Creative Regionalism: Governance for Stressful Times

Abstract

Introduction: State and Local Versus Regional Problems Most public problems that state and local governments tackle are addressed effectively within their particular jurisdiction. In such cases, the benefits from addressing them usually are confined to the citizens living within the government's limits. For example, waste disposal is handled by picking up trash at citizens' homes or by giving them a specific site to deposit it, both within a discrete jurisdiction. Likewise, educational, community, and recreational benefits can be restricted to the citizens of a particular jurisdiction by requiring proof of residence within it. Similarly, when state and local governments aim to reduce harms, their jurisdiction for and delivery of public safety and security services is limited to a specific area, notwithstanding public safety boundary problems, such as hot pursuit or threats from adjacent jurisdictions (these can be handled though internal practices, such as standard operating procedures or bilateral agreements like memoranda of understanding). Although these examples do admit of spillover effects or externalities affecting or affected by other jurisdictions, the direct benefits provided are limited to those governed by a single, limited jurisdiction. In short, the delivery of these services in an effective way is not dependent on or limited by cooperation with other locales. However, other public problems confronted by state and local governments do not fall so easily into jurisdictional limits. Instead, they are either impossible to solve or are severely limited or degraded by a failure to achieve cooperation among multiple jurisdictions. Some of these instances result from network effects: networks of roads, railroads, and electric grids are enhanced by being connected to other networks, even though they are useful still when not connected. Other instances occur because a problem occurs across a broad area rather than the within boundaries of a particular state or local government. Watersheds are defined by mountains and ridgelines, not by governments, and they cross national, state, and local boundaries. Likewise, jurisdictions that share a common flow of air and atmospheric conditions have come to be known as air sheds because these conditions respond to natural rather than manmade boundaries. Therefore, public policies aimed at achieving clean air and clean water and implemented within one jurisdiction may be ineffective. In economic terms, the goods produced or harms avoided lack any exclusivity in production and cannot be confined to the populace of one place only: neither clean nor dirty air respects borders;