The “rules of the game” embodied in municipal government institutions constrain as well as provide opportunities for local government officials to capture individual benefits related to policy action. Whether the projected benefits of cooperation are localized or community-wide are hypothesized to combine with the political incentives produced under different forms of government to influence the likelihood local officials will enter into an economic development joint venture with other local governments. Analysis pooling survey data from the same cities at two time points provides evidence that prior agreements influence future cooperative actions and that joint ventures are more likely when there are localized benefits combined with mayor—council government, or when broader benefits are pursued under manager—council form of government.
Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations. ( 1983). Intergovernmental service arrangements for delivering for delivering local public services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. ( 2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local government. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
3.
Andrew, S. ( 2009). Regional integration through contracting networks: An empirical analysis of institutional collection action framework. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 378-402.
Berardo, R. ( 2010). Sustaining joint ventures: The role of resource exchange and the strength of network relationships. In R. Feiock & J. Sholtz (Eds.), Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (pp. 204-229). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Bickers, K., Post, S., & Stein, R. ( 2010). The political market for intergovernmental cooperation . In R. Feiock & J. Sholtz (Eds.), Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (pp. 161-179). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Blodgett, T. ( 1996). Current city-county consolidation attempts. Washington, DC: National Association of Counties.
8.
Bollens, S.A. ( 1997). Fragments of regionalism: The limits of southern California governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19, 105-122.
9.
Carr, J.B., & Feiock, R.C. ( 1999). Metropolitan government and economic development. Urban Affairs Review, 34, 476-488.
10.
Carr, J. B., & Feiock, R. C. (Eds.). (2004). Reshaping the local landscape: Perspectives on city-county consolidation and its alternatives. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
11.
Clarke, S.E. ( 1998). Economic development roles in American cities: A contextual analysis of shifting partnership arrangements. In N. Walzer & B. D. Jacobs (Eds.), Public-private partnerships for local economic development (pp. 19-45). Westport, CT: Praeger.
12.
Clarke, S.E., & Gaile, G.L. ( 1998). The work of cities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
Clarke, S.E., & Rich, M.J. ( 1985). Making money work: The new urban policy arena. In T. N. Clark (Ed.), Research in urban policy Vol. 1. Coping with urban austerity (pp. 101-115). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
14.
Clingermayer, J. ( 1985). Choice of constituency and representation in urban politics . Mid-American Journal of Politics, 2, 100-109.
15.
Clingermayer, J.C., & Feiock, R.C. ( 2001). Institutional constraints and policy choice: An exploration of local governance. Albany: State University of New York Press.
16.
Clingermayer, J.C., & Feiock, R.C. ( 1990). The adoption of four economic development policies in large cities. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 539-552.
17.
Coleman, J.C. ( 1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
Eisinger, P. ( 1995). State economic development in the 1990s. Economic Development Quarterly, 9, 146-158.
19.
Feiock, R.C. ( 2004). Introduction: Regionalism and institutional collective action. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition and cooperation (pp. 3-17). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Feiock, R.C., & Cable, G. ( 1992). Need, institutional arrangements, and economic development policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 2, 387-398.
22.
Feiock, R.C., & Clingermayer, J.C. (1986). Municipal representation, executive power, and economic development policy activity. Policy Studies Journal, 15, 211-229.
23.
Feiock, R.C., Jeong, M., & Kim, J. ( 2003). Credible commitment and council-manager government: Implications for policy instrument choices. Public Administration Review , 63, 616-625.
24.
Feiock, R.C., & Kim, J. ( 2001). Form of government, administrative organization, and local economic development policy. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, 11, 29-49.
25.
Feiock, R.C., Lee, I., Park, H.J., & Lee, K. ( 2010). Collaboration networks among local elected officials: Information, commitment, and risk aversionUrban Affairs Review , 45. doi:10.1177/1078087409360509.
26.
Feiock, R.C., Moon, M.J., & Park, H.J. ( 2008). Is the world "flat", or "spiky"? Rethinking the governance implications of globalization for economic development. Public Administration Review, 68, 24-35.
27.
Feiock, R.C., & Scholz, J.T. ( 2010). Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Feiock, R.C., Steinacker, A., & Park, H.J. ( 2009). Institutional collective action and economic development joint ventures. Public Administration Review, 69, 256-270.
Frant, H. ( 1996). High-powered and low-powered incentives in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 6, 365-381.
31.
Goetz, E.G., & Kayser, T. ( 1993). Competition and cooperation in economic development: A study of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Economic Development Quarterly, 7, 63-78.
32.
Green, G.P., & Fleischmann, A. (1991). Promoting economic development: A comparison of central cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan communities. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 27, 145-154.
33.
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. ( 1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1439-1493.
34.
Gulati, R., & Singh, H. ( 1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 781-814.
35.
Hawkins, C. ( 2009). Prospects for and barriers to local government joint ventures. State and Local Government Review, 41, 108-119.
36.
Hawkins, C.(2010) Cooperation and competition: Joint ventures for economic development . Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 253-275.
37.
Heckathorn, D.D., & Maser, S.M. ( 1987). Bargaining and constitutional contracts. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 142-168.
38.
Johnson, M., & Neiman, M. ( 2004). Courting business: Competition for economic development among cities. In R. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition and cooperation (pp. 124-146). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
39.
Kresl, P.K. ( 1995). The determinants of urban competitiveness: A survey. In P. K. Kresl & G. Gappert (Eds.), North American cities and the global economy: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 45-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
Lineberry, R.L. & Fowler, E.P. ( 1967). Reformism and public policies inAmerican cities. American Political Science Review, 41, 701-716.
41.
Lewis, P.G. ( 1998). Regionalism and representation: Measuring and assessing representation in metropolitan planning organizations. Urban Affairs Review, 33, 839-854.
42.
Long, J.S. ( 1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
43.
Lubell, M., Schneider, M., Scholz, J., & Mete, M. ( 2002). Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science , 46, 148-63.
44.
McCabe, B.C., & Feiock, R.C. ( 2005). Nested levels of institutions: State rules and city property taxes. Urban Affairs Review, 40, 634-654.
45.
McCabe, B.C., Feiock, R.C., Clingermayer, J.C., & Stream, C. ( 2008). Turnover among city managers: The role of political and economic change. Public Administration Review, 68, 380-386.
46.
Morgan, D., & Hirlinger, M. ( 1991). Intergovernmental service agreements: A multivariate explanation. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 27, 128-144.
47.
Neiman, M., & Fernandez, K. ( 1999). Measuring local economic development policy and the influence of economic conditions. International Journal of Economic Development, 1, 311-339.
48.
Nelson, K.L., & Svara, J.H. ( 2010). Adaptation of models versus variations in form: Classifying structures of city government. Urban Affairs Review, 45, 544-562.
49.
North, D. ( 1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Oakerson, R.J., & Parks, R.B. ( 1988). Citizen voice and public entrepreneurship: The organizational dynamic of a complex metropolitan county. Publius, 18, 99-112.
51.
Olberding, J.C. ( 2002). Diving into the "third waves" of regional governance and economic development strategies: A study of regional partnerships for economic development in U.S. metropolitan areas. Economic Development Quarterly, 16, 251-272.
52.
Ostrom, E. ( 1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Ostrom, E. ( 2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
Parks, R.B., & Oakerson, R. ( 1989). Metropolitan organization and governance: A local economy approach. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25, 18-29.
55.
Peterson, P.E. ( 1981). The city limits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
56.
Post, S.S. ( 2002, September). Local government cooperation: The relationship between metropolitan area government geography and service provision. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
57.
Post, S. ( 2004). Metropolitan area governance and institutional collective action. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation (pp. 67-92). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
58.
Putnam, R.D. ( 1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
Reese, L.A., & Fasenfest, D. ( 1996). More of the same: A research note on local economic development policies over time. Economic Development Quarterly, 10, 280-289.
60.
Rondinelli, D.A., Johnson, J.H., Jr., & Kasarda, J.D. ( 1998). The changing forces of urban economic development: Globalization and city competitiveness in the 21st century. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 3, 71-105.
61.
Ruhil, A., Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Ji, B. ( 1999). Institutions and reform: Reinventing local government . Urban Affairs Review, 34, 433-455.
62.
Schneider M., Teske, P., & Mintrom, M. ( 1995). Public entrepreneurs: Agents for change in American government . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
Sharp, E.B. ( 1991). Institutional manifestations of accessibility and urban economic development policy. Western Political Quarterly. 44, 129-147.
64.
Sharp, E.B. ( 1997). A comparative anatomy of urban social conflict, Political Research Quarterly, 50, 261-280.
65.
Shepsle, K.A., & Weingast, B.R. (1984). The institutional foundations of committee power. American Political Science Review, 81, 85-104.
66.
Shrestha, M. ( 2010). Do risk profiles of public goods alter contractual patterns? A comparison of six metropolitan services. In R. C. Feiock & J. T. Scholz (Eds.), Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (pp. 114-152). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
67.
Stein, R.M. ( 1990). Urban alternatives: Public and private markets in the provision of local services. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
68.
Steinacker, A. ( 2004). Game-theoretic models of metropolitan cooperation. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation (pp. 46-66). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
69.
Steinacker, A. ( 2010). The institutional collective action perspective on self-organizing mechanisms: Market failures and transaction cost problems. In R. C. Feiock & J. T. Scholz (Eds.), Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (pp. 51-73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
70.
Thurmaier, K., & Wood, C. ( 2002). Interlocal agreements as overlapping social networks: Picket fence regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review, 62, 585-598.
71.
Visser, J.A. ( 2002). Understanding local government cooperation in urban regions: Toward a cultural model of interposal relations. American Review of Public Administration, 32, 40-65.
72.
Williams, O.P. ( 1967). Life-style values and political decentralization in metropolitan areas. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 48, 299-310.
73.
Zhang, Y., & Feiock, R.C. ( 2010). City managers’ policy leadership in council-manager cities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory . doi:10.1093/jopart/mup015
