Local government administrators have embraced intergovernmental collaboration as a viable alternative in the delivery of public programs for many years, characterizing an increasing emphasis on interlocal cooperation as a response to common problems and situational needs. In the process of collaboration, local governments often use a combination of linking mechanisms, ranging in degrees of formality and specificity. This study longitudinally examines the administrative networks and mutual organizations that comprise the collaborative mechanisms of municipalities in the state of Nebraska. The findings suggest that, over time, the nature and use of interlocal cooperation mechanisms have shifted toward the more informal and general varieties.
AbelsMichael. 2012. Managing through collaborative networks: A twenty-first century mandate for local government. State and Local Government Review44:29S−43S.
2.
AgranoffRobert. 2006. Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review [Supplement] 66:56−65.
3.
AgranoffRobertMcGuireMichael. 1999. Expanding intergovernmental management’s hidden dimensions. American Review of Public Administration29:352−69.
4.
AgranoffRobertMcGuireMichael. 2003. Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
5.
AlexanderErnest R.1995. How organizations act together: Interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Gordon and Breach.
6.
AlterCatherineHageJerald. 1993. Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
AndrewSimon A. 2009. Regional integration through contracting networks: An empirical analysis of institutional collection action framework. Urban Affairs Review44:378−402.
8.
AnsellChrisGashAlison. 2007. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18:543−71.
9.
AveryMaryFrancisJustinLoebigValerieRiceChad. 2002. Summary of Nebraska political subdivisions’ interlocal cooperation agreements and joint public agencies. Lincoln, NE: Auditor of Public Accounts.
10.
BaeJungahFeiockRichard C.. 2012. Managing multiplexity: Coordinating multiple services at a regional level. State and Local Government Review44:162−68.
BartleJohn R.BlairRobert. 1999. Tools for intergovernmental cooperation: The experience of Nebraska local governments. Lincoln: Nebraska Rural Development Commission.
13.
BermanDavid R. 1994. Relating to other governments. In The effective local government manager, ed. NewellCharldean, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
14.
BlairRobertDrozdDavidDeichertJerry. 2013. Fire protection in rural Nebraska: A focus on volunteer-based organizations. Omaha: University of Nebraska Omaha Center for Public Affairs Research.
15.
BrysonJohn M.CrosbyBarbara C.StoneMelissa M.. 2006. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review [Supplement] 66:44−55.
16.
BrysonJohn M.RingPeter Smith. 1990. A transaction–based approach to policy intervention. Policy Sciences23:205−29.
17.
ChenYu-CheThurmaierKurt. 2009. Interlocal agreements as collaborations: An empirical investigation of impetuses, norms, and success. American Review of Public Administration39:536−52.
18.
ChristensenKaren Stromme. 1999. Cities and complexity: Making intergovernmental decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
CooperPhillip J.BradyLinda P.Hidalgo-HardemanOliviaHydeAlbertNaffKatherine C.Steven OttJ.WhiteHarvey. 1998. Public administration for the twenty-first century. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
20.
CoxGeorge H.RosenfeldRaymond A.. 2001. State and local government: Public life in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
21.
FeiockRichard C. 2009. Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action. Urban Affairs Review44:356−77.
22.
FerakJohn. 2008. Sign of the times: City will hire paid rescuers. Omaha World Herald, October 13, 3b.
23.
GazleyBeth. 2008. Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government-nonprofit partnerships. Public Administration Review68:141−54.
24.
GreenPhilHedquistLanceSchoemakerAl. 2013. Lessons learned: Disaster recovery. Presentation at the Nebraska Municipal Clerks Institute and Academy, Columbus, NE, March17−22.
25.
HavermanJulie. 1998. An overview of cooperative agreements. Lincoln: Nebraska Community Foundation, Government Assistance Program.
26.
HawkinsChristopher V. 2009. Prospect for and barriers to local government joint ventures. State and Local Government Review41:108−19.
27.
HenryNicholas. 1995. Public administration and public affairs, 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
HolzerMarcCallahanKathe. 1998. Government at work: Best practices and model programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
KettlDonald F. 2006. Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review [Supplement] 66:10−19.
30.
KrausNeil. 2012. The challenges and possibilities for regional collaboration among small jurisdictions. State and Local Government Review44:45−54.
31.
KwonSung-WookFeiockRichard C.. 2010. Overcoming the barriers to cooperation: Intergovernmental service agreements. Public Administration Review70:876−84.
32.
LeeIn-WonFeiockRichard C.LeeYoungmi. 2012. Competitors and cooperators: A micro-level analysis of regional economic development collaboration networks. Public Administration Review72:253−62.
33.
LeRouxKellyCarrJered B.. 2010. Prospects for centralizing services in an urban county: Evidence from eight self-organized networks of local public services. Journal of Urban Affairs32:449−70.
34.
LeRouxKellyBrandenburgerPaul W.PandeySanjay K.. 2010. Interlocal service cooperation in U.S. cities: A social network explanation. Public Administration Review70:268−78.
35.
MorleyElaine. 1999. Local government use of alternative service delivery approaches. In Municipal year book 1999, (pp. 34–44). Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
36.
Nebraska Community Foundation. 1998. Summary of southwest Nebraska local government survey. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Community Foundation.
37.
Nebraska Department of Economic Development. 2000. Nebraska project networking guide. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Economic Development.
38.
Nebraska Department of Economic Development. 2013. Community and rural development projects list. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Economic Development.
SmithCraig R. 2009. Institutional determinants of collaboration: An empirical study of county open-space protection. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19:1−21.
46.
ThomsonAnn M.PerryJames L.. 2006. Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review [Supplement] 66:20−32.
47.
ThurmaierKurtWoodCurtis. 2002. Interlocal agreements as overlapping social networks: Picket-fence regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review 62:585−98.
48.
VisserJames A. 2002. Understanding local government cooperation in urban regions: Toward a cultural model of interlocal relations. American Review of Public Administration32:40−65.
49.
WarmDavid. 2011. Local government collaboration for a new decade: Risk, trust, and effectiveness. State and Local Government Review43:60−65.
50.
WarnerMildred E.HefetzAmir. 2008. Managing markets for public service: The role of mixed public-private delivery of city services. Public Administration Review68:155−66.
51.
WeberEdwardKhademianAnne M.. 2008. Managing collaborative processes: Common practices, uncommon circumstances. Administration & Society40:431−64.
52.
WrightDeil S.KraneDale. 1998. Intergovernmental management. In International encyclopedia of public policy and administration, (pp. 1162–1168) ed. ShafritzJ. M.. Boulder, CO: Westview.
53.
ZeemeringEric S. 2012. The problem of democratic anchorage for interlocal agreements. American Review of Public Administration42:87−103.
