At the political level, the United States seems inexorably divided. There are heated ideological divisions among red and blue states; among cities, states, and the federal government; and among citizens. These divisions reflect deep fissures in underlying beliefs about the appropriate roles for the federal government and about basic standards of social justice. But are we doomed to the inevitable results of more federal gridlock? Or will state, city, and local leaders from the public and private sectors, drawing and building on the principles of federalism, step up to offset the damage by becoming more powerful cross-sector champions of social change?

Under President Trump, most federal government programs (with the notable exception of those related to the military) are on course to be slashed. But the major social and economic problems addressed by federal programs will not disappear; they will only intensify. The market alone can’t solve these problems; indeed, it sometimes causes or exacerbates them. Nor can nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, or social sector organizations fulfill these public sector responsibilities, though they can play important partnership roles in researching, catalyzing, advocating, innovating, and delivering programs. Government action at the federal, state, or local level is essential in such critical areas as education, climate change, and health insurance.

The answer to a deadlocked and divided federal government is “progressive federalism”—the pursuit of progressive policy goals using the subnational governments in the US federal system.

Read the full article about progressive federalism by Lenny Mendonca and Laura D. Tyson at Stanford Social Innovation Review.