Collaboration Is Not Enough

Over the past two decades, a burgeoning literature has touted the promise of regional collaboration to address a wide range of issues. This article challenges the premise that horizontal collaboration alone can empower regional decision-making venues. By analyzing efforts to create regional venues for transportation policy making in Chicago and Los Angeles, the authors show that vertical power is essential to building regional capacities. Only by exercising power at multiple levels of the political system can local reformers launch a virtuous cycle of reform that begins to build enduring regional capacities.

[1]  Philip Selznick,et al.  TVA and the Grass Roots; a Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization , 2010 .

[2]  C. Muñoz.  Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State , 2008 .

[3]  Randy K. Lippert.  Governing from Below: Urban Regions and the Global Economy (review) , 2007 .

[4]  Todd Swanstrom.  Regionalism, Equality, and Democracy , 2006 .

[5]  A. Wallis,et al.  Building the Capacity to Act Regionally , 2006 .

[6]  Martin G. Everett,et al.  A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[7]  Suzanne Mettler.  How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State , 2006 .

[8]  Philip Ethington.  The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City , 2006 .

[9]  Robert Puentes,et al.  Taking the High Road: A Metropolitan Agenda for Transportation Reform , 2006 .

[10]  Jane Rongerude,et al.  Collaborative Regional Initiatives: Civic Entrepreneurs Work to Fill the Governance Gap , 2006 .

[11]  D. Guthrie,et al.  Intermediary Organizations and the Coordination of Social Practices , 2005 .

[12]  Dan Immergluck.  Building Power, Losing Power: The Rise and Fall of a Prominent Community Economic Development Coalition , 2005 .

[13]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission , 2005 .

[14]  R. Gottlieb.  The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City , 2005 .

[15]  R. Puentes,et al.  Increasing Funding and Accountability for Metropolitan Transportation Decisions , 2005 .

[16]  Robert Puentes,et al.  Getting Transportation Right for Metropolitan America , 2005 .

[17]  D. Hamilton,et al.  Exploring the Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of the Governing of Metropolitan Regions , 2004 .

[18]  R. Hays.  Unfair Housing: How National Policy Shapes Community Action , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[19]  Mike Raco,et al.  Governing from below – urban regions and the global economy , 2004 .

[20]  Thomas W. Sanchez,et al.  Moving to Equity: Addressing Inequitable Effects of Transportation Policies on Minorities , 2003 .

[21]  Eric M. Patashnik,et al.  After the Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability of Policy Reform , 2003 .

[22]  D. Hamilton.  Regimes and Regional Governance: The Case of Chicago , 2002 .

[23]  Paul G. Lewis,et al.  The Local Roots of Federal Policy Change: Transportation in the 1990s , 2001, Polity.

[24]  Archon Fung,et al.  Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance , 2001 .

[25]  J. Innes,et al.  BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE WAKE OF ISTEA : PLANNING STYLES IN CONFLICT AT THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION , 2001 .

[26]  Paul G. Lewis.  Considerations Regarding the Possible Merger of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Reform , 2001 .

[27]  R. Hanneman.  Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[28]  C. Ansell,et al.  The Networked Polity: Regional Development in Western Europe , 2000 .

[29]  B D McDowell,et al.  IMPROVING REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS: MPOS AND CERTIFICATION , 1999 .

[30]  A. Schneider,et al.  Policy Design for Democracy , 1997 .

[31]  Bruce D. McDowell,et al.  ISTEA AND THE ROLE OF MPOS IN THE NEW TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT: A MIDTERM ASSESSMENT. , 1995 .

[32]  M. Weir.  Central Cities' Loss of Power in State Politics , 1995 .

[33]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[34]  Paul Pierson,et al.  When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change , 1993, World Politics.

[35]  D. Krackhardt.  The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in organizations , 2003 .

[36]  M. Zelen,et al.  Rethinking centrality: Methods and examples☆ , 1989 .

[37]  Sy Adler.  Why BART but no LART? The political economy of rail rapid transit planning in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas, 1945–57 , 1987 .

[38]  P. Bonacich.  Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[39]  J. Mollenkopf.  The Contested City , 1984 .

[40]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[41]  S. Boorman,et al.  Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions , 1976, American Journal of Sociology.

[42]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[43]  J. Tarr.  THE FRAGMENTED METROPOLIS: LOS ANGELES 1850–1930 , 1968 .

[44]  Mark Kesselman,et al.  Private Power and American Democracy , 1966 .

[45]  T. Lowi.  American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory , 1964, World Politics.

[46]  E. E. Schattschneider.  The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America , 1960 .

[47]  Lowell Al.  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University. , Science.