Evaluate the view that the USA is becoming less federal.
“Evaluate” requires you to weigh evidence of growing national power against evidence that states retain or have regained meaningful autonomy, before reaching a justified judgement. For 30 marks, develop a balanced argument with precise examples and address the word “becoming” by analysing changes over time, rather than simply describing how federalism works.
Edexcel A-Level Politics: question context and source
Specification code: 9PL0
Component: 3A, Comparative Politics: USA
Topics: 1.3, The main characteristics of US federalism, and 1.4, Debates around the extent to which the USA remains federal.
Federalism is a constitutional division of power between national and state governments. Becoming less federal means that states lose meaningful independence as authority becomes more concentrated at national level. It does not necessarily mean that the USA has become a unitary state.
No source extract accompanied this question. It is an essay question, so source analysis is not required. The following authentic extract is included as supporting revision material.
Supporting source: the Tenth Amendment
“are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This extract refers to powers neither delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states. It establishes a constitutional basis for reserved powers, although disputes remain over the scope of national authority.
Edexcel A-Level Politics: indicative mark scheme
This is an original indicative mark scheme, aligned with Edexcel’s assessment framework. It is not an official Pearson mark scheme for this particular question.
Assessment objectives
Assessment objective | Marks | Application to this question |
AO1: Knowledge and understanding | 10 | Accurate knowledge of federalism, constitutional powers, financial relationships and relevant political developments. |
AO2: Analysis | 10 | Explain how developments increase national influence or preserve state autonomy. |
AO3: Evaluation | 10 | Weigh competing trends and judge whether they demonstrate an overall movement towards centralisation. |
Edexcel requires balanced consideration of the view and its alternative. Responses that fail to provide this balance cannot progress beyond Level 2 under its essay guidance.
Indicative levels of response
These are concise paraphrases of Pearson’s descriptors.
Level | Marks | Typical characteristics |
5 | 25–30 | Detailed knowledge, sustained analysis and consistently supported evaluation. |
4 | 19–24 | Accurate knowledge, coherent analysis and mostly justified judgements. |
3 | 13–18 | Mostly accurate knowledge, relevant analysis and some supported evaluation. |
2 | 7–12 | Some relevant knowledge, partially developed reasoning and limited evaluation. |
1 | 1–6 | Superficial knowledge, limited explanation and unsupported conclusions. |
0 | 0 | No creditworthy material. |
The level reflects the overall quality of the response, rather than a fixed number of paragraphs or examples.
Essential distinctions
Federal government becoming more powerful: may indicate centralisation, but does not automatically demonstrate that states have lost all meaningful autonomy.
Cooperative federalism: national and state governments share responsibility. Cooperation can strengthen national influence while preserving state discretion.
Federal supremacy: constitutionally valid federal law takes priority over conflicting state law. This is an established feature of federalism, not by itself evidence of a new centralising trend.
Judicial protection of national rights: can restrict state choices without transferring every responsibility in that policy area to Congress.
Indicative arguments supporting the view
1. National economic regulation has expanded over time.
The New Deal increased the federal government’s role in economic management and social provision. In Wickard v Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court accepted federal regulation of wheat grown for personal consumption because of its potential aggregate effect on interstate commerce.
Evaluation: This supports a long-term movement away from sharply separated responsibilities. However, historical expansion does not establish that centralisation has continued at the same pace in recent years.
2. Federal funding creates influence over state policy.
National funding can attach conditions to expenditure and encourage states to follow federal priorities. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 established a $350 billion recovery programme for state, local, territorial and Tribal governments.
Evaluation: This demonstrates national financial capacity. However, funding totals alone do not prove reduced autonomy: grants can also increase the resources available for state and local choices.
3. National constitutional standards restrict state discretion.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to revision-notes.com to keep reading this exclusive post.