Competitors and Cooperators: A Micro‐Level Analysis of Regional Economic Development Collaboration Networks

• Author: Youngmi Lee,Richard C. Feiock,In‐Won Lee
• Published date: 01 March 2012
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02501.x
• Date: 01 March 2012

A Micro-Level Analysis of Regional Economic Development Collaboration Networks 253

In-Won Lee is assistant professor in the

Department of Public Administration at

Dankook University. His research focuses on

urban management and policy, local public

f‌i nance, collaborative governance, energy

and sustainable growth policy, and interor-

ganizational and intersectoral management.

His work has appeared in Urban Affairs

Review, Policy Studies Journal, Inter-

nal Review of Public Administration,

and other journals.

E-mail: in1lee04@dankook.ac.kr

Richard C. Feiock is Augustus B.

Turnbull Professor of Public Administra-

tion at Florida State University. His books

include City–County Consolidation

and Its Alternatives (M. E. Sharpe, 2004),

Metropolitan Governance: Conf‌l ict,

Competition, and Cooperation

(Georgetown University Press, 2004), and

Self-Organizing Federalism (Cambridge

University Press, 2009). His current work

is supported by the National Science

Foundation and the Lincoln Institute for

Land Policy.

E-mail: rfeiock@fsu.edu

Youngmi Lee (corresponding author) is

postdoctoral research fellow in the Graham

Environmental Sustainability Institute at

the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Her research interests are local economic

development policy, network management

and leadership, collaborative governance,

and social network analysis.

E-mail: korea0406@gmail.com

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 253–262. © 2011 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2011.02501.x.

In-Won Lee

Dankook University

Richard C. Feiock

Florida State University

Youngmi Lee

University of Michigan

Predispositions and orientation toward cooperation

or competition with other jurisdictions can play a

critical role in implementing regional collaboration.

By examining collaboration at the micro level, this

article investigates how individual factors, including

perceptions of cooperation and competition, as well as

institutional and environmental factors, are related to

regional collaboration. In particular, the authors assert

that competitive motivation may support the emergence

of regional governance mechanisms.  is article explores

the relationships between competitive/cooperative

motivations and interlocal collaboration networks based

on a network survey conducted in the Orlando, Florida,

metropolitan area.  e authors apply a quadratic

assignment procedure regression analysis to examine how

dyadic conceptual ties of cooperation and competition,

along with the ef‌f ect of community characteristics, af‌f ect

policy network structures for economic development.

By comparing estimated coef‌f‌i cients with sampling

distributions of coef‌f‌i cients from all of the permuted

data sets, the regression results indicate the inf‌l uences

of perceived competition/cooperation on the network

exchange.

The local economic development policy arena

often is described as highly competitive

because local governments often pursue their

individual opportunities to

promote business and expand

their own jurisdiction’s tax

base. Economic development is

primarily a local responsibility,

with assistance from state and

federal agencies (Gordon 2007;

Peterson 1981).  e inherently

competitive nature of local gov-

ernment development agendas,

in combination with jurisdictional fragmentation,

produces complexity and uncertainty for potential

coordination and collaboration ef‌f orts. However, posi-

tive and negative intergovernmental externalities that

result from economic development create demands for

more integrated solutions.

Collaborative ef‌f orts can address important issues

such as economies of scale, spillovers, urban sprawl,

environmental impacts, income disparity, duplication

of policies and services, and so on (Feiock 2002; Fleis-

chmann 2000; Goetz and Kayser 1993). In fact, over

several decades, local governments in many regions of

the United States have established various types of col-

laborative development strategies that take a regional

approach to policy formation and implementation

in order to enhance their regional economic develop-

ment. In other words, some communities operate as

boundary spanners by promoting economic develop-

ment through horizontal as well as vertical collabora-

tion (Agranof‌f and McGuire 2003).

Regional governance strategies, however, can be

employed successfully only when competitive percep-

tions and motivations are overcome (Gordon 2007).

Collaborative ef‌f orts among local governments may be

hampered by their desires to maintain local autonomy,

distrust among local jurisdictions, conf‌l icting interests

among potential participants, or an imbalance in pow-

ers and resource endowments (Visser 2002). On the

other hand, even among f‌i erce competitors, there is

pressure for local jurisdictions not to be isolated from

various types of potential collaborative activities that

might bestow signif‌i cant advantages.  is suggests

that diverse values and percep-

tions about other jurisdictions

can shape interlocal behaviors

among communities and, thus,

the overall conf‌i guration of

regional governance systems.

Interlocal collaboration occurs

when two or more local govern-

ments seek to accomplish a

desirable outcome through coordination or coopera-

tion. Collective action begins with the recognition of

interdependency among local governments in which

a decision or action of one government af‌f ects the

actions of others.  is strategic interaction among

actors becomes more complicated and uncertain as the

Competitors and Cooperators: A Micro-Level Analysis

of Regional Economic Development Collaboration Networks

[D]iverse values and perceptions

about other jurisdictions can

shape interlocal behaviors

among communities and, thus,

the overall conf‌i guration of

regional governance systems.