Interlocal service delivery networks have become a prominent subject within the urban governance literature, with significant scholarly attention being focused on the political, legal, and demographic characteristics that influence an organization’s decision to join a collaboration network. However, despite being a theoretically significant factor, few analyses have examined the role that service-function type plays in shaping these networks. This research note replicates and extends previous tests of the hypothesized relationship between service-function type and network structure by relying on a comprehensive 25-year data set of interlocal agreements from the state of Iowa. Using hierarchical linear modeling, the positive relationship between networks of system maintenance service-functions and network centralization is confirmed after controlling for the significant moderating effect of time. This more-generalized finding enhances our understanding of when local governments use service networks to solve public problems and potentially carries important implications for the relationship between network governance and policy performance.
AndrewSimon A.2009. “Recent Developments in the Study of Interjurisdictional Agreements: An Overview and Assessment.” State and Local Government Review41 (2): 133–42. doi:10.1177/0160323X0904100208.
2.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.2017. “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by WeibleChristopher M.SabatierPaul A.BaumgartnerFrank R., 4th ed., 253–97. New York: Westview Press.
3.
BrassDaniel J.GalaskiewiczJosephGreveHenrich R.TsaiWenpin. 2004. “Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal47 (6): 795–817. doi:10.5465/20159624.
4.
BrownT. L.PotoskiMatthew. 2003. “Transaction Costs and Institutional Explanations for Government Service Production Decisions.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory13 (4): 441–68. doi:10.1093/jopart/mug030.
5.
CarrJered B.HawkinsChristopher V.WestbergDrew E.2017. “An Exploration of Collaboration Risk in Joint Ventures: Perceptions of Risk by Local Economic Development Officials.” Economic Development Quarterly31 (3): 210–27. doi:10.1177/0891242417710325.
6.
CarrJered B.SicilianoMichael D.HuggVictor G.2018. “Macro Explorations of Network Composition and Change in Intergovernmental Service Agreements.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 5.
7.
ChenSsu-HsienFeiockRichard C.HsiehJun Yi. 2016. “Regional Partnerships and Metropolitan Economic Development.” Journal of Urban Affairs38 (2): 196–213. doi:10.1111/juaf.12183.
FeiockRichard C.SteinackerAnnetteParkHyung Jun. 2009. “Institutional Collective Action and Economic Development Joint Ventures.” Public Administration Review69 (2): 256–70. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01972.x.
10.
FredericksonH. George. 1999. “The Repositioning of American Public Administration.” PS: Political Science & Politics32 (4): 701–11. doi:10.2307/420159.
11.
FreemanLinton C.1978. “Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification.” Social Networks1 (3): 215–39. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.
12.
GainsboroughJuliet F.2001. “Bridging the City-Suburb Divide: States and the Politics of Regional Cooperation.” Journal of Urban Affairs23 (5): 497–512. doi:10.1111/0735-2166.00103.
13.
JulnesGeorgePindurWolfgang. 1994. “Determinants of Local Governmental Support for Alternative Forms of Regional Coordination.” American Review of Public Administration24 (4): 411–28. doi:10.1177/027507409402400405.
14.
KolibaChristopherMeekJack W.ZiaAsim. 2010. Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. Public Administration and Public Policy 158. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
15.
KwonSung-WookFeiockRichard C.2010. “Overcoming the Barriers to Cooperation: Intergovernmental Service Agreements.” Public Administration Review70 (6): 876–84. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02219.x.
16.
LamotheScottLamotheMeeyoungFeiockRichard C.2008. “Examining Local Government Service Delivery Arrangements over Time.” Urban Affairs Review44 (1): 27–56. doi:10.1177/1078087408315801.
17.
LeeYoungmiLeeIn WonFeiockRichard C.2012. “Interorganizational Collaboration Networks in Economic Development Policy: An Exponential Random Graph Model Analysis.” Policy Studies Journal40 (3): 547–73. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00464.x.
18.
LeRouxKellyBrandenburgerPaul W.PandeySanjay K.2010. “Interlocal Service Cooperation in U.S. Cities: A Social Network Explanation.” Public Administration Review70 (2): 268–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02133.x.
19.
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 (4): 449–70. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00512.x.
20.
LubellMark. 2013. “Governing Institutional Complexity: The Ecology of Games Framework: The Ecology of Games Framework.” Policy Studies Journal41 (3): 537–59. doi:10.1111/psj.12028.
21.
MoolenaarNienke M.SleegersPeter J. C.DalyAlan J.2012. “Teaming Up: Linking Collaboration Networks, Collective Efficacy, and Student Achievement.” Teaching and Teacher Education28 (2): 251–62. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001.
22.
MusgraveRichard A.1959. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
NorrisDonald F.2001. “Prospects for Regional Governance Under the New Regionalism: Economic Imperatives Versus Political Impediments.” Journal of Urban Affairs23 (5): 557–71. doi:10.1111/0735-2166.00106.
24.
PaganoMichael A.1999. “Metropolitan Limits: Intrametropolitan Disparities and Governance in U.S. Laboratories of Democracy.” In Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America, edited by AltshulerAlan A.MorrillWilliamWolmanHaroldMitchellFaith, 253–95. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25.
ParkJongsunFeiockRichard C.2012. “Stability and Change in County Economic Development Organizations.” Economic Development Quarterly26 (1): 3–12. doi:10.1177/0891242411431449.
26.
PetersonPaul E.1981. City Limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
27.
PostStephanie S.2004. “Metropolitan Area Governance and Institutional Collective Action.” In Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation, edited by FeiockRichard C., 67–92. American Government and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
28.
ProvanKeith G.KenisPatrick. 2007. “Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18 (2): 229–52. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum015.
29.
ProvanKeith G.MilwardBrinton H.1995. “A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly40 (1): 1–33. doi:10.2307/2393698.
30.
ProvanKeith G.MilwardBrinton H.2001. “Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks.” Public Administration Review61 (4): 414–23. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00045.
31.
RawlingsLynette A.2003. “The Determinants of Cooperation Among Local Governments in Metropolitan Areas.” PhD dissertation. George Washington Univ.
32.
SavitchH. V.VogelRonald K.2000. “Introduction: Paths to New Regionalism.” State and Local Government Review32 (3): 158–68. doi:10.1177/0160323X0003200301.
33.
ShresthaManoj K.FeiockRichard C.2009. “Governing U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Self-organizing and Multiplex Service Networks.” American Politics Research37 (5): 801–23. doi:10.1177/1532673X09337466.
34.
SicilianoMichael D.2017. “Professional Networks and Street-Level Performance: How Public School Teachers’ Advice Networks Influence Student Performance.” American Review of Public Administration47 (1): 79–101. doi:10.1177/0275074015577110.
35.
ThurmaierKurtWoodCurtis. 2002. “Interlocal Agreements as Overlapping Social Networks: Picket-Fence Regionalism in Metropolitan Kansas City.” Public Administration Review62 (5): 585–98. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00239.
36.
VisserJames A.2002. “Understanding Local Government Cooperation in Urban Regions: Toward a Cultural Model of Interlocal Relations.” American Review of Public Administration32 (1): 40–65. doi:10.1177/0275074002032001003.
37.
WassermanStanleyFaustKatherine. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
38.
WeirMargaretWolmanHaroldSwanstromTodd. 2005. “The Calculus of Coalitions: Cities, Suburbs, and the Metropolitan Agenda.” Urban Affairs Review40 (6): 730–60. doi:10.1177/1078087405276200.
39.
WilliamsOliver P.1971. Metropolitan Political Analysis: A Social Process Approach. New York: Free Press.
40.
WoodCurtis. 2006. “Scope and Patterns of Metropolitan Governance in Urban America: Probing the Complexities in the Kansas City Region.” American Review of Public Administration36 (3): 337–53. doi:10.1177/0275074005284071.
41.
YiHongtao. 2018. “Network Structure and Governance Performance: What Makes a Difference?” Public Administration Review78 (2): 195–205. doi:10.1111/puar.12886.
42.
ZeemeringEric S.2012. “The Problem of Democratic Anchorage for Interlocal Agreements.” American Review of Public Administration42 (1): 87–103. doi:10.1177/0275074010397532.
