Unlikely pioneers: creative climate change policymaking in smaller U.S. cities

Homsy, George C.

doi:10.1007/s13412-018-0483-8

Cited by 56 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the facts that research on local climate governance has become well-researched, and that interest in large-N analysis (e.g. Reckien, 2018), as well as research on small and medium-sized cities and towns (Hoppe et al 2016, have increased considerably, most studies focus on: case studies on leading cities in large metropolitan regions, neglecting mid-sized and smaller cities and towns; global city networks such as C40, neglecting national and European networks and associations of cities; or experiments and urban living labs in larger cities, neglecting the transfer of experiments beyond city borders and to smaller cities and towns in rural areas (Homsy 2018, van der Heijden 2018.…”

Section: Character Of the Analysis Research Design And Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although even smaller cities (such as Växjö in Sweden) or villages (such as Güssing in Austria) have become internationally known models, such municipalities are 'unlikely pioneers' (Homsy 2018) because the percentage of climate change leaders is highest among large metropolitan regions. Therefore, here I analyse the dynamics between leaders that take action on a voluntary basis and the followers/laggards that require external incentives or even mandatory standards to act (Fuhr et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe

Kern

2018

Environmental Politics

194

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of local climate governance in Europe depends not only on leading cities but also on the dynamics between leaders, followers, and laggards. Upscaling local experiments helps to close the gap between these actors. This process is driven by the increasing embeddedness of cities and their networks in EU multilevel governance. Embedded upscaling combines horizontal upscaling between leading cities with vertical upscaling between leaders and followers that is mediated by higher levels of government, and hierarchical upscaling that even reaches the laggards. Various types of upscaling, their combinations, and their impacts are analyzed. Networks have become denser and networking has intensified. City networks and their member cities have become embedded in national and EU governance, lost authority and depend more and more on regional, national, and European authorities.

show abstract

Section: Character Of the Analysis Research Design And Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe

Kern

2018

Environmental Politics

194

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To encourage a higher level of service, the State encourages shared service arrangements, but it does not provide extra funding for organizing the sharing arnagements. Planning and zoning can be used to help smaller communities address the impacts of climate change (Homsy 2018) and enhanced elder services can help meet the needs of an aging society (Warner, Homsy and Morken 2017). Thus rising costs may be attributed to both a higher level of service and possible higher organization costs.…”

Section: Post-hoc Analysis: Sharing's Effect On Costs Over Timementioning

confidence: 99%

It Depends on What You Share: The Elusive Cost Savings from Service Sharing

Aldag

Warner

Bel

2019

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intermunicipal cooperation is the most prevalent alternative service delivery method for US local governments. While aspirations for budgetary savings are one motivating factor, increased service quality and regional coordination are also important goals. We use an original 2013 survey of local governments in New York State to assess the level of service sharing and outcomes. We match our survey with 20 years (1996–2016) of service-level costs data to explore the relationships between sharing and costs across 12 common local government services. We contribute to the literature by providing the first multivariate assessment of the effect of cooperation on costs in the United States, and we contribute theoretical insights on the objectives and type of cooperation to explain differences in the effects of cooperation on costs across a variety of services. Our multivariate time series regressions find that service sharing leads to cost reductions in solid waste management, roads and highways, police, library, and sewer services; no difference in costs for economic development, ambulance/EMS, fire, water, and youth recreation; and higher costs in elder services, and planning and zoning. These differences are explained by whether services have characteristics such as asset specificity and the ability to achieve economies of scale on the one hand, or if sharing leads to greater administrative intensity or promotes other objectives such as quality and regional coordination outcomes on the other hand. We also analyze the effect of sharing on service costs over time, and find solid waste, roads and highways, police, and library are the only services where costs show a continued downward trend. These results show the limited role for economies of scale, even in asset specific services. Because cost savings are elusive, public sector reformers should be careful not to assume cost savings from sharing. The theoretical foundations for service sharing extend beyond economies of scale and transaction costs. Scholars should give more attention to organizational form and the broader goals of sharing.

show abstract

“…• Framing of co-benefits. Local governments may undertake environmental actions when there are co-benefitsfor example, reduction in energy costs (Svara, Read, & Moulder, 2011), increased public health (Bloomberg & Aggarwala, 2008), or job production (Homsy, 2018b;Kostka & Hobbs, 2013). Such reframing of a commons problem can counter negative political attitudes and build consensus (Hawkins, Kwon, & Bae, 2016) and stimulate local action because residents see concerns as important to them (Metz & Below, 2009).…”

Section: Components Of a Multilevel Governance Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilevel Governance: Framing the Integration of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Policymaking

Homsy

Liu

Warner

2018

International Journal of Public Administration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars embrace multilevel governance as an analytical framework for complex problems, such as climate change or water pollution. However, the elements needed to comprehensively operationalize multilevel governance remain undefined in the literature. This paper describes the five necessary ingredients to a multilevel framework: sanctioning and coordinating authority, provision of capacity, knowledge co-production, framing of co-benefits, and inclusion of civil society. The framework's analytical utility is illustrated through two contrasting case exampleswatershed management in the U.S. and air quality management in China. The framework balances local and central actors, which can promote a more effective governance regime.

show abstract

Unlikely pioneers: creative climate change policymaking in smaller U.S. cities

Cited by 56 publications

References 55 publications

Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe

Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe

It Depends on What You Share: The Elusive Cost Savings from Service Sharing

Multilevel Governance: Framing the Integration of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Policymaking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About