US Regionalism and Rationality

Abstract

Regionalism continues to be proffered as a policy prescription for US metropolitan ills. While many urban scholars discuss the benefits of regional approaches to problem-solving, others question, and sometimes dismiss, the possibility of widespread, comprehensive regionalism. This latter group generally takes one of two perspectives. First, they argue that local autonomy and fragmentation prohibit regional collaboration. Secondly, rational choice theorists claim jurisdiction-centred economic interest spurs intraregional competition and impedes cooperation. Although both perspectives can be criticised as overdeterministic, they appear to be supported by the limited number of examples of comprehensive metropolitan co-operation in the US. This article identifies a theoretical connection and empirical similarity between these views of impediments to regionalism. The author argues that strategies suggested by rational-based collective action theory apply to either the autonomy or competition argument; however, she notes that empirical results raise questions about adopting a strict rational-based model. The author warns against a premature dismissal of regionalism as a viable policy prescription without further research and recommends a promising path for future research on comprehensive regional co-operation.