IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v56y2026i1p205-225..html

Is the Picket Fence Still Standing? Tracing Administrative Federalism in the States

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew J Uttermark

Abstract

The United States federal bureaucracy faces an increasingly uncertain future. Congressional inaction, partisan gridlock, a conservative judiciary, and the executive’s efforts to hollow out federal agencies portend a renegotiation of tasks to the states. How are state administrators poised to respond to these drastic changes? In this article, I highlight ongoing research trends and production on contemporary administrative federalism to evaluate if the notion of “picket fence” federalism remains relevant in intergovernmental relations and management. Tracing recent evaluations of administrative federalism, I find that the structure and key elements of the picket fence persist. However, its resilience increasingly depends upon the partisan and ideological orientation of state and administrative actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew J Uttermark, 2026. "Is the Picket Fence Still Standing? Tracing Administrative Federalism in the States," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 56(1), pages 205-225.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:56:y:2026:i:1:p:205-225.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjaf072
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:56:y:2026:i:1:p:205-225.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.