Fragmented Regionalism

Abstract

This article addresses the extent to which metropolitan regions have continued to fragment and grown more disparate. We ask, why have comprehensive institutions not taken root to mitigate metropolitan fragmentation and how can we better understand its persistence? We call attention to the insufficiently understood and integrative role of public authorities as functional for fragmented metropolises and their continued splintering. That functionality is explained by a “regional paradox,” which states that centrifugal forces from autonomous, competitive local governments push against metropolitan integration while centripetal pressures for regional policy coherence pull toward it. The result is the embodiment of both tendencies in what we call fragmented regionalism—a condition where local autonomy is largely left intact while public authorities are able to manage selective regional pressures. We find that metropolitan regions have become more fragmented and more unequal. This pattern is concomitant with public authority spending, which has favored the most advantaged metropolises.

Varieties of Urbanism: A Comparative View of Inequality and the Dual Dimensions of Metropolitan Fragmentation

“…In the majority of states, however, annexation by central cities of surrounding communities effectively ended nearly a century ago, as suburban municipalities incorporated as separate entities, grew in power, and then blocked city expansion. 29 Most U.S. states now have legal frameworks that facilitate the separate incorporation of new municipalities and that hinder annexation of smaller municipalities by larger ones.…”

Responding to change: lessons from water management for metropolitan governance

“…Nevertheless, there has been an increase in governance arrangements that operate at the metropolitan scale across the globe (Heinelt and Kubler 2005;Homsy and Warner 2015;Savitch and Adhikari 2017). At one extreme, in rare instances metropolitan government amalgamates the many small local governments into a single large entity covering the metropolitan area (Lefèvre 1998;Tomlinson 2017).…”

“…At one extreme, in rare instances metropolitan government amalgamates the many small local governments into a single large entity covering the metropolitan area (Lefèvre 1998;Tomlinson 2017). More common is the creation of organisations designed to improve coordination of policies across the metropolitan area, termed metropolitan governance or regionalism (Gleeson, Darbas, and Lawson 2004;Ahrend, Gamper, and Schumann 2014;Homsy and Warner 2015;Savitch and Adhikari 2017). These organisations may be focused on a particular sector (e.g.…”

“…Studies have shown the productivity benefits of reducing fragmentation (Ahrend et al 2014), improved outcomes in transport, environment, and sustainability (Homsy and Warner 2015), and limiting sprawl (Gleeson, Darbas, and Lawson 2004;Ahrend, Gamper, and Schumann 2014). However, there are concerns about the legitimacy of metropolitan organisations (Savitch and Adhikari 2017;Jonas and Moisio 2018) as well as their ability to address inequality (Etherington and Jones 2009;Savitch and Adhikari 2017) and improve sustainability and planning (Davidson and Arman 2014;Burton 2017). Some argue that these organisations focus on improving the internal systems by streamlining and rationalising bureaucracy, with little or no focus on outcomes.…”

“…Some argue that these organisations focus on improving the internal systems by streamlining and rationalising bureaucracy, with little or no focus on outcomes. Others suggest that the pursuit of metropolitan governance is largely driven by and supports a neoliberal globalisation agenda rather than benefiting the cities themselves (Scott 2001;Savitch and Adhikari 2017;Jonas and Moisio 2018). There is still a strong case for metropolitan governance; however, to achieve the expected benefits it is critical to learn from both successes and failures of this approach.…”