Interjurisdictional policy problems have facilitated both interlocal cooperation and opportunities for self-interested behavior from local governments. However, intergovernmental management (IGM) approaches shape how local governments interact with each other and how much influence local managerial efforts have on policy outcomes. After identifying three IGM models used to manage air quality, analyses of local managerial perceptions indicate that some approaches facilitate more cooperation and organizational efficacy than others through structuring responsibilities in Clean Air Act policy implementation. Conclusions suggest that approaches to IGM are important in shaping how managers perceive efforts to manage complex policy problems.
AgranoffRobert. 2001. Managing within the matrix: Do collaborative intergovernmental relatives exist?Publius31:31–56.
2.
AgranoffRobertMcGuireMichael. 1998. A Jurisdiction-based model of intergovernmental management in U.S. Cities. Publius28:1–20.
3.
AgranoffRobertMcGuireMichael. 2001. American federalism and the search for models of management. Public Administration Review61:671–81.
4.
AllikJuriRealoAnu. 2004. Individualism-collectivism and social capital. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology35:29–49.
5.
AndrewsRhysEntwistleTom. 2010. Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory20:679–701.
6.
BeldenRoy S.2001. The Clean Air Act. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, Section on Environmental, Energy, and Resources.
7.
ChenYu-ChenThurmaierKurt. 2009. Interlocal agreements as collaborations: An empirical investigation of impetuses, norms, and success. American Review of Public Administration39:536–52.
8.
ConlanTim. 2006. From cooperative to opportunistic federalism: Reflections on the half-century anniversary of the commission on intergovernmental relations. Public Administration Review66:663–76.
9.
EmisonGeraldMorrisJohn. 2010. Speaking green with a southern accent. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
10.
FeiockRichard C.ScholtzJohn T.2009. Self-organizing governance of institutional collective action dilemmas: An overview. In Self-organizing federalism: Collective mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas, ed. FeiockR. C.ScholtzJ. T., 3–32. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FowlerLuke. 2013. Measuring organization: Performance in environmental agencies. International Journal of Organizational Theory & Behavior16:324–58.
12.
FowlerLuke. 2016. Local governments: The “Hidden Partners” of air quality management. State & Local Government Review48:175–88.
13.
FowlerLuke. 2018. When need meets opportunity: Expanding local air networks. American Review of Public Administration48:219–31.
14.
GofenAnat. 2013. Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory24:473–93.
15.
GraddyElizabeth A.ChenBin. 2006. Influences on the size and scope of networks for social service delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory16:533–52.
16.
KoniskyDavid M.WoodsNeal D.. 2010. Exporting air pollution? Regulatory enforcement and environmental free riding in the US. Political Research Quarterly63:771–83.
17.
KwonSung-WookFeiockRichard C.. 2010. Overcoming the barriers to cooperation: Intergovernmental service agreements. Public Administration Review70:876–84.
18.
LesterJames P.1995. Environmental policy and politics: Theories and evidence, 2nd ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
19.
LesterJ. P.LombardEmmett N.. 1998. Environmental regulation and state-local relations. In Governing partners: State-local relations in the United States, ed. HansenR. L., 139–60. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
20.
LipskyMichael. 2010. Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
21.
LundinMartin. 2007. When does cooperation improve public policy implementation?Policy Studies Journal35:629–52.
22.
McGuireMichael. 2006. Intergovernmental management: A view from the bottom. Public Administration Review66:677–79.
National Association of Clean Air Agencies. 2017. Find a state or local agency. http://www.4cleanair.org/agencies (accessed February 1, 2017).
25.
O’TooleLaurence J.ChristensenRobert K.. 2012. American intergovernmental relations: Foundations, perspectives, and issues, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
26.
PotoskiMatthewWoodsNeal D.. 2002. Dimensions of state environmental polices: Air pollution regulation in the United States. Policy Studies Journal30:208–27.
27.
ProvanKeith G.LemaireRobin H.. 2012. Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review72:638–48.
28.
ReedDouglas S.2014. Building the federal schoolhouse. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
RingquistEvan J.1993a. Does regulation matter? Evaluating the effects of state air pollution control programs. Journal of Politics55:1022–45.
30.
RingquistEvan J.1993b. Environmental protection at the state level. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
31.
ScicchitanoMichael J.HedgeDavid M.. 1993. From coercion to partnership in federal partial preemption: SMCRA, RCRA, and OSH Act. Publius23:107–121.
32.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017a. Air Data. http://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ (accessed February 1, 2017).
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
