4.3 Article

Regionalism With and Without Metropolitanism: Governance Structures of Rural and Non-Rural Regional Intergovernmental Organizations

Journal

AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Volume 51, Issue 2, Pages 155-164

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0275074020939883

Keywords

regionalism; regional governance; rural local governments; collective choice arrangements

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study highlights unexpected empirical similarities between rural and non-rural Regional Intergovernmental Organizations (RIGOs), including the quantity of local governments within their territorial footprint and how representational rights are apportioned to these local governments. This suggests that there are common governance traits across different regions in intergovernmental relations.
While prior scholarship has investigated many tools for regional governance across the rural-to-urban spectrum, the literature on regional organizations (councils of governments, planning district commissions, etc.) has been dominated by metropolitan regions. As a result, we know very little about the plethora of these regional organizations serving rural local governments. The omission of rural regions as a control variable from this conversation limits our ability to determine what traits are truly intergovernmental across this spectrum and what traits are specific to metropolitan and rural regions. Using a new, nationwide database of Regional Intergovernmental Organizations (RIGOs) and original governance documents, I present two unexpected empirical similarities between rural and non-rural RIGOs. First, I demonstrate that the quantity and relative dominance of the local governments within the territorial footprint of rural and non-rural RIGOs are nearly identical when population is held constant. Given the smaller populations within most rural RIGOs, this finding raises serious questions about how limited capacity is diffused and the need for multijurisdictional collaboration in rural areas. Second, I demonstrate that rural and non-rural RIGOs do not substantially differ in the way representational rights are apportioned to local governments on RIGO governing boards. Both rural and non-rural RIGOs similarly balance institutional membership with population proportionality in these collective choice arrangements. This evidence supports a broader intergovernmental hypothesis that an individual local government's representational rights on a RIGO board are more likely to result from relative size differences among members than facets specific to a city-suburb dynamic.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available