Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
The Nature Of Metropolitan Governance In Urban America: A Study Of Cooperation, Conflict, And Avoidance In The Kansas City Region, Curtis H. Wood
The Nature Of Metropolitan Governance In Urban America: A Study Of Cooperation, Conflict, And Avoidance In The Kansas City Region, Curtis H. Wood
Working Group on Interlocal Services Cooperation
In this study I determine the dominant pattern of governance in the Kansas City metro based on interviews with 46 city administrative officers in cities over 2,500 in population. Consistent with theories of cooperation, I found that the dominant governance strategy is intergovernmental cooperation in the delivery of public services punctuated by conflict and avoidance/defection when intergovernmental service delivery arrangements involve infrequent interaction between the parties and when the presence and influence of the regional council of government is minimal.
Public Administration And Shared Power: Understanding Governance, Networks, And Partnerships, H. George Frederickson, David Matkin
Public Administration And Shared Power: Understanding Governance, Networks, And Partnerships, H. George Frederickson, David Matkin
Working Group on Interlocal Services Cooperation
Starting with the “consolationist” and “fragmentationist” arguments in American local government and contemporary patterns of increasing jurisdictional cooperation and regionalization, this paper examines patterns of jurisdictional cooperation and power sharing in metropolitan regions, and analyses the influence of extrajurisdictional benefits on local government decisions to engage in regional agreements. Our findings are based on a survey of local government officials in the Kansas City Metropolitan area. Cooperation is examined using an Axelrod-type prisoner’s dilemma scenario. Participants include elected officials, chief administrative officers, and department-level administrators—Police Chiefs, Parks and Recreation Directors, Fire Chiefs, and Public Works Directors. Results point to differences …