How local government managers acquire skills and knowledge of policy approaches applicable to multijurisdictional problems is the primary focus of this paper. Managers work in an environment where cities and their infrastructures are getting older and more expensive; economic and social disparities are increasing; and the cost of local services is rising faster than elected officials are willing to raise revenues (Miller, 2002). Municipal managers face these concerns on a daily basis, and they are the officials most likely to realize the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of acting alone when trying to solve problems that have metropolitan origins and effects. Solving these problems requires engaging in intergovernmental and inter-local activities in new and innovative ways. For that reason it is important that managers be prepared with a range of skills that facilitate regional solutions. To address this concern, we review the Model City Charter as well as training materials and guidelines from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) to determine whether the current emphases in local government management training prepare local managers to handle multijurisdictional or regional problems. Our conclusion is that there is a serious mismatch between the traditional skill set and what is now required for multijurisdictional problem solving.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranoffR. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers.Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 56–65.
2.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments.Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
3.
AxelrodR. (1984). The evolution of cooperation.New York, NY: Basic Books.
4.
BasoloV. (2003). U. S. regionalism and rationality.Urban Studies, 40(3), 447–462.
5.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.StoneM. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature.Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55.
6.
CarrJ. B.LeRouxK. (2005). Which local governments cooperate on public safety? Lessons from Michigan. In Creating Collaborative Communities: Management Networks, Services Cooperation, and Metropolitan Governance.Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
7.
ClingermayerJ. C.FeiockR. C. (2001). Institutional constraints and policy choice: An exploration of local governance.Albany, NY: SUNY.
8.
CollinsS. (2006). Interlocal Service Sharing Agreements.Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
9.
ComptonD.GranitoJ. (2002). Managing Fire and Rescue Services. Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
10.
FeiockR. C. (2004). Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition and cooperation.Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
11.
FeiockR. C. (2008). Institutional collective action and local government collaboration. In O’LearyR.BinghamL. (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 195–210). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
12.
FeiockR. C. (2009). Metropolitan governance and institional collective action.Urban Studies, 44(3), 356–378.
13.
FraserJ. C.LepofskyJ.KickE. L.WilliamsJ. P. (2003). The construction of the local and the limits of contemporary community building in the United States.Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 417–445.
14.
FredericksonH. G.WoodC.LoganB. (2002). Model city charters and institutional dynamics. In FredericksonH. G.NalbandianJ. (Eds.), The future of local government administration: The Hansell symposium (pp. 83–99). Washington, DC: ICMA.
15.
GerberE.GibsonC. C. (2005). Balancing Competing Interests in American Regional Government.Program in American Democracy Speaker Series.South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University.
16.
GerkensL. (1988). Historical development of American city planning. In SoFrank S.GetzelsJudith (Eds.), The practice of local government planning (2nded.). (pp. 20–59). Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
17.
GoldsmithS.EggersW. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new face of the public sector.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
HeckathornD.MaserS. (1987). Bargaining and constitutional contracts.American Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 42–68.
19.
International City/County Management Association (2007). 2007 ICMA Press Resource Catalog. Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
20.
International City/County Management Association (n.d.). Organization overview. Retrieved from http://icma.org/en/icma/about/organization_overview/
21.
International City/County Management Asssociation. (n.d.). History of ICMA and the local government management profession. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=104&shid=1&ssid1=17&ssid2=22&ssid3=276
22.
KeeneJ.NalbandianJ.O’NeillR.PortilloS.SvaraJ. (2007). How professionals can add value to their communities and organizations.Public Management (March), 32–39.
23.
KettlD. F. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public Administration for the 21st Century.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
24.
KettlD. F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative.Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 10–19.
25.
KikertW. J.KoppenjanJ. F. (1997). Public management and network management: An overview. In KickertW. J.KlijnE.-H.KoppenjanJ. F. (Eds.), Managing Complex Networks (pp. 35–61). London, UK: Sage Publications.
26.
KoppenjanJ. F.KlijnE.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks.London, UK: Routledge.
27.
Local Government Academy. (2006). Intergovernmental cooperation and local tax policy: Survey results.Pittsburgh, PA.
28.
McCabeB.FeiockR. C.ClingermayerJ.StreamC. (2008). Turnover among city managers: The role of political and economic change.Public Administration Review, 68(2), 380–386.
29.
McGuireM. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it.Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 33–43.
30.
MillerD. Y. (2002). The regional governing of metropolitan America.Boulder, CO: Westview.
31.
Mitchell-WeaverC.MillerD. Y.DealR. (2000). Multilevel governance and metropolitan regionalism in the USA.Urban Studies, 37(5-6), 851–876.
32.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
33.
NalbandianJ. (2002, April 9). Educating the city manager of the future. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from http://web.ku.edu/∼nalband/research/future.pdf
34.
National Civic League. (2003). Model City Charter (8th ed.). Denver, CO: National Civic League.
35.
OakersonR. J. (1999). Citizen voice and public entrepreneurship: The organization dynamic of a complex metropolitan county. In McGinnisM. D. (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies (pp. 306–328). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
36.
OlsonM. J. (1965). The logic of collective action.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
37.
OstromE.GardnerR.WalkerJ. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
38.
Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. (2005). Township commissioner’s handbook.Harrisburgh, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development.
SparrowM. K. (2008). The character of harms: Operational challenges in control.New York, NY: Cambridge University.
41.
SteinR. M. (1990). Urban alternatives: Public and private markets in the provision of local services.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
42.
StephensG. R.NelsonW. (2000). Metropolitan goverment and governance: Theoretical perspectves, empirical analysis, and the future.New York, NY: Oxford University.
43.
ThurmaierK.WoodC. (2002). Interlocal agreements as social networks: Picket fence regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City.Public Administration Review,62(5), 585–598.
44.
TsebelisG. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
