The devolution revolution was a central subject in American intergovernmental affairs during the presidency of Bill Clinton. The implication of the term “devolution revolution” is that there were key changes in the allocation of responsibilities between the federal and state administrations. Nonetheless, most of the discussion in Congress was connected to more limited notions of decentralization of authority by prevent granting social wellbeing programs. “Devolution implies real change in power relationships and independence of action for non-federal government; decentralization implies federal choice, independence, and ultimate control” (National Academy of Public Administration, 1996).

Judgments about theoutcomes of intergovernmental strategy changes differed among researchersof American federalism. Some disputed that intergovernmental relationsmoved significantly in the direction of devolution in the direction ofthe states in the 1990s. Others were doubtful about the existenceor amount of devolution during the decade. However, at least one advantage of devolution revolution can be named right away and that is will for multiplying social programs. “Most states were flush with money toward the end of the decade, and they were more willing to spend it on child care and other relatively costly work-support services than they were just a few years earlier” (The Devolution Revolution, 2002). At the same time, with unemployment in the private sector so low, states did not have to spend infinite sums to generate or support jobs for those abandoning welfare.

The substitute to devolution could be the loss of the federal system of government our founding fathers gave us, and the increase of domestic terrorism to the amount formerly unfamiliar in America. With so much at stake, surely it was the time to “consider restoring the protections of the long-neglected Tenth Amendment” (The Devolution Revolution, 1995).