Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.

There has long been debate on the extent to which the structure of government in metropolitan areas helps or hinders income growth. Polycentrists contend that numerous local governments lead to competition that streamlines government, produces services at least cost, and leads to higher incomes. Centrists argue that large, multiple service governments have scale economies leading to more efficient production of services and hence higher incomes. What matters to regionalists is whether there is a metropolitan governance arrangement that effects an improvement in the distribution of economic activity that increases income. Which school of thought is right? This article evaluates the association between metropolitan governance structures and growth in per capita personal income among Ͻ287 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas for the period 1976 to 1996. After controlling for several factors, we find empirical support for the centrist and regionalist schools of thought but very little support for the polycentrist school.A growing literature addresses the link between the structure of governance at the metropolitan level and income growth (Foster, 1993;Nelson, 1990;Ward, 1987). This literature is advanced by "polycentrists," "centrists," and more recently "regionalists" (for a review, see Wallis, 1996).Polycentrists argue that fragmented structures offer greater choice among service and tax/fee bundles for residents and firms with diverse preferences, constrain the costs of local government through competition, elevate overall government performance through experimentation by many units of governments at different levels, and increase the level of political representation and participation by individuals. Centrists counter that consolidated structures are more desirable because they capture efficiencies in economies of scale and agglomeration of talent, internalize externalities, promote fiscal equity, facilitate more efficient coordination of land use and facility planning, and economize on the potentially costly concessions common to many well-publicized competitions for "marquee" firms. In recent years, a third school of thought, espoused by regionalists, has downplayed traditional concerns about the actual arrangement of municipal governments to focus instead on the existence of regionwide mechanisms for collaborative decision making.The persistence and intensity of the debate stem from its policy relevance. As regions respond to the imperatives of global competition, public officials, policy analysts, and citizens seek to know

No abstract

The article proposes a framework to clarify and specify regional governance, a concept widely used but as yet inadequately formulated for research and practice. Using capacity and purpose rather than governance or governmental forms as a foundation, the framework identifies five dimensions—actor group, agenda, internal capacity, external capacity, and implementation experience—that together describe regional governance for a time, place, and policy goal.

The purpose of this conceptual article is to introduce the construct of change engagement and a model that also consists of change-related organizational resources, change-related job resources and demands, and change-related personal resources. We propose that change engagement is a construct that is theoretically and practically useful for understanding employee reactions to and adoption of organizational change. Drawing from existing models of employee engagement, we add to the change literature by identifying salient change-related organizational resources, job resources, job demands, and personal resources in a previously validated framework that brings together the literature on both engagement and change. By using the proposed change engagement framework, practitioners and researchers will potentially be able to effectively diagnose, manage, and optimize employee change readiness and enthusiasm for ongoing change. Furthermore, the change engagement model (CEM) provides practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and practically useful model that will be easy to comprehend and communicate. The model can be applied to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of discrete change initiatives, as well as to ongoing change. The model is therefore well-suited to contemporary organizational contexts where change is widely recognized to be a constant.

Spurred by fiscal pressure, persistent city-suburban disparities, and the imperatives of the global economy, public and academic interest in metropolitan regionalism is as vigorous now as it was in the 1950s. The resurgence of interest compels analysis in this article of I0 regional impulses-natural resource, macroeconomic, centrality, growth, social, fiscal, equity, political, legal, and historical-the operation of which determine regional outcomes, such as regional service delivery, partnerships, and practices, in metropolitan areas. A case study of regional impulses in the Buffalo metropolitan area jinds that fiscal, legal, political, and historical impulses are most salient in influencing regional outcomes. The study demonstrates the utility of the regional impulses framework for comparative metropolitan analysis and understanding why some regionsfunction more regionally than others.

No abstract

No abstract