Although regionalism has been touted as a possible solution to metropolitan problems such as fiscal equity, economic development, education, poverty, and fair-share housing, it nonetheless is met with great resistance in many communities. Through a survey, this study examines attitudes of 38 public officials in a “rust belt” community toward regionalism as a solution to their community’s problems. Analysis of the results of the survey indicates a belief in the benefits of regionalism and a willingness to consolidate a number of services, with the exception of consolidated planning and education services. Findings also confirm that the two strongest obstacles to regionalism are fear of loss of autonomy and jurisdiction-centered self-interests, while a factor favoring regional cooperation is trust. The overall findings reflect the shift from a Fordist-Keynesian framework to a neoliberal perspective on regionalism.
BasoloVictoria. 2003. “US Regionalism and Rationality.” Urban Studies40:447-62.
2.
BasoloVictoriaHastingsDorian. 2003. “Obstacles to Regional Housing Solutions: A Comparison of Four Metropolitan Areas.” Journal of Urban Affairs25(4):449-72.
3.
BrennerNeil. 2002. “Decoding the Newest ‘Metropolitan Regionalism’ in the USA: A Critical Overview.” Cities19(1):3-21.
4.
BrunoRobert. 1999. Steelworker Alley: How Class Works in Youngstown. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5.
CarrJered. 2008. “Confronting Fiscal Stress in Municipal Governments: Support by Michigan Residents for Eight Common Strategies.”Working Paper No. 38, Working Group on Interlocal Services Cooperation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
6.
CollinsJohn A.1975. “Attitudes towards Regionalism in a Rapid Growth Suburb.” Annals of Regional Science9:32-43.
7.
ElcockHoward. 2003. “Regionalism and Regionalisation in Britain and North America.” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations5(1):74-101.
8.
FreyWilliam H.2010. “New Racial Segregation Measures for States and Large Metropolitan Areas: Analysis of the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.” Retrieved January 14, 2011 (http://censusscope.org/ACS/Segregation.html).
9.
FriskenFrancesNorrisDonald. 2001. “Regionalism Reconsidered.” Journal of Urban Affairs23(5):467-78.
10.
HamiltonDavid K.2000. “Organizing Government Structure and Governance Functions in Metropolitan Areas in Response to Growth and Change: A Critical Overview.” Journal of Urban Affairs22(1):65-84.
11.
LinkonSherry LeeRussoJohn. 2002. Steeltown U.S.A: Work and Memory in Youngstown. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
12.
MaestasCherieNeeleyGrant W.RichardsonLilliard E.Jr.2003. “The State of Surveying Legislators: Dilemmas and Suggestions.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly3(1):90-108.
NorrisDonald F.2001. “Prospects for Regional Governance under the New Regionalism: Economic Imperatives Versus Political Impediments.” Journal of Urban Affairs23(5):557-71.
15.
OakersonRonald J.ParksRoger B.1989. “Local Government Constitutions: A Different View of Metropolitan Governance.” The American Review of Public Administration19(4):279-94.
16.
Ohio Labor Market Information. N.d. “Current Employment Statistics (CES) and the Labor Market Review. Annual Averages with Monthly Data for Ohio & Metropolitan Areas based on the North American Industry Classification System.” Retrieved February 6, 2011 (http://ohiolmi.com/ces/lmr.htm).
17.
OlberdingJulie Cencula. 2002. “Does Regionalism Beget Regionalism? The Relationship between Norms and Regional Partnerships for Economic Development.” Public Administration Review62(4):480-91.
18.
OrfieldMyron. 2007. “Building Regional Coalitions between Cities and Suburbs.” Pp. 323-44 in Growing Smarter: Achieving Livable Communities, Environmental Justice, and Regional Equity, edited by BullardR. D.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
OrfieldMyronLuceThomas. 2001. Ohio’s Mahoning Valley Regional Metropatterns: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Minneapolis, MN: Metropolitan Area Research Corporation.
20.
OstromVincentTieboutCharles M.WarrenRobert. 1961. “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.” The American Political Science Review55(4):831-42.
21.
PastorManuelJr.DreierPeterGrigsbyJ. EugeneIIILopez-GarzaMarta. 2000. Regions That Work: How Cities and Suburbs Can Grow Together. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
22.
PetersonPaul E.1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
PFM Group. 2008. City of Youngstown: A Regional Approach to Economic Development in the Mahoning Valley. Cleveland, OH: Author.
24.
ProvoJohn. 2009. “Risk-averse Regionalism: The Cautionary Tale of Portland, Oregon, and Affordable Housing.” Journal of Planning Education and Research28:368-81.
25.
PutnamRobert D.1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
RosentraubMark S.2000. “City-county Consolidation and the Rebuilding of Image: The Fiscal Lessons from Indianapolis’s UniGov Program.” State and Local Government Review32(3):180-91.
27.
SavitchH. V.CollinsDavidSandersDanielJohnP. Markham. 1993. “Ties That Bind: Central Cities, Suburbs, and the New Metropolitan Region.” Economic Development Quarterly7(4):341-58.
28.
ShresthaManojFeiockRichard. 2007. “Interlocal Cooperation in the Supply of Local Public Goods: A Transaction Cost and Social Exchange Explanation.” Paper No. 29, Working Group on Interlocal Service Cooperation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
29.
SwanstromTodd. 2001. “What We Argue about When We Argue about Regionalism.” Journal of Urban Affairs23(5):479-96.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. N.d.-b. U.S. Census Scope. Population Growth and Population by Race. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved April 4, 2011 (http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_popl.html).
33.
VeyJennifer S.2007. Restoring Prosperity: The State Role in Revitalizing America’s Older Industrial Cities. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
34.
WilliamsO. P.1967. “Lifestyle Values and Political Decentralization in Metropolitan Areas.” Southwest Social Science Quarterly48(4):299-310.
35.
ZeemeringEric. 2006. “City Council Members and the Representation Function in Intergovernmental Decision Making.” Paper no. 33, Working Group on Interlocal Services Cooperation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Retrieved January 25, 2012 (http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/interlocal_coop/33/).
