Reform and Economic Development: Attitudinal Dimensions of Metropolitan Consolidation

Edwards, Patricia Klobus; Bohland, James

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.1991.tb00267.x

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• A positive link between metropolitan governmental reform and economic development is supported by some scholars (Barnes & Ledebur, 1998;Durning, 1995;Edwards & Bohland, 1991;Nelson & Foster, 1999;Owen, 1992;Rusk, 1993) and debunked by others (Carr & Feiock, 1999;Feiock & Carr, 1997). Economic development may be hobbled by fragmentation (Indergaard, 1998) and fostered by regionalism (Nelson & Foster, 1999) or enhanced-or at least left untouched-by decentralization and voluntary interlocal cooperation (Ellen, 1999;McGuire, 2000;Morgan & Mareschal, 1999).…”

Section: The Limited Explanatory Power Of Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Local Government Cooperation in Urban Regions

Visser

2002

The American Review of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the debate over metropolitan governmental form and the applicability of the reform-consolidation and market-public choice models to understanding the reality of how interlocal governmental relations operate in urban regions. These form-based models are found to be deficient as useful and inductively empirical paradigms for examining the day-to-day interplay of interlocal relations. The author presents an alternative model that posits that urban political and organizational cultures and their influence on the roles and behavior of local officials, especially administrators, may be more driving explanatory factors in interlocal relations than governmental form.

show abstract

Section: The Limited Explanatory Power Of Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Local Government Cooperation in Urban Regions

Visser

2002

The American Review of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For many elites, support for regional government stems from their perception that centralized structures foster economic growth. Corroborating evidence is offered by Edwards and Bohland (1991), who found a strong link between support for economic growth and consolidation proposals in Virginia. Persons with favorable attitudes toward economic growth tended to support city-county consolidation; those who preferred slow economic growth tended to oppose consolidation.…”

Section: Prior Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Metropolitan Governance Structure and Income Growth

Nelson

Foster

1999

Journal of Urban Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…Temple (1972) and Horan and Taylor (1977) find that socio-demographic variables are important predictors of attitudes on consolidation. On the other hand, Edwards and Bohland (1991) find that sociodemographic factors are weak or insignificant predictors of consolidation support, except for residence. Urban residents are more likely than suburban residents to support consolidation, while suburban residents are more likely than rural residents.…”

Section: City-county Consolidation: Attitudes and Religious Influencesmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…This supports a hypothesized decline in support as one moves from the city center to the urban fringe. Edwards and Bohland (1991) conclude that one's vote in a consolidation referendum reflects two "attitudinal dimensions" of reform-mindedness and attitudes toward economic development strategies. According to my reading of the issues, debates over city-county consolidation often center on preferences for institutional design, redistribution from suburb to city, political power/trust, and views of consolidation elites-which may be reflected in individuals' opinions.…”

Section: City-county Consolidation: Attitudes and Religious Influencesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Religion and regionalism : congregants, culture and city-county consolidation in Louisville, Kentucky.

Ambrosius

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reform and Economic Development: Attitudinal Dimensions of Metropolitan Consolidation

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Understanding Local Government Cooperation in Urban Regions

Understanding Local Government Cooperation in Urban Regions

Metropolitan Governance Structure and Income Growth

Religion and regionalism : congregants, culture and city-county consolidation in Louisville, Kentucky.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About