Self‐Organizing Governance of Local Economic Development: Informal Policy Networks And Regional Institutions

REFERENCES

• Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ahn, T. K., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Social capital and collective action. In D. Castiglione, J. van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 70–100). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andrew, S. A. (2009). Regional integration through contracting networks: An empirical analysis of institutional collection action framework. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 378–402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew, S. A. (2010). Adaptive versus restrictive contracts: Can they resolve different risk problems? In R. Feiock & J. Scholz (Eds.), Self‐organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (pp. 91–113). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andrew, S. A., & Carr, J. (2013). Mitigating uncertainty and risk in planning for regional preparedness: The role of bonding and bridging relationships, Urban Studies, 40, 709–724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew, S., & Hawkins, C. V. (2012). Regional cooperation and multilateral agreements in the provision of public safety. American Review of Public Administration, 43, 460–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berardo, R. (2009). Processing complexity in networks: A study of informal collaboration and its effect on organizational success. Policy Studies Journal, 37, 521–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berardo, R. (2010). The role of resource exchange and the strength of interorganizational relationships. In R. Feiock & J. Scholz (Eds.), Self‐organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (pp. 204–228). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berardo, R., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self‐organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 632–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickers, K. N., Salucci, L., & Stein, R. M. (2006). Assessing the micro‐foundations of the Tiebout model. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 57–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, J. B., Bae, S., & Lu, W. (2006). City‐county government and promises of economic development: A tale of two cities. State and Local Government Review, 38, 259–269.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, J. B., & Feiock, R. C. (1999). Metropolitan government and economic development. Urban Affairs Review, 34, 476–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, J. B., & Hawkins, C. V. (2013). The costs of cooperation: What the research tells us about managing the risks of service collaborations in the U.S. State and Local Government Review, 45, 224–239.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, J. B., LeRoux, K., & Shrestha, M. (2009). Institutional ties, transaction costs, and external service production. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 403–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S., Feiock, R., & Hsieh, J. (2016). Regional partnerships and metropolitan economic development. Journal of Urban Affairs, 38, 196–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dekker, D., Krackhardt, D., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2007). Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika, 72, 563–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feiock, R. C. (2004). Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition and cooperation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feiock, R. C. (2007). Rational choice and regional governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29, 47–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feiock, R. (2009). Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 356–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feiock, R. C. (2013). The institutional collective action framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 397–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feiock, R. C., Lee, I. W., Park, H. J., & Lee, K. (2010). Collaboration networks among local elected officials: Information, commitment, and risk aversion. Urban Affairs Review, 46, 241–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feiock, R. C., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self‐organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas: An overview. In R. C. Feiock & J. T. Scholz (Eds.), Self‐organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frederickson, G. H. (1999). The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, 701–711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedkin, N. E. (1980). A test of structural features of Granovetter's strength of weak ties theory. Social Networks, 2, 411–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, E. R., Henry, A. D., & Lubell, M. (2013). Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 598–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, V. (2009). Perceptions of regional economic development: Can win‐lose become win‐win? Economic Development Quarterly, 23, 317–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/˜hanneman/
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, C. V. (2009). Prospects for and barriers to local government joint ventures. State and Local Government Review, 41, 108–119.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, C. V. (2010). Competition and cooperation: Local government joint ventures for economic development. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 253–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, C. V., & Andrew, S. A. (2011). Understanding horizontal and vertical relations in the context of economic development joint venture agreements. Urban Affairs Review, 47, 385–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isett, K. R., Mergel, I. A., LeRoux, K., Mischen, P. A., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Supplement 1), 157–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isett, K. R., & Provan, K. G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational relationships in a network of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 149–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, S., Feiock, R. C., & Bae, J. (2014). The roles of regional organizations in interlocal resource exchange: Complement or substitute? American Review of Public Administration, 44, 339–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, S., & Park, S. (2014). Metropolitan governance: How regional organizations influence interlocal land use coordination. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36, 925–940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I., Feiock, R. C., & Lee, Y. (2011). Competitors and cooperators: A micro‐level analysis of regional collaboration networks. Public Administration Review, 71, 253–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., Feiock, R., & Lee, I. (2012). Network embeddedness and local economic development collaboration: An exponential random graph analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 40, 547–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeRoux, K. (2008). Nonprofit community conferences: The role of alternative regional institutions in interlocal service delivery. State and Local Government Review, 40, 160–172.
   Google Scholar
• LeRoux, K., Brandenburger, P. W., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). Interlocal service cooperation in U.S. cities: A social network explanation. Public Administration Review, 70, 268–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeRoux, K., & Carr, J. B. (2010). Prospects for centralizing services in an urban county: Evidence from self‐organized networks of eight local public services. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 449–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, P. G., & Neiman, M. (2009). Custodians of place: Governing the growth and development of cities. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lineberry, R. L., & Fowler, E. P. (1967). Reformism and public policies in American cities. American Political Science Review, 61, 701–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPherson, M., Smith‐Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Post, S. 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.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 64–78.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., & Mindruta, E. (2003). Building consensual institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 143–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrestha, M. K. (2010). Do risk profiles of services alter contractual behavior? A comparison across multiple metropolitan services. In R. C. Feiock & J. Scholz (Eds.), Self‐organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action (pp. 114–141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thurmaier, K., & Wood, C. (2002). Interlocal agreements as overlapping social networks: Picket‐fence regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 585–598.
   Google Scholar
• Thurner, P. W., & Binder, M. (2009). European Union transgovernmental networks: The emergence of a new political space beyond the nation‐state. European Journal of Political Research, 48(1), 80–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinacker, A. (2004). Game‐theoretical models of metropolitan cooperation. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation (pp. 46–66). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Duijn, M. A. J. V., & Huisman, M. (2011). Statistical models for ties and actors. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 459–483). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Zeemering, E. S. (2008). Negotiation and noncooperation: Debating Michigan's Conditional Land Transfer Agreement. State and Local Government Review, 40, 1–11.
   Google Scholar