Federal Issues
A key idea of community federalism is that regional and federal functions should serve to enhance the functioning of local communities and to supplement what cannot be done at the local level. This is why the flow chart shows the black feedback arrows. When you read the details of GANE, you will see that there are three primary federal functions:
- To remedy ecological and social problems arising from past and ongoing unsustainable activities.
- To assist in the conversion to sustainable economic activities at the local and regional levels. This includes federal funding of the community and regional efforts, setting appropriate standards based on feedback from the local and regional levels and assessing national progress toward sustainability, equity and full employment.
- To ensure that corporations are not allowed to undermine efforts at building sustainable communities and regions.
These need to be grounded in the community and regional processes.
Redefining Progress has developed the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) as a measure of real progress in social/ecological well being rather than using the GDP which only measures economic output. They say:
We believe that if policymakers measure what really matters to people—health care, safety, a clean environment, and other indicators of well-being—economic policy would naturally shift towards sustainability.
Redefining Progress created the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) in 1995 as an alternative to the gross domestic product (GDP). The GPI enables policymakers at the national, state, regional, or local level to measure how well their citizens are doing both economically and socially.
Another important federal function shown in the flow chart is to provide grants to communities which have developed a vision for becoming a sustainable community but do not have sufficient local resources for implementation of their plan to realize their vision. The Transition Communities movement described under Communities could be part of this federally-funded implementation if it arises from a fully participatory process within the community.
Where goods cannot be produced at the local level, for instance automobiles, there need to be federal standards like fuel efficiency standards to move the country toward environmental sustainability.
RESOURCES
Indicators of Sustainable Well-Being:
Redefining Progress (see above)
Paradigms in Progress, Life Beyond Economics by Hazel Henderson, 1991. $16.95. Order from Knowledge Systems, 7777 West Morris Street, Indianapolis, IN 46231, or call 317-241-0749.
If Women Counted, A New Feminist Economics by Marilyn Waring, (Harper, San Francisco: 1988 $12.95)
Let's Talk
These are some of our ideas. Now we would like to hear yours. Here are some of the questions we have been asking.
Among environmentalists there has been much advocacy of sustainable and/or self-reliant communities. Yet no community has all the natural resources it needs to sustain itself in today's world. How should these communities relate to each other? How should they work together to protect watersheds that may cover large areas? How do we deal with the fact that some communities are relatively poor while others are quite rich? Should the poor be left to fend for themselves?
In GANE we try to lay out possible functions at the regional and federal levels. One is that federal tax dollars be provided to local communities to help them create opportunities for work that will allow them to realize their community vision. This helps communities to begin with a more level playing field, but it is still a long way from equity unless the tax dollars are weighted by the relative needs of the community, e.g., the rate of unemployment or the amount of pollution. What are your thoughts?
GANE also talks generally about regions. How should these regions be defined? One approach is to reflect natural biological and social regions and to include a range of population densities from urban to rural wherever possible. Another is to use existing regions such as multiple counties or some breakdown of EPA regions. How would you do it?
How should these regions function? How can they be rooted in local communities, with feedback from the local communities integrated into the regional planning and implementation processes? If community sustainability boards were established, then each community board could select a representative to a regional sustainability board and be given specific functions. In discussions of earlier drafts with this approach, there was a sense that this seemed too bureaucratic. What would your approach be?
Send us your comments on these questions and/or your own insights on federal, regional and community roles. Please fill in the following form or email us at ruthcaplan@thealliancefordemocracy.org.