many local managers have to deal with an environment of interdependence, limited autonomy, and ongoing negotiation (Wright, 1988, Kettl, 2000).
Slide 4:
This slide will explain why Wright's overlapping model is still relevant today. Many current public issues like transportation, housing, emergency management, economic development, climate resilience and public health rarely occur within one jurisdiction. Because these issues cross jurisdictional boundaries, it is necessary for governments to share finance, share information and share responsibilities. In order to accomplish everything, all levels of government must cooperate.
Slide 5:
This slide offers a means for local government managers to implement the principles and concepts discussed in the earlier parts of this presentation. Local governments typically manage programs funded by one level of government and regulated by another. As a result, managers are required to maintain their accountability to higher levels of government, be responsive to local needs, and have the administrative capacity to manage the various programs provided by multiple sources of funding at the same time. The result is that managing local government is a fundamental component of the overlapping authority system that exists among the three levels of government (Wright, 1988; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
Slide 6:
In terms of the benefits of shared responsibility, it can create more opportunities for policymakers to use more flexible tools when working together (e.g., as a way for two jurisdictions to share their respective resources and skills). Additionally, collaboration helps governments work better together in order to solve complex issues. Furthermore, shared authority helps local managers create collaborations that will enable them to gain additional resources or funding and to expand their ability to deliver services.
Slide 7:
The slide should illustrate how overlapping authorities pose challenges due to their shared responsibility which can confuse citizens on who is held accountable for the results they receive from government activities. Local governments may also encounter unfunded mandates and have difficulties meeting the joint administrative burden of multiple levels of government with conflicting requirements, along with competition for scarce grant funds. In addition, this slide illustrates an important aspect of Wright's model as realistic, as it represents both cooperative (successful working together) and conflict (no agreed-upon solution) among multiple governments that interact with and are affected by each other (Wright, 1988; Conlan, 2006).
Slide 8:
It will point out that a successful overlapping authority model relies on factors beyond just technical management. Local managers must possess good negotiation, coordination, communication, compliance and network management skills. They need to establish trust with other agencies, have a relationship with elected leaders and manage inter-organizational relationships over time. Managers do not just implement policy in one organization, they are also part of a shared governance system, making collaborative leadership one of their most important professional skills (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Kettl, 2000).
Slide 9:
The above slide applies the model to a few specific areas of public policy. Local governments are the first responders in emergency management. Local governments are responsible for the first response, but state governments coordinate resources, while the federal government will generally provide funding and then provide the resources needed to support local governments. Additionally, in public health, local agencies are required to provide services governed by state law while performing federally required duties and guidance. These examples tie Wright’s Theory of Intergovernmental Relations into the operational world familiar to managers. (Wright, 1988; Kettl 2000)
Slide 10:
The concluding content slide would be that the overlapping model developed by Wright provides a useful way to make sense of contemporary local government. The overall message is that local managers should not expect full autonomy or total control from higher levels of government, but rather, they need to learn how to successfully operate in a system of shared authority through negotiation and interdependence. A solid closing for this slide is that effective local management today requires the combination of both administrative competence and intergovernmental skill (Wright, 1988; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
**References**
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003).
_Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments_. Georgetown University Press.
Conlan, T. J. (2006). From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: Reflections on the half-century anniversary of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
_Public Administration Review, 66_(5), 663–676.
Elazar, D. J. (1987).
_Exploring federalism_. University of Alabama Press.
Kettl, D. F. (2000).
_The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century_. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wright, D. S. (1988).
_Understanding intergovernmental relations_ (3rd ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
**## repliesinstruction.docx**
**Discussion Ethics in Public Administration reply Assignment Instructions**
you will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Merely posting the same reply in 2 places is not sufficient. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all of the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week. It must also address statecraft as part of a meaningful discussion of effective statesmanship and it must include citations from at least two additional scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.
**Replies:**
· 2 replies
· 200-250 words per reply
· Ideas and citations from required reading and presentations from the Module: Week, as appropriate
· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources per reply
Remember that the art of communication is in many ways the lifeblood of effective political leadership. Everything you write—every paper, post, and email—creates or reinforces an impression of you. Begin to cultivate the communication skills of the statesman and stateswoman—the ability to logically and persuasively speak the truth with compassion and respect. Each response post must include new research and analysis, and must build upon the ideas communicated in the original post. Thus, they must go beyond merely restating and affirming what a classmate has said and instead bring in more depth, research and analysis. Accordingly, each response post must include citations from the required reading and presentations.
Responding to a classmate’s thread requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order
**to move the conversation forward**. Thus, the reply is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon the thread to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced. As such, replies that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous thread(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.
**## replies.docx**
Replies
**Perry**
If I were asked to design a ten-slide presentation for local government managers on Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations (IGR), I would approach it less like a lecture and more like a conversation about how government actually works in practice. Because, honestly, most local managers are already living this model every day whether they call it that or not. The goal would be to connect Wright’s theory to the messy, negotiated, sometimes frustrating reality of intergovernmental work.
The first slide would set the stage by defining intergovernmental relations in practical terms. Not just as interactions between levels of government, but as the everyday coordination required to get things done. Kincaid and Stenberg (2011) raise what they call “big questions” about who is responsible for addressing complex public problems, and that tension would frame the discussion. Local managers often sit right in the middle of those questions, balancing expectations from above while responding to community needs below.
From there, the second slide would briefly walk through Wright’s three models. I would not spend too long here, but it matters to show how the overlapping model differs from the older coordinate and inclusive models. Those earlier frameworks assume clearer lines of authority. In reality, those lines blur quickly. Agranoff and Radin (2015) argue that the overlapping model better reflects contemporary governance because authority is shared and negotiated rather than neatly divided.
The third slide would focus on the core features of the overlapping model. Shared authority sounds straightforward on paper, but in practice it can feel like no one is fully in charge. Local governments, states, and federal agencies all hold pieces of responsibility. At the same time, they depend on one another. That tension between autonomy and interdependence is really the heart of the model.
Slide four would move into what interdependence actually looks like on the ground. Think about something like disaster response or public health coordination. No single government can manage those alone. The McGuire (2006) describes intergovernmental management as involving multiorganizational arrangements that are necessary to address problems that one entity cannot solve independently. That idea rings when you consider how local governments had to coordinate with state health departments and federal agencies during COVID-19. It was not always smooth, but it was unavoidable.
Next, I would shift attention to local governments specifically. Slide five would highlight their role as frontline service providers. The Liberty University material points out that local governments are the closest to citizens and handle day-to-day services that people actually notice (Liberty University, n.d.). At the same time, their authority is often constrained by state rules like Dillon’s Rule. So, while local managers are expected to be responsive and innovative, they do not always have full control over their policy space.
Slide six would explore something that tends to get glossed over in theory: the tension between collaboration and competition. On one hand, governments are expected to work together. On the other, they compete for grants, economic development, and political influence. The Liberty slides mention fragmentation and the difficulty of cooperation among local governments (Liberty University, n.d.). That feels accurate. Regional partnerships exist, but they are often shaped by negotiation and sometimes quiet rivalry.
The seventh slide would look at fiscal relationships, which are often where the overlapping model becomes most visible. Funding rarely comes without strings attached. Local governments depend on federal and state funding streams, and those streams come with requirements that shape local priorities. For example, states may receive a significant portion of their funding from the federal government, and local governments rely on both levels for support (Liberty University, n.d.). So even when local officials want to act independently, financial realities pull them back into the intergovernmental system.
By slide eight, I would turn to contemporary challenges. Kincaid and Stenberg (2011) suggest that many of the key questions in IGR remain unresolved, especially around accountability and leadership. It is not always clear who should take the lead on complex issues. Add in unfunded mandates and shifting policy priorities, and the system can feel reactive rather than coordinated. The Liberty material also points to financial pressures and intergovernmental conflict, which only add to that complexity (Liberty University, n.d.).
Slide nine would build on that by introducing collaborative governance and networks. Agranoff and Radin (2015) make the case that Wright’s overlapping model laid the groundwork for what we now call networked governance. Public agencies increasingly work with nonprofits, private organizations, and regional coalitions. The McGuire (2016) reinforces this by describing collaboration as a routine and necessary part of intergovernmental management. It is not an exception anymore. It is the norm.
Finally, slide ten would bring the discussion back to the audience, focusing on what this means for local managers. Technical knowledge matters, of course, but it is not enough. Managers need to negotiate, build relationships, and understand how decisions at one level ripple across others. They also need to recognize that they are operating in a system where authority is shared, not owned. That can be frustrating, but it also creates opportunities for influence if approached strategically.
Stepping back, Wright’s overlapping model still feels surprisingly relevant. If anything, governance has become even more interconnected since he first introduced it. At the same time, the model does not fully resolve the tensions it describes. Collaboration sounds ideal, but it can be uneven, and power imbalances still shape outcomes. Maybe that is the point. The model does not offer a clean solution. It offers a way to understand why governing often feels complicated.
**References**
Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2015). Deil Wright’s overlapping model of intergovernmental relations: The basis for contemporary intergovernmental relationships. Publius, 45(1), 139–159.
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734653Links to an external site.](http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734653)
Kincaid, J., & Stenberg, C. W. (2011). “Big questions” about intergovernmental relations and management: Who will address them? Public Administration Review, 71(2), 196–202.
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061180Links to an external site.](http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061180)
Liberty University. (n.d.).
_State and local government intergovernmental relations: Part II_ [PowerPoint slides].
McGuire, M. (2006). Intergovernmental management: A view from the bottom.
_Public Administration Review, 66_(s1), 677–679.
**Tiara**
Slide 1:
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) as the interaction between federal, state, and local governments. IGR goes beyond the constitutional framework and includes:
– Administration
– Finance
– Regulation
– Daily problem-solving between levels of government.
For local government managers, IGR is important because many local services are dependent on state laws, federal funding, and partnerships with neighboring governments. This slide also shows Wright's Model as a practical method for understanding how authority operates in the real world as opposed to just in theory (Wright, 1988; Elazar, 1987).
Slide 2:
Deil Wright identified three models of intergovernmental authority: they are coordinate authority, inclusive authority, and overlapping authority. Coordinate authority assumes that certain levels of government have distinctly separate functions from one another. Inclusive authority places local governments almost entirely under the jurisdiction of state authorities. Overlapping authority is the most useful of the three models for how intergovernmental relationships function today. The purpose of this slide is to provide local managers with information about how the overlapping model aligns with Wright's larger framework of intergovernmental authority. (Wright, 1988)
Slide 3:
This slide is to highlight the most important characteristics of the overlapping authority model. In an overlapping authority model of government, authority and power are shared rather than strictly divided. National, state, and local governments all exercise some level of authority on various issues, however, no single level of government has complete authority over any particular issue. Many local managers have to deal with an environment of interdependence, limited autonomy, and ongoing negotiation (Wright, 1988, Kettl, 2000).
Slide 4:
This slide will explain why Wright's overlapping model is still relevant today. Many current public issues like transportation, housing, emergency management, economic development, climate resilience and public health rarely occur within one jurisdiction. Because these issues cross jurisdictional boundaries, it is necessary for governments to share finance, share information and share responsibilities. In order to accomplish everything, all levels of government must cooperate.
Slide 5:
This slide offers a means for local government managers to implement the principles and concepts discussed in the earlier parts of this presentation. Local governments typically manage programs funded by one level of government and regulated by another. As a result, managers are required to maintain their accountability to higher levels of government, be responsive to local needs, and have the administrative capacity to manage the various programs provided by multiple sources of funding at the same time. The result is that managing local government is a fundamental component of the overlapping authority system that exists among the three levels of government (Wright, 1988; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
Slide 6:
In terms of the benefits of shared responsibility, it can create more opportunities for policymakers to use more flexible tools when working together (e.g., as a way for two jurisdictions to share their respective resources and skills). Additionally, collaboration helps governments work better together in order to solve complex issues. Furthermore, shared authority helps local managers create collaborations that will enable them to gain additional resources or funding and to expand their ability to deliver services.
Slide 7:
The slide should illustrate how overlapping authorities pose challenges due to their shared responsibility which can confuse citizens on who is held accountable for the results they receive from government activities. Local governments may also encounter unfunded mandates and have difficulties meeting the joint administrative burden of multiple levels of government with conflicting requirements, along with competition for scarce grant funds. In addition, this slide illustrates an important aspect of Wright's model as realistic, as it represents both cooperative (successful working together) and conflict (no agreed-upon solution) among multiple governments that interact with and are affected by each other (Wright, 1988; Conlan, 2006).
Slide 8:
It will point out that a successful overlapping authority model relies on factors beyond just technical management. Local managers must possess good negotiation, coordination, communication, compliance and network management skills. They need to establish trust with other agencies, have a relationship with elected leaders and manage inter-organizational relationships over time. Managers do not just implement policy in one organization, they are also part of a shared governance system, making collaborative leadership one of their most important professional skills (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Kettl, 2000).
Slide 9:
The above slide applies the model to a few specific areas of public policy. Local governments are the first responders in emergency management. Local governments are responsible for the first response, but state governments coordinate resources, while the federal government will generally provide funding and then provide the resources needed to support local governments. Additionally, in public health, local agencies are required to provide services governed by state law while performing federally required duties and guidance. These examples tie Wright’s Theory of Intergovernmental Relations into the operational world familiar to managers. (Wright, 1988; Kettl 2000)
Slide 10:
The concluding content slide would be that the overlapping model developed by Wright provides a useful way to make sense of contemporary local government. The overall message is that local managers should not expect full autonomy or total control from higher levels of government, but rather, they need to learn how to successfully operate in a system of shared authority through negotiation and interdependence. A solid closing for this slide is that effective local management today requires the combination of both administrative competence and intergovernmental skill (Wright, 1988; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003).
**References**
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003).
_Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments_. Georgetown University Press.
Conlan, T. J. (2006). From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: Reflections on the half-century anniversary of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
_Public Administration Review, 66_(5), 663–676.
Elazar, D. J. (1987).
_Exploring federalism_. University of Alabama Press.
Kettl, D. F. (2000).
_The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century_. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wright, D. S. (1988).
_Understanding intergovernmental relations_ (3rd ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.