Regionalism With and Without Metropolitanism: Governance Structures of Rural and Non-Rural Regional Intergovernmental Organizations
| DOI | 10.1177/0275074020939883 |
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| Author | Jay Rickabaugh |
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
American Review of Public Administration
2021, Vol. 51(2) 155 –164
Regionalism With and Without
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Metropolitanism: Governance Structures
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020939883
DOI: 10.1177/0275074020939883
journals.sagepub.com/home/arp
of Rural and Non-Rural Regional
Intergovernmental Organizations
Jay Rickabaugh1
Abstract
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.
Keywords
regionalism, regional governance, rural local governments, collective choice arrangements
Introduction
database of Regional Intergovernmental Organizations
(RIGOs) from the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for
Regional cross-boundary organizations like councils of gov-
Metropolitan Studies (CMS) identifies the most geographi-
ernments (COGs), planning district commissions, or similar
cally expansive, policy agile, cross-boundary American
substate districts are ubiquitous in the United States, but the
organizations (D. Miller et al., 2018) and the geographic ter-
study of these organizations has focused primarily on a nar-
ritory each organization serves. Rural RIGOs may empha-
row metropolitan subset. Scholarly conversations about this
size different programs or policy areas, but rural RIGOs are
tool for regional governance have become almost synony-
not structurally different bodies in the eyes of their state, the
mous with the divide between urban and suburban. This
federal government, or their own epistemic communities.
includes empirically qualitative (Lindstrom, 2010; Visser,
The prior exclusion of rural substate districts seems to have
2004), empirically quantitative (Gerber & Gibson, 2009;
been based on the availability of data; the RIGO database
Sanchez, 2006), and normative approaches (Frug & Barron,
begins to ameliorate these concerns.
2013). The discussion of cross-boundary organizations out-
side of the metropolitan context is so rare that their rural
equivalents are described as “forgotten” (J. L. Hall, 2008).
1Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA
This article expands our conversation using a new, open-
Corresponding Author:
source catalog of regional organizations to include substate
Jay Rickabaugh, Appalachian State University, 352N Anne Belk Hall, 287
districts largely unimpacted by the history and dynamics of
Rivers Street, Boone, NC 28608-2026, USA.
traditional city–suburban relationships. The nationwide Email: rickabaughja@appstate.edu
156
American Review of Public Administration 51(2)
Wresting rural regional organizations into these conver-
(EDD), would not qualify as a RIGO without expanding its
sations permits interesting applications of institutional col-
agenda. The federal government or its respective state (or
lective action (ICA) theory. Expanding available data to
states, in some cases1) must recognize the organization as
include lower population density areas can substantially
legitimate. An organization needs to consider itself as repre-
expand variation on factors impacting transaction costs
senting the region’s local governments collectively, whether
including individual member capacity, the benefits from
that ambition is as a forum for deliberation or to enact solu-
economies of scale, and spillover effects. By looking at this
tions directly. Finally to be a RIGO, an organization must
expanded landscape, scholars can more accurately parse
meet these first four requirements and represent the largest
what is a generalizable trait of intergovernmental relations
population of any like organization (D. Miller & Nelles,
and what is more specific to either metropolitan or rural
2020).
organizations. In doing so, scholars should question at least
After these criteria are applied, 477 RIGOs emerge cov-
some of the conventional wisdom of metropolitan cross-
ering most of America sharing strong similarities in both
boundary organizations.
purpose and structure. This definition includes both the
To this end, I present two unexpected empirical similari-
substate districts charged by the state with specific bound-
ties between rural and non-rural organizations on factors that
aries most commonly found across the southern United
undergird collective action. First, I present summary statis-
States and the RIGOs formed through enabling legislation
tics to demonstrate no meaningful difference between rural
(as is the case in states like California, Indiana, Ohio, and
and non-rural regions in the quantity and relative dominance
New York). Despite their various geneses, an institutional
of local governments holding population constant. Then, I
isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) has emerged
use a sample of RIGO governance documents to show no
among RIGOs across the spectrum from urban to rural. The
statistically significant difference between rural and non-
cooperation in metropolitan areas fostered by MPOs
rural regions in the allocation of local government votes on
expanded beyond transportation and planning and the coop-
the board. I am crafting an intentional argument on the simi-
eration in rural areas fostered by EDDs expanded beyond
larity between these two groups of organizations and the
economic development (D. Miller & Nelles, 2019). This
impacts of omitting rural organizations from this scholarly
isomorphism is demonstrated in the epistemic communities
discussion. As a result, I am actively not seeking statistically
and advocacy organizations that serve RIGOs. Professional
significant differences. I recognize the unorthodoxy of this
organizations like the Southeast Regional Directors
claim, but it is a necessary response to a literature that previ-
Institute (SERDI), National Association of Development
ously has excluded a meaningful subset of regional organiza-
Organizations (NADO), and National Association of
tions. In doing so, I provide evidence that the imbalances in
Regional Councils (NARC) all serve RIGOs that span the
distributional politics of regional organizations are not
gamut from rural to urban. These national associations pro-
unique to the city–suburban dynamics.
vide opportunities to share experiences, provide profes-
sional support, and advocate to both members of Congress
Literature Review
and federal agencies. The organizations included in this
database share crucial commonalities creating a distinct
In this section, I provide a summary of the definition of
class of regional organizations.
RIGOs, their importance as a distinct class of regional gov-
The open-source, CMS database provides scholars with
ernance tools, and what regional governance tools are omit-
accessible, meaningful information about RIGOs based on
ted as a result of this definition. Then, I discuss the
consistently applied metrics amid varying origin stories,
emergence of the metropolitan-focused nature of research
naming conventions, and programmatic emphasis. The data-
into cross-boundary organizations including RIGOs, com-
base contains institutional information about the RIGOs,
paring the state of this research with other regional gover-
including: the geographical territory served by the RIGO
nance tools. I conclude by discussing the implications of a
(based on Federal Information Processing System [FIPS]
more complete picture of RIGOs on testing ICA theories
codes), which federal designations it maintains (MPO, EDD,
more broadly, and on collective choice arrangements more
Workforce Investment Board [WIB], Area Agency on Aging
specifically.
[AAA], etc.), and whether it crosses state borders. The data-
To...
To continue reading
Request your trial