The Challenges and Possibilities for Regional Collaboration among Small Jurisdictions

Abstract

This research note examines the Western Wisconsin Intergovernmental Collaborative (WWIC), located in three mainly rural Wisconsin counties bordering the Minneapolis–St. Paul region, including the results of a survey of chief elected officials representing local governments in the region. Despite the fact that the WWIC has not generated significant interest among most prospective member governments, survey results indicate that many of these governments are engaged in collaborations with other jurisdictions. The lack of interest of smaller communities in participating in a regional organization should not necessarily be seen as evidence that such communities are not using collaborative arrangements with other jurisdictions.

Policy mechanisms for interlocal service delivery: management perspectives in the USA and Norway

“…, 2013, 2019; Zeiner and Tjerbo, 2014). Previous research supports this distinction (Folz and Abdelrazek, 2009; Kraus, 2012; Visser, 2004; Warner and Hefetz, 2008), as CAOs in small USA cities possess a broader selection of informal collaborative alternatives, such as special districts, nonprofits and private business, due to the generality and commonality of service objectives.…”

“…, 2020). Size may also be instrumental, as smaller municipalities tend to favor more informal arrangements (Fowler, 2018; Kraus, 2012). The political atmosphere, forces of political culture (Elazar, 1972) and the inclinations of elected officials and other stakeholders (Sonderskov, 2019) likewise affect the aptitude for collaboration and the mechanism options available to managers (Swann, 2015).…”

“…Internal organizational structures and form of government may restrict the latitude afforded to managers in collaboration (Folz and Abdelrazek, 2009) and the manner of the problem, arrangement (formal/informal) and stature (vertical/horizontal) of the cooperation may require differing skill sets toward mechanism administration (Bryson et al, 2006;Siciliano et al, 2020). Size may also be instrumental, as smaller municipalities tend to favor more informal arrangements (Fowler, 2018;Kraus, 2012). The political atmosphere, forces of political culture (Elazar, 1972) and the inclinations of elected officials and other stakeholders (Sonderskov, 2019) likewise affect the aptitude for collaboration and the mechanism options available to managers (Swann, 2015).…”

Evolution of Marketing in Smart Cities through the Collaboration Design

“…Lack of collaboration is due to lack of interest; this is indeed the fastest conclusion, but the real work to be done is to dig for true reasons behind lack of interest [20]. Here we find trust, different level of knowledge and expertise level, insufficient information about the personal impact through involvement, etc.…”

Collaborative Mechanisms in Interlocal Cooperation

“…Conversely, the more formal and specific mechanisms, namely consortiums, contracts, and joint ventures, were commonly used for program conglomerations such as energy distribution and law enforcement. According to recent research, this shift to informality may signal preference for a more autonomous approach toward collaboration, independent of aggregated corporations, especially among smaller communities (Kraus 2012). It may also signify the desire for more regionally based cooperation, as was indicated in the common understandings, agreements, and federations of Nebraska case studies, and in-house provision options such as demonstrated in the Gretna contract situation.…”