Disunited States

While the country's pundits and politicians gravitate to the notion that the devolution of policy to the states is efficient, cheaper and more innovative, Donahue's sober, judicious study throws a damper on such enthusiasm. First he traces the history of such arguments in past presidential administrations (especially those of Nixon and Reagan) and the Supreme Court, then elaborates on theoretical questions such as scale and administrative efficiency. Inconsistent state laws regarding such subjects as environmental regulation and legalized gambling, he notes, show how the common good may require national regulation. State forays into industrial policy show no clear success; in surveying incentive packages (tax breaks and subsidies) that states offer to lure auto plants, Donahue finds widely varying prices paid and irrational patterns of intrastate development. Local control over public education--a matter of tradition--is hardly effective, he argues, though acknowledging that an increased federal role in education might be to set national standards rather than take over the nation's schools. While he recognizes that certain functions (e.g., law enforcement) are good candidates for devolution, others, including welfare policy (the current state experiment), should be national priorities, he stresses. Donahue--who teaches public policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government--would have enlivened his book with interviews, but his thesis is worth consideration. (July)