Alternative Service Delivery

The ever-evolving landscape of local governance in the United States is characterized by increasing fragmentation of political authority spanning municipal, county and special-purpose government (Miller & Cox, 2014). This complexity, particularly in the most populous regions, has required adoption of alternative service delivery (ASD) arrangements to address challenges of efficiency and collection action problems (Feiock, 2007). These mechanisms, often grounded in interlocal cooperation, present powerful advantages and significant challenges.

The expansion of alternative service delivery arrangements is a direct response to the difficulty local governments face in achieving economies of scale and addressing interjurisdictional issues within highly fragmented political landscapes (Hefetz et al., 2012). These nonstandard approaches involve several mechanisms such as: Intergovernmental Agreements where multiple local governments provide their services trans-jurisdictionally; Intermunicipal Contracting where one government contracts the services of another; Shared Services Agreements where multiple governments share a single other entity to achieve economies of scale. Alternative Service Delivery and intergovernmental relations can increase scale thereby introducing new efficiencies, provide better outcomes through holistic decision making, provide more accessible and consistent services and provides a greater level of interaction between organizations.

A particularly useful tool to examine intergovernmental relations is institutional collective action (ICA) which supposes that government institutions are rational, self-interested and semi-independent agents. When government institutions pursue rational self-interest “fragmentation creates dis-economies of scale, positive and negative externalities, and common property resource problems” (Feiock, 2007). Further, we can divide issues of ICA into two categories, vertical and horizontal collective action problems. Horizontal problems exist when externalities negatively affect other communities or communities are unable to realize sufficient economies of scale to provide a public good or service. Vertical problems exist when actors at one level, such as municipalities, pursue policies that negatively affect the whole, oftentimes being the purview of a higher level of government, this is common with environmental health issues. The solutions to each of these types of problems are going to look different. Horizontal collective action problems may be better addressed by inter-local cooperation whereas vertical collective action problems may be better addressed by broader systems of intergovernmental relation such as councils of government.

            Some point to the fragmentation and decentralization of government as an issues arguing that they effectively represent the failure of the governance market. Other scholars have argued that fragmentation is a positive, and indeed necessary, outcome of democratic pluralism (Dahl, 1956). If we assume that fragmentation is a failure of governance, then consolidation would be taken as a necessarily positive solution; this, however, is not the case. The various policy solutions of neighboring governments, as desired by each polities constituency, leading to collective issues is itself something to be managed and not the erasure of heterogeneity in policy. This is similar to the approach at the individual level given, the group level issues are themselves the resultants of individual level processes. Ultimately, the issue with consolidation being a default response, is that residents decided to live in their community over another and as such, we must assume there is some value in the variation provided by each community (Leland & Thurmaier, 2014). We see this empirically in that communities that are more similar socio-economically, demographically and politically are more likely to collaborate (Gerber et al., 2013). The fact that politically similar communities have similar policies is a sign that democracy is at work as we generally desire (Ostrom et al., 1961). This is where ASD and CoGs once again become relevant, they are methods by which ICA problems can be effectively mitigated while providing for the variation desired by each community.

            As fragmentation continues to increase (Miller & Cox, 2014) and ICA problems propagate, the tools of governments for collaboration will adapt and improve. Each period of local government is eventually characterized through terms such as TPA, NPA, NPM and networked governance; however, the periods described by these terms do not indicate when the mechanisms characterizing the movement were the most popular. For example, a major characteristic of New Public Management was privatization but during the 1970s and 1980s privatization was an emergent trend being identified: Whereas now, every local government contracts with private companies for at least some services. Similarly, while the late 1990s to the 2010s was characterized by networked governance, that was a largely emergent trend that has yet to truly take hold. Only now are we seeing individuals for whom networked governance is an expectation enter high levels of local government and as such, I think it is appropriate to expect these effective tools of collaboration and cooperation to expand greatly.

References:

Dahl, R. A. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory, Expanded Edition. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo4149959.html

Feiock, R. C. (2007). Rational Choice and Regional Governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00322.x

Gerber, E. R., Henry, A. D., & Lubell, M. (2013). Political Homophily and Collaboration in Regional Planning Networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12011

Hefetz, A., Warner, M. E., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2012). Privatization and Intermunicipal Contracting: The US Local Government Experience 1992–2007. Environment and Planning C, 30(4), 675–692.

Leland, S., & Thurmaier, K. (2014). Political and Functional Local Government Consolidation: The Challenges for Core Public Administration Values and Regional Reform. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(4_suppl), 29S-46S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014533003

Miller, D., & Cox, R. (2014). Governing the Metropolitan Region: America’s New Frontier: 2014: America’s New Frontier (1st ed.). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Governing-the-Metropolitan-Region-Americas-New-Frontier-2014-Americas-New-Frontier/Miller-Cox/p/book/9780765639844

Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952530