This article assesses the potential for expanding regional planning by asking local government officials their perspectives on the potential for increasing regionalism in their communities, and the most promising approaches to achieving greater regionalism. The study involves analysing data from a recent survey of local government officials in Michigan. It is found that support for regional planning declines amongst local officials who are already heavily involved in regional efforts and increases amongst those who perceive greater fiscal challenges. However, local government officials who support expanding regional planning are less supportive of working through existing regional institutions; they prefer to create new regional entities to pursue additional co-operation. Those with experience with regional planning efforts are more supportive of working through existing institutions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottJ. (2005) Understanding and managing the unknown: the nature of uncertainty in planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, pp. 237–251.
2.
AxelrodR. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
3.
BaldassareM.HassolJ.HoffmanW.KanarekA. (1996) Possible planning roles for regional government: a survey of city planning directors in California, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1), pp. 17–29.
4.
BasoloV. (2003) US regionalism and rationality, Urban Studies, 40(3), pp. 447–462.
5.
BenjaminG.NathanR. P. (2001) Regionalism and Realism: A Study of Governments in the New York Metropolitan Area. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6.
BollensS. A. (1997) Fragments of regionalism: the limits of southern California governance, Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1), pp. 105–122.
7.
BurnleyI.MurphyP. (1995) Exurban development in Australia and the United States: through a glass darkly, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, pp. 245–254.
8.
CalthorpeP.FultonW. (2001) The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.
9.
CarrJ. B.GerberE. R.LupherE. W. (2009) Explaining horizontal and vertical cooperation in Michigan, in: JelierR. W.SandsG. (Eds) Sustaining Michigan, pp. 207–236. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
10.
Citizens Research Council (1999) A bird’s eye view of Michigan local government at the end of the twentieth century. Report No. 326, Citizens Research Council of Michigan.
11.
DownsA. (1994) New Visions for Metropolitan America. Harrisonburg, VA: R. R. Donnelly.
12.
FeiockR. C. (2007) Rational choice and regional governance, Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), pp. 47–63.
13.
FriedmannJ.WeaverC. (1980) Territory and Function: The Evolution of Regional Planning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
14.
GainsboroughJ. (2002) Slow growth and urban sprawl: support for a new regional agenda, Urban Affairs Review, 37(5), pp. 728–744.
GerberE. R.BatesE.IvackoT.WooleryM. (2005) Regional planning in Michigan: challenges and opportunities of intergovernmental cooperation. Policy Report No. 3, CLOSUP, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, May (http://closup.umich.edu/files/pr-3-reg-gov.pdf).
17.
GerberE. R.GibsonC. C. (2009) Balancing regionalism and localism: how institutions and incentives shape American transportation policy, American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), pp. 633–648.
18.
GruberJ. (1994) Coordinating growth management through consensus-building: incentives and the generation of social, intellectual, and political capital. Working Paper No. 617, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley.
19.
Howell-MoroneyM. (2008) The Tiebout hypothesis 50 years later: lessons and lingering challenges for metropolitan governance in the 21st century, Public Administration Review, 68(1), pp. 97–109.
20.
JacksonK. T. (2000) Gentleman’s agreement: discrimination in metropolitan America, in: KatzB. (Ed.) Reflections on Regionalism, pp. 185–217. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
21.
KanarekA.BaldassareM. (1996) Preferences for state and regional planning efforts among California mayors and city planning directors, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16, pp. 93–102.
22.
LerouxK.CarrJ. (2007) Explaining local government cooperation on public works: evidence from Michigan, Public Works Management and Policy, 12(1), pp. 344–358.
23.
LewisP. G. (1996) Shaping Suburbia: How Political Institutions Organize Urban Development. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
24.
McCarthyL. (2003) The good of the many outweighs the good of the one: regional cooperation instead of individual competition in the United States and western Europe?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, pp. 140–152.
25.
McGuireM. (2006) Intergovernmental management: a view from the bottom, Public Administration Review, 66(5), pp. 677–679.
26.
MohamedR. (2008) Who would pay for rural open space preservation and inner-city redevelopment? Identifying support for policies that can contribute to regional land use governance, Urban Studies, 45(13), pp. 2783–2803.
27.
NorrisD. F. (2001a) Prospects for regional governance under the new regionalsm: economic imperatives versus political impediments, Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(5), pp. 557–571.
28.
NorrisD. F. (2001b) Whither metropolitan governance?, Urban Affairs Review, 36, pp. 532–550.
29.
NortonR. K. (2005) Striking the balance between environment and economy in coastal North Carolina, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(2), pp. 177–207.
30.
NunnS.RosentraubM. S. (1997) Dimensions of interjurisdictional cooperation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), pp. 205–219.
31.
OlberdingJ. C. (2002) Does regionalism beget regionalism? The relationship between norms and regional partnerships for economic development, Public Administration Review, 62(4), pp. 480–491.
32.
OrfieldM. (1997) Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and the Lincoln Land Institute.
33.
PostS. S. (2002) Local government cooperation: the relationship between metropolitan area government geography and service provision. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, September.
34.
powellj. a. (2000) Addressing regional dilemmas for minority communities, in: KatzB. (Ed.) Reflections on Regionalism, pp. 218–246. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
35.
Rossman-McKinneyK. (2007) Voters cite lack of political leadership as greatest barrier to regional cooperation (http://www.rossmangroup.com).
36.
RuskD. (2000) Growth management: the core regional issue, in: KatzB. (Ed.) Reflections on Regionalism, pp. 78–106. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
37.
ThurmaierK. (2006) High-intensity interlocal collaboration in three Iowa cities, Public Administration Review, 66, pp. 144–146.
38.
ThurmaierK.WoodC. (2002) Interlocal agreements as overlapping social networks: picket-fence regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City, Public Administration Review, 62(5), pp. 585–598.
39.
TieboutC. (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures, The Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), pp. 416–424.
40.
WassmerR. W.LascherE. L. (2006) Who supports local growth and regional planning to deal with its consequences, Urban Affairs Review, 41(5), pp. 621–645.
41.
WheelerS. M. (2002) The new regionalism: key characteristics of an emerging movement, Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), pp. 267–278.
42.
WilliamsO. P. (1967) Life-style values and political decentralization in metropolitan areas, Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 48, pp. 300–310.
