National Resilience: Federal and State Government Roles in Crisis

This essay critically evaluates the roles of federal and state governments in protecting critical national infrastructure, particularly in normal times and during crises. It highlights the importance of collaboration between these levels of government, referencing both federal and quasi-federal structures. The essay discusses how the federal government is responsible for dealing with critical national infrastructure and ensuring national welfare, while state governments assist in regional implementation and strategy development. It emphasizes the need for cooperation between federal and state authorities to safeguard national resources, protect data, and manage foreign investment, ultimately concluding that effective communication and shared objectives are essential for a robust national security framework. The essay draws upon various academic sources and real-world examples to support its arguments, providing a comprehensive overview of the roles and responsibilities of both federal and state entities in maintaining national resilience.

Running Head: FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
In a democratic establishment, the role of the federal and state government is highly
pivotal in order to restore and retain the national as well as regional interests. Most of the
democratic nation has a clear identification of state level and national level government having a
coordination between each other (Berke, Lyles and Smith 2014). As a matter of fact, the
democratic constitution has been shaped in such a way that creates a power checks and balance
between the federal and state government. In this regard, there are two type of government
structure in the name of federal government and quasi-federal government. However, the
purpose of both types of government is to restore the sovereignty and safety of the nation and its
regional solidarity which is one of the major aspect to build a democratic state. Based on this
understanding, this discussion tries to analyse the role of federal and state government in both
normal times and in crisis situation. Moreover, the essay also intends to focus on the cohesion
between the federal and state government in order to neutralise any national threat.
The democratic structure of the government requires a collaboration between the state
and the federal government. In this context, there are two types of government structure in terms
of the federal government and the quasi-federal government (Coggburn 2017). In the federal
government like in US both the federal and state government share an equal power and practice
to some extent. However, the US federal system of government witnesses different types of
regulation and privileges in national level and state level. As a matter of fact, dual citizenship is
also prevalent in the US constitution so that the citizens enjoy national citizenship and at the
same time state citizenship as well (Agranoff 2014). On the contrary, in countries like India a set
of quasi-federal or semi federal government structure can be identified where both format of
government share their individual power but the state government has to follow the federal
government over the national context (Singh, Gupta and Ojha 2014). Therefore, the role of both

2FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
the federal and state government is highly pertinent in order to shape and protect the democratic
sentiment. As a matter of fact, in a federal form of government, the state authority and agencies
has to cooperate with the federal government. In association to this, it is important for the state
government to ensure safety and security for the critical national infrastructure plan and cope
with the federal government initiatives as well.
According to Wallis (2018) the critical national infrastructure encompasses threats like
the potential target for terrorists, identifying the existing infrastructure and the risk factors
associated with the national infrastructure protection. In this regard, the federal government is
responsible to deal with critical national infrastructure and ensuring welfare and prosperity for
the nation. As a result of that procuring and manifesting a set of strategies, theories and plans to
bolster the protection of the nation is identified as one of the major concern for the federal
government. Moreover, the research of Miron and Muita (2014) advocated that protecting the
key resources in terms of human work force and the mineral resources is also listed into the
pertinent tasks of the federal government. Ranking and prioritising the national infrastructure is
also encapsulated into the task of the national government as well. However, the research of Carr
(2016) stated that the federal government did not have enough power to set a better facility and
protection of the national resources. Cooperation from the state authority is also an intricate part
in the government strategic planning. For an example, the state of Massachusetts accepts to take
adequate responsibility and intends to provide assistance to the federal government in order to
develop plans and strategies with the highest national interest.
As far as the general homeland security strategy of the federal government is concerned,
it can be seen that the federal government puts great deal of importance in the practice of
protecting the critical infrastructures and the key resource of United States. There are four

3FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
constraints that are taking into considerations such as the national security, public health and
safety, economic vitality and the high life styles (Laughlin 2015). In this regard, the Presidential
directions are played the most significant role and identified as the cornerstone of the federal
planning for protecting the critical national infrastructure. The Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 7 (HSPD-7), identification of the critical structure, prioritisation, protection and
integration are the key aspects on which the entire federal planning has been set. The federal
government follows some mechanism in terms of not only preventing any terrorist threats but
also cares to conduct further planning for the development of building security partnership
through sharing information and implementation of a development plan (Koski 2015). In
addition to this, it is also important for the federal government to implement a long term risk
management program and maximising the efficient use of the resources. Furthermore, it is
coupled with the practice of making effective communication with different agencies and offices
both in national and local levels.
On the other hand, the state government is also played a significant role in order to ensure
the safety and security of the national infrastructure protection. In the research of Alcaraz and
Zeadally (2015) it can be found out that the state government follows and restores the national
critical infrastructure protection within its own jurisdiction. For an example, the state initiatives
can be seen prominently in case of the US context where many state formulates the stand alone
infrastructure plan resembled with the national strategies. US states like Arizona, Washington
and Virginia have developed their own framework that will bring more effectiveness in the
process of the ensuring safety of the national infrastructure. On the other hand, Sage, Fussey and
Dainty (2015) opined that the role of the state level administration is to assist the national level
infrastructure strategy in the regional basis. Partnership with the private organisations in order to

4FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
share information throughout the local level infrastructure is identified as an important aspect of
the local level government. Furthermore, the local government also carries out separate strategies
and framework in order to protect the regional resources. Coordination between the local level
jurisdiction and the administration is highly pertinent in this regard as it will formulate strategic
advantage for the state government to ensure the safety of critical resource infrastructure.
As Shackelford and Craig (2014) mentioned that the local level administration resembles
the same impression and strategies as the national level government possesses in order to deal
with the growing needs of safeguarding the local level national resources. Moreover, the
empirical evidences proved that it is also under the jurisdiction of the local government to put
thrust on the national level strategies for critical national infrastructure. The purpose of such
process is to deliver a cohesion between the national and state level framework and focus on the
overall development. In this context, Koski (2015) highlighted the fact that the state homeland
security advisors are highly dedicated to serve as a focal point for regional initiatives and provide
linkages between the state interests and the sector partnership model. As a result of that it helps
to build up a cross sector councils where the national government is not only took part but the
private organisations and regional interest groups are also identified as potential stakeholders. In
this regard, the information sharing practice is also intertwined with the state government
mechanism. This communication model is a two way process and multi-directional so that it
serves for the benefit of all the actors (Sage, Fussey and Dainty 2015). It is further associated
with the practice of sector partnership model where all the stakeholders are available to generate
and gather information as per the needs. As a matter of fact, protecting the data is of national
interest that the national government is responsible to facilitate but the local or state level

5FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
administrators have to cooperate with the national body in order to formulate effective
networking system.
Foreign investment in the investment structure is also considered to be an important
aspect in this context. From the research of Koski (2015) it can be stated that the value added
role of the investment policies helps to safeguard the critical infrastructures. It is the last resort
for the government as the foreign entities can pose threat to the security to the country. For
instance, the US government’s federal and state investment review body (CFIUS) tries to define
the foreign investment as a broader policy to secure and establish an effective infrastructure
protection element. On the other hand, Wallis (2018) figured out that a discriminatory practice
was existed within the governing framework that enables the government to restrict its access to
information and sabotaging a critical facility. In this context, theories like the blanket restrictions
in Korea and Switzerland, sector specific licensing program in case of the US Federal
government and trans-national measures for investment approval procedures are prevalent in
order to bring efficacy into safeguarding the national infrastructure through organisational
practice.
From the above discussion, it can be argued that the role of the national and state
authority is always considered to be an important aspect for procuring a better mechanism where
the interest of the nation and the protection of the critical national infrastructure can be secured.
In this regard, the national government intends to set a wider vision of fostering nationwide
security for the important national resources. From that point of view, it can be concluded that
both the national and state government play equally important role in protecting the critical
national infrastructure and it is also essential to maintain an effective communication so that the
entire framework will be able to accomplish the objectives.

6FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
Reference
Agranoff, R., 2014. Local governments in multilevel systems: Emergent public administration
challenges. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(4_suppl), pp.47S-62S.
Alcaraz, C. and Zeadally, S., 2015. Critical infrastructure protection: Requirements and
challenges for the 21st century. International journal of critical infrastructure protection, 8,
pp.53-66.
Berke, P.R., Lyles, W. and Smith, G., 2014. Impacts of federal and state hazard mitigation
policies on local land use policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), pp.60-76.
Carr, M., 2016. Public–private partnerships in national cyber-security strategies. International
Affairs, 92(1), pp.43-62.
Coggburn, J.D., 2017. Exploring differences in the American states’ procurement
practices. Journal of Public Procurement, 3(1), pp.3-28.
Koski, C., 2015. Does a partnership need partners? Assessing partnerships for critical
infrastructure protection. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), pp.327-342.
Laughlin, C., 2015. Cybersecurity in Critical Infrastructure Sectors: A Proactive Approach to
Ensure Inevitable Laws and Regulations are Effective. Colo. Tech. LJ, 14, p.345.
Miron, W. and Muita, K., 2014. Cybersecurity capability maturity models for providers of
critical infrastructure. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(10).

7FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
Sage, D., Fussey, P. and Dainty, A., 2015. Securing and scaling resilient futures:
neoliberalization, infrastructure, and topologies of power. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space, 33(3), pp.494-511.
Shackelford, S.J. and Craig, A.N., 2014. Beyond the new digital divide: Analyzing the evolving
role of national governments in internet governance and enhancing cybersecurity. Stan. J. Int'l
L., 50, p.119.
Singh, A.N., Gupta, M.P. and Ojha, A., 2014. Identifying critical infrastructure sectors and their
dependencies: An Indian scenario. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure
Protection, 7(2), pp.71-85.
Wallis, J.J., 2018. What determines the allocation of national government grants to the states?.
In Public Choice Analyses of American Economic History (pp. 181-199). Springer, Cham.