Recent Developments in the Study of Interjurisdictional Agreements: An Overview and Assessment

Abstract

What Are InterjurisdictionalAgreements? Zeemering (2008a, 731) describes the IJA as an "innovative governance arrangement" and one of the crucial "features of contemporary local government management." These agreements may be formal or informal, voluntarily created or mandated by a third party. Many arrangements are "paperless" agreements that rest strictly on the good faith of the participating parties (U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 1985; Atkins 1997).

Exchange patterns and relations in collaborative governance.

“…Similar to Andrew's (2009) previous observation there are currently three dominant research approaches to understanding the dynamics of voluntary interlocal collaboration. The first approach addresses interlocal collaboration as one of the many alternatives of service delivery, including in-house production, provision by private enterprises, provision by county, and provision by other municipalities (Brown & Potoski, 2003;Chen & Thurmaier, 2009;LeRoux & Carr, 2007).…”

“…Similar to previous findings by Dye, Leibman, Williams and Herman (1963) five decades ago, Foster (1998) has found that central cities and suburbs that share common social and economic characteristics are more likely to collaborate in a number of services than are central cities and suburbs with dissimilar attributes. More recent studies have shown that having similar social and economic characteristics only influences collaboration under less restrictive contractual arrangements (Andrew, 2009). In a study of interlocal public safety agreements in Florida, Andrew and Hawkins (2012) found that communities that have similar levels of median income are more likely to collaborate under mutual aid agreements.…”

“…Andrew, 2009;Andrew & Hawkins, 2012;Andrew et al, 2015;Carr et al, 2009;Chen & Thurmaier, 2009;Collins, 2006;Feiock, 2007Feiock, , 2009Frug, 2002;Gillette, 2001Gillette, , 2005LeRoux & Carr, 2007;Reynolds, 2003;Taylor & Bassett, 2007;Wood, 2006;Zeemering, 2008a Pay-for-service agreements, joint service agreements and mutual aid agreements collectively constitute the main voluntary interlocal service agreements adopted by the majority of cities and counties in the United States (Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, 1985;Friesema, 1971;ICMA, 1997;Thurmaier & Wood, 2002;Zimmerman, 1973). They may exist between only two localities or crafted among multiple agencies and local governments (Andrew & Hawkins, 2012).…”

“…Having access to such behavioral information can serve as a tool for controlling each other and thereby limiting any tendencies for opportunistic behavior (Shrestha, 2006;Williamson, 1996). The special relations developed from reciprocal and repeated interaction over time allows collaborating parties to develop credibility and trust (Andrew, 2009;Coleman, 1988;Frederickson et al, 2004;Wukich, 2014) which in turn reduce both ex-ante and ex-post transaction costs (Olberding, 2002;Poppo & Zenger, 2002;Schneider et al, 2003;Uzzi, 1996). Local governments that interact frequently also have the opportunity to develop internal code of conduct and informal communications that help to streamline their actions (Milgrom & Roberts, 1992;Ostrom et al, 1994;Parks et al, 1996;Valley et al, 1998).…”

“…The basic argument propounded here is that vertical collaboration is preferred to horizontal collaboration as a public service becomes highly asset specific and difficult to measure, ceteris paribus. Prior studies have found that when municipalities rely on vertical collaboration they gain from higher levels of regulatory enforcement and a minimal cost of monitoring potential defectors (Andrew, 2009;Feiock, 2007Feiock, , 2009Scholz & Wang, 2006).…”