The article proposes a framework to clarify and specify regional governance, a concept widely used but as yet inadequately formulated for research and practice. Using capacity and purpose rather than governance or governmental forms as a foundation, the framework identifies five dimensions—actor group, agenda, internal capacity, external capacity, and implementation experience—that together describe regional governance for a time, place, and policy goal.
AbbottCarl. 1983. Portland: Planning, politics, and growth in a twentieth century city. Univ. of Nebraska Press.
2.
AbbottCarl. 2000. The capital of good planning: Metropolitan Portland, Oregon since 1970. In The American planning tradition: Culture and policy, edited by FishmanRobert. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center and Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
3.
BarnesWilliam. 2009. Emerging issues: Obama’s urban policy ideas. Nation’s Cities Weekly, July27. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
4.
CookePhilipMorganKevin. 1998. The associational economy: Firms, regions and innovation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
5.
DahlRobert A.1961. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
6.
DeutschKarl W.1963. The nerves of government: Models of political communication and control. New York: Free Press.
7.
DownsAnthony. 1994. New visions for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
8.
FeiockRickCarrJered, eds. 2004. Reshaping the local landscape: Perspective on city county consolidation and its alternatives. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
9.
FosterKathryn A.2000. Regional capital. In Urban-suburban interdependencies, edited by GreensteinRosalindWievielWim. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
10.
FosterKathryn A.2001. Regionalism on purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
11.
GreensteinRosalindWimWiewel, eds., 2000. Urban-suburban interdependencies. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
12.
GreerScott. 1963. Metropolitics: A study of political culture. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
13.
GrissomJason A.2010. The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20 (3): 601-27.
14.
HenryAdam DouglasLubellMarkMcCoyMichael. 2010. Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/08/20/jopart.muq042.abstract (accessed January 6, 2011).
15.
HoogheMarc. 2011. Why there is basically only one form of political trust. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations13 (2): 269-75.
16.
JehnKaren A.MannixElizabeth A.2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal44 (2): 238-51.
KooimanJan. 2003. Governing as governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
LongNorton E.1958. The local community as an ecology of games. American Journal of Sociology64 (3): 251-61.
21.
MasonRobert J.2008. Collaborative land use management: The quieter revolution in place-based planning. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
22.
McKinneyMatthew J.JohnsonShawn. 2009. Working across boundaries: People, nature, and regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
23.
OakersonRonald J.1999. Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
24.
O’Leary-KellyAnne M.MartocchioJoseph J.FrinkDwight D.1994. A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal37 (5): 1285-1301.
25.
OrfieldMyron. 1997. Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Brookings Institution.
26.
PastorManuelJr.BennerChrisMatsuokaMartha. 2009. This could be the start of something big: How social movements for metropolitan equity are reshaping metropolitan America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
27.
PeirceNeal R. with JohnsonCurtis W.HallJohn Stuart. 1993. Citistates: How urban America can prosper in a competitive world. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press.
28.
PeirceNeal. 2010. An era of federal opportunity for cities and regions?www.Citiwire.net, February13.
ProvanKeith G.KenisPatrick. 2008. Modes of network governance: Structure, management and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18 (2): 229-52.
31.
RothblattDonald N.SanctonAndrew, eds. 1998. Metropolitan governance revisited: American/Canadian intergovernmental perspectives. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
32.
SavitchH.V.VogelRonald K.2004. Suburbs without a city: Power and city-county consolidation. Urban Affairs Review39 (6): 758-90.
StoneClarence .1993. Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs15 (1): 1-28.
35.
StoneClarence. 2005. Looking back to look forward: Reflections on urban regime analysis. Urban Affairs Review40 (3): 309-41.
36.
VisserJames A.2002. Understanding local government cooperation in urban regions. American Review of Public Administration32 (1): 40-65.
37.
WalkerDavid B.1987. Snow White and the 17 Dwarfs: From metro cooperation to governance. National Civic Review76 (1): 14-28.
38.
WarrinerCharles K.1965. The problem of organizational purpose. Sociological Quarterly6 (3): 139-143.
39.
WatsonWarren E.KumarKamaleshMichaelsenLarry K.1993. “Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogenous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal36 (3): 590-602.
