Self‐Organizing Governance of Local Economic Development: Informal Policy Networks And Regional Institutions

Abstract

Economic development is a policy area where competition tends to be the norm, but it is also one in which cities cooperate through a variety of formal and informal mechanisms. Taking a social network approach, we examine the roles of informal policy networks and regional institutions in strengthening formal collaboration between city governments in economic development. Network relationship data were collected from city governments in the Orlando metropolitan area. We highlight the importance of informal interactions between city governments for collaborative agreements and identify the critical roles that regional institutions can play in moderating the effect of informal relationships on collaborative agreements. The conclusion argues for urban research to pay greater attention to how networks shape collective action among local governments.

Strength of Strong Ties in Intercity Government Information Sharing and County Jurisdictional Boundaries

“…As illustrated in the previous section, the collective information sharing problem can be easily solved when cities are located in the same county jurisdiction; this, in turn, lets us more easily observe clustered information sharing networks within each county. Empirical studies on interlocal information sharing also demonstrate our speculation that sharing county jurisdictional boundaries has a positive association with the likelihood of intergovernmental information sharing tie creation (Hawkins, Hu, and Feiock ; Kwak et al ; Lee, Feiock, and Lee ). However, less attention has been paid to the demand‐ and supply‐side mechanism of intergovernmental information sharing.…”

“…The partnership provides opportunities to address important issues such as duplication of policies and services, urban sprawl, income disparity, and economies of scale (Feiock ; Feiock , ; Fleischmann ). Furthermore, elected officials in the region share their best economic development practices and gain information about real estate trends, development subsidies, and tax incentive policies by participating in informal policy networks (Hawkins, Hu, and Feiock ).…”

“…However, applying such concept to the organizational level is not new, and the implications of the concept should not be constrained at the micro‐level for the better understanding of the complex picture of social phenomena (Nelson ). Local government's self‐governing mechanisms (Hawkins, Hu, and Feiock ) are no exception; neither is intergovernmental information sharing.

Hypothesis 1 (Supply‐side strength of strong ties) : The degree of collective information demand on a city has a positive association with the likelihood of information sharing tie creation between a city government and another government within the same county jurisdiction.

…”

“…Interjurisdictional collaboration often fails to reach an optimal level because of coordination and cooperation problems, risks of partner shirking, and defection (Feiock ). Interestingly, however, recent studies on intergovernmental information sharing, the most common form of intergovernmental collaboration, demonstrate that a strong propensity for partner selection is found within the same county jurisdiction (e.g., Hawkins, Hu, and Feiock ; Kwak et al ).…”

When Collaboration Is Risky Business: The Influence of Collaboration Risks on Formal and Informal Collaboration

“…Extant research examines both formal and informal mechanisms for overcoming the barriers to collaboration (Feiock, 2013; Feiock, Lee, Park, & Lee, 2010; Hawkins, Hu, & Feiock, 2016; Terman & Feiock, 2015). Informal arrangements such as information sharing networks and working groups allow participants to self-organize as networks and meet in regional organization venues to exchange resources and coordinate decisions (Chen, Feiock, & Hsieh, 2016).…”