The use of interlocal agreements for the delivery of public services has expanded in recent years. Prior studies show that county governments are well positioned to exercise leadership in the development of interlocal cooperation. Theories of public entrepreneurship and institutional collective action can help us better understand when county government leaders pursue new interlocal agreements or shared service delivery projects. Using a survey of county leaders in five states, this research outlines several hypotheses linking institutional context to county leaders’ roles in the expansion of interlocal cooperation. The survey identifies distinct patterns of support for preparing for interlocal cooperation inside the county and reaching out to other local governments. The findings highlight the need for new research about counties’ internal preparation for interlocal cooperation as well as managers’ tolerance for entrepreneurship and risk.
AbernathyCharles R. 2012. The consolidation of local government services: The incidence and practice of service delivery consolidation in North Carolina. Public Administration Quarterly36 :42–83.
2.
AndrewSimon A.2009. Recent developments in the study of interjurisdictional agreements: An overview and assessment. State and Local Government Review41:133–42.
3.
BentonJ. Edwin. 2002. Counties as service delivery agents: Changing expectations and roles. Westport, CT: Praeger.
4.
BentonJ. Edwin. 2005. An assessment of research on American counties. Public Administration Review65:462–74.
5.
BermanDavid R.SalantTanis J.. 1996. The changing role of counties in the intergovernmental system. In The American county: Frontiers of knowledge (pp. 19–33), ed. MenzelD. C.. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
6.
BernierLucHafsiTaïeb. 2007. The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review67:488–503.
7.
BoyneGeorge A.1998. The determinants of the variations in local service contracting: Garbage in, garbage out?Urban Affairs Review34:150–63.
8.
BrownTrevor L.2008. The dynamics of government-to-government contracts. Public Performance & Management Review31:364–86.
9.
CarrJered B.GerberElisabeth R.LupherEric W.. 2009. Explaining horizontal and vertical cooperation on public services in Michigan: The role of local fiscal capacity. In Sustaining Michigan: Metropolitan policies and strategies (pp. 207–235), ed. JelierR.SandsG.. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
10.
CarrJered B.LeRouxKellyShresthaManoj. 2009. Institutional ties, transaction costs, and external service production. Urban Affairs Review44:403–27.
11.
CiglerBeverly A.1999. Pre-conditions for the emergence of multicommunity collaborative organizations. Policy Studies Review16:86–102.
12.
ClingermayerJames C.FeiockRichard C.. 2001. Institutional constraints and policy choice: An exploration of local governance. Albany: State University of New York Press.
13.
ClingermayerJames C.FeiockRichard C.StreamChristopher. 2003. Governmental uncertainty and leadership turnover: Influences on contracting and sector choice for local services. State and Local Government Review35:150–60.
14.
ConsidineMarkLewisJenny M.AlexanderDamon. 2009. Networks, innovation and public policy: Politicians, bureaucrats and the pathways to change inside government. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
DahlRobert A.TufteEdward R.. 1973. Size and democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
DeVellisRobert F.2003. Scale development: Theory and applications, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DillmanDon A.2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley.
18.
FeiockRichard C. 2008. Institutional collective action and local government collaboration. In Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 195–210), ed. BinghamL. B.O'LearyR.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
FeiockRichard C.SteinackerAnnetteParkHyung-Jun. 2009. Institutional collective action and economic development joint ventures. Public Administration Review69:256–70.
21.
FeiockRichard C.StreamChristopher. 1998. Explaining the tenure of local government managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8:117–30.
22.
FeiockRichard C.ClingerJames C.ShresthaManojDasseCarl. 2007. Contracting and sector choice across municipal services. State and Local Government Review39:72–83.
23.
FeiockRichard C.ScholzJohn T.. 2010. Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
FredericksonGeorge H.1999. The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science & Politics32:701–11.
25.
FriesemaH. Paul. 1971. Metropolitan political structure: Intergovernmental relations and political integration in the Quad-Cities. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
26.
KimJae-onMuellerCharles W.. 1978. Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
27.
KleinPeter G.MahoneyJoseph T.McGahanAnita M.PitelisChristos N.. 2010. Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review7:1–15.
28.
KruegerSkipBernickEthan. 2010. State rules and local governance choices. Publius: The Journal of Federalism40:697–718.
29.
KwonSung-WookFeiockRichard C.. 2010. Overcoming the barriers to cooperation: Intergovernmental service agreements. Public Administration Review70:876–84.
30.
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.
31.
LeRouxKellyBrandenburgerPaul W.PandeySanjay K.. 2010. Interlocal service cooperation in U.S. cities: A social network explanation. Public Administration Review70:268–78.
32.
LeRouxKellyPandeySanjay K.. 2011. City managers, career incentives, and municipal service decisions: The effects of managerial progressive ambition on interlocal service delivery. Public Administration Review71:627–36.
33.
MarandoVincent L.1968. Inter-local cooperation in a metropolitan area: Detroit. Urban Affairs Quarterly4:185–200.
34.
MatkinDavid S. T.FredericksonH. George. 2009. Metropolitan governance: Institutional roles and interjurisdictional cooperation. Journal of Urban Affairs31:45–66.
35.
MenzelDonald C., ed. 1996. The American county: Frontiers of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
36.
MillerGary J.1981. Cities by contract: The politics of municipal incorporation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
MooreMarkHartleyJean. 2008. Innovations in governance. Public Management Review10:3–20.
38.
MorganDavid R.HirlingerMichael W.. 1991. Intergovernmental service contracts: A multivariate explanation. Urban Affairs Quarterly27:128–44.
39.
MorganDavid R.HirlingerMichael W.EnglandRobert E.. 1988. The decision to contract out city services: A further explanation. The Western Political Quarterly41:363–72.
40.
MorseRicardo S.2010. Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public value. The Leadership Quarterly21:231–45.
41.
OakersonRonald J.1999. Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
42.
OstromVincentTieboutCharles M.WarrenRobert. 1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review55:831–42.
43.
PalumboDennisMushenoMichaelMaynard-MoodySteven. 1986. Public sector entrepreneurs: The shakers and doers of program innovation. In Performance and credibility: Developing excellence in public and nonprofit organizations (pp. 69–82), ed. WholeyJ. S.AbramsonM. A.BellavitaC.. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
44.
PaquetGilles. 2005. The new geo-governance: A baroque approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
45.
ParksRoger B.1991. Counties in the federal system: The interlocal connection. Intergovernmental Perspective17:28–32.
46.
PierreJon, ed. 2000. Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
RobertsNancy C.1992. Public entrepreneurship and innovation. Review of Policy Research11:55–74.
48.
SalamonLester M., ed. 2002. The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
SchneiderMarkParkKee Ok. 1989. Metropolitan counties as service delivery agents: The still forgotten governments. Public Administration Review49:345–52.
50.
SchneiderMarkTeskePaulMintromMichael. 1995. Public entrepreneurs: Agents for change in American government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
SonenblumSidneyKirlinJohn J.RiesJohn C.. 1977. How cities provide services: An evaluation of alternative delivery structures. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
52.
SteinRobert M.1990. Urban alternatives: Public and private markets in the provision of local services. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
53.
SvaraJames H. 1996. Leadership and professionalism in county government. In The American county: Frontiers of knowledge (pp. 109–127), ed. MenzelD.. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
54.
TeskePaulSchneiderMark. 1994. The bureaucratic entrepreneur: The case of city managers. Public Administration Review54:331–40.
55.
ThomasCraig W.1997. Public management as interagency cooperation: Testing epistemic community theory at the domestic level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory7:221–46.
56.
ThurmaierKurtWoodCurtis. 2002. Interlocal agreements as overlapping social network: Picket-fence regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review62:585–98.
57.
TourangeauRogerRipsLance J.RasinskiKenneth. 2000. The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.
58.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1981. Measuring local discretionary authority. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
59.
WarnerMildred E.HefetzAmir. 2002. Applying market solutions to public services: An assessment of efficiency, equity and voice. Urban Affairs Review38:70–89.
60.
WarnerMildred E.HefetzAmir. 2009. Cooperative competition: Alternative service delivery, 2002-2007. In Municipal Year Book 2009. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
61.
WikstromNelson. 2002. The city in the regional mosaic. In The future of local government administration: The Hansell symposium (pp. 21–38), ed. FredericksonH. G.NalbandianJ.. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
62.
WoodCurtis. 2008. The nature of metropolitan governance in urban America: A study of cooperation and conflict in the Kansas City region. Administration & Society40:483–501.
63.
ZeemeringEric S.2009. California county administrators as sellers and brokers of interlocal cooperation. State and Local Government Review41:166–81.
64.
ZeemeringEric S.2012. The problem of democratic anchorage for interlocal agreements. American Review of Public Administration42:87–103.
