New Publication: Regionalism on Purpose (Land Lines Article)

Publication Date: September 2001

Inventory ID LLA010903; English

Article

Contact: Lincoln Institute, 800/LAND-USE (800/526-3873) or help@lincolninst.edu, unless otherwise noted.

In the past decade, interest in and experience with U.S. metropolitan regionalism-ways of thinking and acting at the regional scale-have mushroomed. Public officials, civic leaders and metropolitan residents increasingly pursue regionalism to address complicated border-transcending problems, including urban sprawl, sluggish regional economies, uncoordinated land use policy, environmental decline, and intraregional inequities in housing, education and tax capacity.

Because doing something regionally typically means not doing it locally, regionalism faces the classic dilemma of a diverse and democratic society: how to realize the common (regional) good while safeguarding individual (local) freedoms. The task of brokering these tradeoffs and additionally crafting a regional vision and agenda, seizing regional opportunities, and delivering regional services efficiently and equitably-all in the absence of a metropolitan polity-challenges most metropolitan leaders.

In a new Lincoln Institute policy focus report, Regionalism on Purpose, Kathryn A. Foster addresses the challenges of regionalism and offers numerous examples of different kinds of regionalism. She documents three long historical cycles in a shifting balance between regional and local authority: colonial regionalism from the early 1600s to 1790; the ascendance of local authority from 1790 to 1930; and a "quiet revolution" in regionalism since the 1930s, with intensified activity since 1990. Americans generally embrace regionalism when it promises material gains through improved service delivery or tax-reducing mergers, but reject it when it redistributes resources, promotes racial and class mixing, or jeopardizes local land use prerogatives.

Theoretical and empirical evidence offer a mixed or inconclusive picture of the effects of regionalism in achieving metropolitan goals. Regional approaches are thought to be better suited than local ones for achieving equity, environmental sustainability and regional economic growth, but evidence remains scant. On the other hand, governance systems based on multiple local governments tend to have greater political participation and lower service costs.

In practice, metropolitan regions often determine governance arrangements on a function by function basis, which yields a variety of multitiered models. Metropolitan areas relying on regional multipurpose entities are rare. Far more common are regions with complex networks of local governments, limited-purpose regional authorities, and private, civic and nonprofit organizations participating in metropolitan governance simultaneously.

The politics of regionalism present five special challenges:
1) overcoming a weak sense of regional identity;
2) finding consensus on political strategies for regional change;
3) securing the benefits of a "big tent" coalition without succumbing to the fragility of diverse alliances;
4) overcoming a strategic bias toward relatively uncontentious issues of economic development and away from knottier equity and land use goals; and
5) responding to often inconsistent federal and state policies.

Contemporary regional leadership responds to such challenges by building intricate networks of intraregional relations in a shared-power world. Deliberate, goal-oriented, inclusive regional efforts have had considerable success, suggesting the importance of these attributes to regional excellence.

The varied regional experiences of Louisville, Silicon Valley, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cape Cod and Chicago illuminate these challenges as they pursue regionalism for political, economic, growth-based, equity, environmental, and multiple purposes, respectively. These case studies and other metropolitan regions cited in the report also reinforce the value and versatility of regionalism as well as its vulnerabilities.

This report is based in part on the conference, "Urban-Suburban Interdependence: New Directions for Research and Policy," held in September 1998 in Chicago. That conference was cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Great Cities Institute of the University of Illinois at Chicago, with additional support from the John T. and Catherine D. MacArthur Foundation. The papers presented at the conference, including one titled "Regional Capital" by Foster, were edited by Rosalind Greenstein and Wim Wiewel and published by the Lincoln Institute in the book Urban-Suburban Interdependenc

ies (2000). Kathryn A. Foster is associate professor in the Department of Planning, School of Architecture and Planning, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. During 2000-2001 she was a visiting fellow at the Taubman Center for State and Local Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Regionalism on Purpose
2001. 44 pages, paper. $14.00.
Lincoln code: PF011.
ISBN 1-55844-148-4.

To order this policy focus report, call the Lincoln Institute at 800/LAND-USE (800/526-3873), fax the order form on page 15 of this newsletter to 800/526-3944, or email your order to help@lincolninst.edu.