Does America need a federal government after all?

For years, as we've watched the bumbling of unfocused federal departments and programs twisted for special interests, the tempting answer has been "no."

Yet fresh breakthroughs, points of evidence that American inventiveness remains alive and well, have blossomed. But they've been away from Washington, in the states and the cities -- stories this column has tried to highlight since the 1970s.

This week the Washington-based Brookings Institution delivered a startling message -- not Washington-centric but metro-centric. It's time, says Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program, to shift our mental image away from the 50 states (though they remain a big factor) to the nation's 363 metropolitan regions, especially the biggest 100.

Metropolitan regions, says Brookings, are where America's economic muscle, its wellsprings of innovation, high skills, advanced research and development, and its ability to compete in a toughly competitive new global economy are overwhelmingly focused.

The top 100 metros, for example, are home to 65 percent of the national population. But they account for 74 percent of our gross domestic product, have 77 percent of America's good-paying "knowledge jobs," represent 78 percent of patent activity and 94 percent of venture capital funding.

Brookings asserts: "Metros are not part of the national economy. They are the national economy. ... America is a metropolitan nation."

And if that's so, it follows that there could be massive payoff, benefiting all Americans, if the federal government would become an engaged, active partner with the metro regions -- our "citistates" in the modern global economy, as I've long preferred to call them.

Why? In today's citistate world, we're seeing lots of cutting-edge economic collaborations, efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, experiments ranging from new transit systems to revival of downtowns. Broad-scaled alliances -- city and suburban, business, civic, university leaders working together -- have merged and grown coast to coast. Almost all are bipartisan or nonpartisan, not caught up in our cloying political battles.

But the vast majority of the efforts, argues Brookings' Bruce Katz, could be far more effective -- and add much more to the national economy and U.S. competitiveness -- if the federal government were an active, engaged partner.

Mostly, it isn't. Official Washington looks like a silo farm. It spends hundreds of billions on transportation, tax concessions, economic development, energy, housing, transportation and environmental issues. But its departments hardly communicate. The dollars are rarely pulled together as they should be in the real world of functioning urban regions, and rarely recrafted for a fast-changing world.

Federal rules, regulations, tax favors abound. But there's hardly a focused mission.

And it hurts: China, India and the European Union, for example, aim to overtake us in scientific research and new inventions. But federal programs to push innovation and growth are spread across nine Cabinet departments, five independent agencies and 180 distinct programs.

The immediate goal, Brookings suggests, shouldn't be a bigger federal government; it should be a smarter, more responsive, strategic federal government.

Examples: Why can't Washington be an informed, able partner to improve aged infrastructure and clogged transportation systems? Couldn't it switch to help build affordable housing where it's now most needed -- the older suburbs? Couldn't it get its act together to deal with big environmental challenges, including climate change?

Mostly, official Washington is absent in action. With the U.S. presidential election now just a year away, Katz argues, it's high time to start focusing on ways to unleash metro economic power to create nationwide prosperity.

Metro areas such as Greater Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami and New York are trying, for example, to build America's middle class by integrating immigrants into mainstream economies, expanding high school and community college completion rates, and linking work-force housing with employment hubs. Yet a metro, Katz insists, can't "go it alone" -- "only the feds have the tax and regulatory tools to close the gap between wages and cost of living."

In the mid-20th century, the Brookings study suggests, we had a federal government "sitting on top of a pyramid, raining down resources and mandates and directives to states and localities." Then we switched to devolution -- pushing responsibilities downward, sometimes with enough money, often not. And now, it's suggested, "we need a 21st century compact" that reflects "realities of our moment -- fast-moving, super-competitive, unpredictable, tumultuous, and metropolitan-led."

That would mean "flipping the pyramid," with the feds challenging metropolitan industrial clusters, governments and universities to develop visions for growth and job creation, then propose how Washington could tailor its development, energy, research policies and regulatory focus to "advance the vision" each region produces.

What a refreshing idea! Of course it would be ultra-difficult to sell to protective federal bureaucracies. But this is a big reason why we have elections -- to open doors to fresh, compelling ideas.

Now let's watch: Will any of the candidates, Republican or Democratic, respond?