01 Jun 1971
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the relationship between metropolitan government and governance taking a few western urban areas as examples and question the apparent success of the ongoing metropolitan experiences, focusing on the political and ideological dimensions of institution-building and the likely conflicts and obstacles unresolved by governance.
Abstract: The failure of top-down imposed institutional reform for metropolitan areas in the western world has called for new conceptions of institution-building. A bottom up, governance type approach is now considered in various countries which focuses on flexible, voluntary and partnership elements of collective action through which institution is no longer considered as a ready-made object but as a process. A large part of the literature insists upon the effectiveness of this approach through the search for consensus and highlights its internal elements as conditions of success. However, this conception forgets the political and ideological dimensions of institution-building and, consequently, the likely conflicts and obstacles unresolved by governance. This article discusses the relationships between metropolitan government and governance taking a few western urban areas as examples and questions the apparent success of the ongoing metropolitan experiences. L’echec des reformes institutionnelles imposees d’en haut dans les regions metropolitaines du monde occidental appelle une nouvelle conception de la formation des institutions. Une approche de type gouvernement, par le bas, centree sur les elements d’action collective flexibles, volontaires et en association, dans laquelle l’institution n’est plus consideree comme un objet tout fait mais comme un processus est maintenant envisagee dans certains pays. Une grande partie de la litterature insiste sur l’efficacite de cette approche par une recherche du consensus et souligne que les elements internes sont la clef du succes. Neanmoins, cette theorie oublie les dimensions politiques et ideologiques de la formation des institutions et, consequemment, les conflits probables et les difficultes non resolues par le gouvernement. Prenant quelques regions urbaines comme exemples, cet essai discute des relations entre gouvernement metropolitain et gouvernance et questionne le succes apparent des experiences metropolitaines en cours.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors employ a comparison group design to jointly assess three theoretical accounts of the source of satisfaction with local government and find an important role for local government efficacy and attachment to the local community.
Abstract: What are the sources of citizen satisfaction with local government? Our answers to this question remain fragmentary due to limits in our tools of investigation which have not been well suited for disentangling individual- and jurisdictional-level determinants of citizens' evaluations and distinguishing these from city-specific effects. We employ a comparison group design to jointly assess three theoretical accounts of the source of satisfaction. The results point to a very understandable account of satisfaction with local government. On the individual's side of the relationship, we find an important role for local government efficacy and attachment to the local community. And on the government,s, our model points to what officials actually do for citizens: provision of some level and quality of services.
01 Jan 2004
TL;DR: Feiock et al. as mentioned in this paper proposed game-theoretic models of metropolitan cooperation and Institutional Collective Action (ICA) in the context of local government boundary change and metropolitan governance.
Abstract: List of Figures and TablesPreface Part One: Theoretical Explorations 1. Introduction: Regionalism and Institutional Collective ActionRichard C. Feiock 2. The Study of Metropolitan GovernanceRonald J. Oakerson 3. Game-Theoretic Models of Metropolitan CooperationAnnette Steinacker 4. Metropolitan Area Governance and Institutional Collective ActionStephanie S. Post Part Two: Empirical Investigations 5. An Old Debate Confronts New Realities: Large Suburbs and Economic Development in the MetropolisPaul G. Lewis 6. Courting Business: Competition for Economic Development among CitiesMartin Johnson and Max Neiman 7. Institutional Collective Action: Social Capital and the Formation of Regional Partnerships Richard C. Feiock, Jill Tao, and Linda Johnson 8. Metropolitan Structure and the Sex BusinessElaine B. Sharp 9. Charter Schools as a Tool to Reform Local Schools by Transforming GovernanceMark Schneider and Jack Buckley 10. Whose Game Do We Play? Local Government Boundary Change and Metropolitan GovernanceJered B. Carr 11. Concluding Thoughts: Regionalism, Urban Politics, and GovernanceRichard C. Feiock ContributorsIndex
TL;DR: In this paper, an investigation of data collected for a large number of metropolitan areas in 1960 reveals a number of variables associated with inequality in the distribution of fiscal resources among municipalities in metropolitan areas, including location in the South, age, size and density of the metropolis, nonwhite concentration, family income inequality, residential segregation among social classes, housing segregation by quality, and governmental fragmentation.
Abstract: The political incorporation and municipal segregation of classes and status groups in the metropolis tend to divorce fiscal resources from public needs and to create and perpetuate inequality among urban residents in the United States. An investigation of data collected for a large number of metropolitan areas in 1960 reveals a number of variables associated with inequality in the distribution of fiscal resources among municipalities in metropolitan areas. The level of income inequality among municipal governments in metropolitan areas varies directly with: location in the South; age, size and density of the metropolis; nonwhite concentration; family income inequality; residential segregation among social classes; housing segregation by quality; and governmental fragmentation. The data provide support for the argument that governmental inequality occupies a central position in the urban stratification system.