UrbanStudies, Vol. 37, No. 56, 851876, 2000MultilevelGovernanceandMetropolitanRegionalismintheUSAClydeMitchell-Weaver, DavidMillerandRonaldDeal Jr[Paperreceivedinnal form, January2000]1. IntroductionMetropolitanregionalismmay once again beon the American political agenda, after ahiatus of aquarter of acentury. Since themid 1990s,a burgeoning ow of popular andacademicbooks andarticles, aswell asre-ports fromleading liberal USthink-tanks,1have focusedpublic attention onthe prob-lemsof bigcitiesandtheir surroundingre-gions (Rusk, 1993, 1999; Pierce, 1993;Downs, 1994; Wallis, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c;Cisneros, 1995; Walker,1995; Foster,1997;Oreld, 1997; Barnes and Ledebur, 1998;Lindstrom, 1998).Notably,at the turn of thenew millennium, the BrookingsInstitution inWashington, DCfounded during FranklinRoosevelts New Dealthe Ford Foun-dationandtheDemocraticClintonadminis-trationhave sounded aclarioncall toalertcivic leaders to the growing crisis of themetropolis (Brookings Institution, 1998;FordFoundation, 1999; USHUD, 1999).Theimmediatecauses of suchhigh-levelconcernare threefold. First, socioeconomicand scal disparities between metropolitancentres andtheir outlyingsettlementclustershavereachedacriticallevel intheUS, andcurrent domestic demographic trends portendan ever-worsening gulf in terms of economicresources. Secondly, sharp competitionwithin the global economy increasinglythreatens the economic base of US core citiesand their inner-ring suburbs.New productiveinvestments and industrial growth are pre-dominantlyinthe outer suburbs andedge-cities. And thirdly, urban sprawluncontrolled land development and leap-froggingis visiblythreateningthe sustain-abilityof thephysical environment of largeurbancommunities(Weitz, 1999; BerkeandConroy,2000). Twenty-ve years of benignneglect, intermsof bothurbanandsocialpolicy, have exacted a very real historicalcost onmetropolitanAmerica.Theplightofthe cities could be a prime concern in the USgeneralelectionsinNovember2000.Inmajor urban areas across the US, anemerging Regional Coalition is formingaroundcity-centred andenvironmentalinter-est-groups (Rothblatt and Sancton, 1998;Phares, 1999). Aswediscuss inthispaper,the Coalition argues that metropolitangovernmental fragmentation is the primarycauseofUSurbanproblems, andthat someform of regional governanceis the necessaryrst step towards a solution. Furthermore, thehyper-complexnatureof USfederalismre-quires multilevel intervention, using stateandfederalpowerstoreinforcelocal movesinthedirectionofregionalco-operationandconsolidation. Intergovernmental strategiesClyde Mitchell-Weaverand David Miller are in the GraduateSchool of Publicand International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh,3N28 Forbes Quadrangle, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Fax: 001 412 648 2605. E-mail: mithweav 1@pitt.edu(Clyde Mitchell-Weaver);redsox 1@pitt.edu (David Miller). Ronald Deal Jr is with the law rm of Kirksey and McNamee, PLC, Brentwood, TN, USA. E-mail:RDeal@Kirkmac.com.0042-0980Print/1360-063XOn-line/00/0560851-26 2000The Editors of Urban Studiesat UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 852are essential to promote metropolitan rev-enue-sharing, smart growth, the newur-banism andthetargetingof skills training,housingand transport opportunitiesto matchthechangingintraurbanlocationofemploy-ment expansionandjobneeds(Katz, 1994;Oreld, 1998; BrennanandHill, 1999; Im-mergluck, 1999; Katz and Allen, 1999;AmericanPlanningAssociation, 2000).Inthesections whichfollow, wepresentan overview of the Regional Coalitionsanalysis of US metropolitan problems andtheir agenda for public action. It is important,inordertoset thecontext, tobeginwithanhistorical sketch of the role played by metro-politan regionalisminthe evolution of USurbanpolicy.2. A Note on the History of US Metropoli-tanRegionalismMetropolitan regionalismwas the rst ap-proachtourbanproblemsintheUS, begin-ningintheearly19thcentury. Evenbeforethe growth of second industrial revolutioncities, consolidationofcityandcountygov-ernments was undertaken in commercial cen-tres such as NewOrleans (1805), Boston(1821), Nantucket, MA(1821), Baltimore(1851), Philadelphia (1854), San Francisco(1856) andSt Louis(1876). Bytheturnofthe 20thcentury, the modernCityof NewYork had been created by the merger of NewYork, Brooklyn, Queens and Richmondcounties in 1898, and Denver (1904) andHonolulu(1907) hadbeenaddedtothelist.Other 19th-century cities became the soleunit of government andthe general metro-politanserviceprovider throughannexation(for example, Boston, Chicago, Detroit andPittsburgh) (Stephens andWikstrom, 2000,pp. 2934; Herson and Bolland, 1998,p. 250; RossandLevine, 1996, p. 324).2Private civic organisationswhat todaywould be called publicprivate partner-shipslike the Chicago Commercial Cluband the National Municipal League, sup-portedmetropolitanisation throughtheir re-gional leadership activities and publication ofthe National Municipal Review (later theNational Civic Review). Thewhole August1922 issue of the Reviewwas devoted toChester Maxeys early synthesis, The politi-cal integration of metropolitan communi-ties, whichidentiedthe fundamental problemof the metrop-olis [as] the decentralizedor fraction-ated nature of local government(StephensandWikstrom, 2000, p. 35).This was followed by another League pub-lication, Paul Studenskis comprehensivebook, The Government of MetropolitanAreasintheUS(1930).Withthe onset of the Great Depression,theUSfederal government rst becamein-volvedwithmetropolitanproblems, inspiredbyaChicagoSchool of local governmentreform. Major statements of the ChicagoSchools agenda appeared overthe next dec-ade: Roderick D. McKenzie (1933) TheMetropolitan Community; Charles E. Mer-riam, Spencer D. Parratt and Albert Lep-awsky (1933) The Government of theMetropolitan Region of Chicago; WilliamAnderson (1934) The Units of Government intheUS; the National Resources Committee(1937) Our Cities: Their Role in the NationalEconomy; and Victor Jones great classicMetropolitanGovernment (1942), writtenasa doctoraldissertationunderthedirection ofCharles E. Merriamduring the late 1930s.Themostimportant contributionofChicagowriters, in our view, was to link metropolitanregional governancewith the changingecon-omicandsocial structureof citiesandtheirroleinthenational economy.3At theturnof the20thcentury, Chicagowas also the rst home of metropolitan plan-ningin the US, which grew up alongsidethecity planning movement. Many of the earliesturban planners were forceful proponentsof aregional perspective, and they soon came toincludeentiremetropolitanareaswithinthescopeof their plans. USmetropolitanplan-ningwasareactiontothesecondindustrialrevolution, and was composedof four separ-atebut overlappingelements.Housing reformwas the earliest strand.Investigative commissions (1856, 1884, at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 8531894)and tenement houselaws (1867, 1879,1895, 1901)in New York led up to the FirstNational ConferenceonCityPlanning, heldinWashington, DC, in1909, wherehousingreformwasstill averycontroversial issue.Park and boulevard planning and the CityBeautiful movementthe next two ele-ments of metropolitanplanningdevelopedtogether. FrederickLawOlmstedbegantheUS tradition of metropolitan park-buildingwithCentral ParkinNewYork City. ThepurposeoftheChicagoWorldsFair(1893)was to show that Americas cities, too, couldaspire to be beautiful. With a layout designedby Olmsted, it started Daniel H. Burnham onthe road to preparing one of the earliestmetropolitan regional plans, the Plan ofChicago(BurnhamandBennett, 1909).In 1904, Burnhamwas approachedbytheCommercial Clubof Chicagoandaskedtoprepare a planfor the city, expandingon hisoriginal schemeforlakefront redevelopmentwithasystemof regional ring-roads, radialhighways andparkways. After some delay,workbegan on the plan in1907, and twoyears later the grand opus emerged as alimited edition of magnicently illustratedvolumes, sellingfor$25each.The plan wasgenuinely metropolitan in scope, and by1925Chicagohadspent some$300milliontoimplementit.The high-watermark of pre-World War IImetropolitan planningin the US was reachedwith publication of the Regional Plan forNewYork andIts Environs (CommitteeonPlan of New York, 192931). The New Yorkprojectwasstartedin1920byCharlesDyerNorton, the same insurance executive whohad fathered the Chicago venture. The staffsdirectorwas ThomasAdams.Ofthe10vol-umes eventually published for the Com-mittee, the rst 2, The Graphic RegionalPlan (1929) and The Building of the City(1931), contained the bulk of their recom-mendations. There is little doubt that thisseries of impressivevolumesrepresented themost imposingmetropolitanplanningeffortever attempted. Itsreal departures fromtheearlier Chicago Plan, however, lay mainly inits extensive useof social statistics anditsemphasis on newly legitimised land-use con-trols. (The US Supreme Court upheld theconstitutionality of zoning in the case ofVillage of Euclid, Ohio, v. Ambler Realty Co.(1926).) Theprincipal objectiveof theplanremained much the same: to promote thecontinued expansion of the metropolis bydeveloping anever-greater landarea, lacedtogetherbyanetworkofhighways.Government reformwas the fourth andlast themeof metropolitanplanning. It hadtwo main goals: professionalising localgovernment and, as we have alreadyseen,expanding the geographical boundaries of thecityinorder toreect the newrealities ofmetropolitan growth. It is here, with the sub-jectofmetropolitanbudgetingandtheterri-torial expansion of municipal jurisdiction,thatthework of CharlesE. Merriam and hisChicago colleagues discussed above comesinto the picture. Their views on metropolitangovernment reform were summarised inMerriams preface to The Governmentof theMetropolitanRegionof Chicago, citedear-lier:[Thisbookfocuseson]: (1)considerationof the governmental possibilities of theRegion as awhole; (2) emphasis ontheactual functioning of public agencieswithin the Area (3) emphasis on theprincipleof interlockingdirectoratesasameansof obtainingconsolidation; (4) at-tention to the importance of interstateagreements as abasisofregionalorganis-ation; (5) discussionof the possibilitiesofindependent statehood as a means ofmetropolitan development; [and] (6) de-velopment of a systemof central scalcontrol over local governments without es-tablishment of anewunit of government(Merriametal., 1933, preface).These themes were to be rediscovered dur-ing the 1950s1970s surge of urban-industrial growth inthe US, and againre-centlyinthesecondhalfofthe1990s. Dur-ing this 50-year period, the emphasis ofmetropolitanplanningchangedfrom guidingnewgrowthtolimitingthegeographical ex-pansionofthemetropolis. at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 854Fromthe late 1940s through the early1970s, metropolitanregionalismremainedafavouredremedyintheUSfordealingwithurbandevelopment andtheincreasinglyevi-dent social disparities reected in the geogra-phy of the metropolis. The newAdvisoryCommissiononIntergovenmental Relations(ACIR),foundedunderfederal lawin1959,focusedonce againonrestructuringmetro-politan government (Advisory CommissiononIntergovernmental Relations, 1961, 1962,1966).In his majestic tourdhorizon, LutherHalsey Gulick (1962), The MetropolitanProblemandAmericanIdeas, reectedthespirit of John Kennedys NewFrontier.Gulicks main points, almost paraphrasingMerriam 30 years earlier (quoted just above),werethat:(1) ourfocusonthecorecityofmetropoli-tanareasmustbereplacedbyabroaderview of socioeconomic and govern-mental development across the metro-polis;(2) all levels of US governmentespeciallythestatesmust bebrought tobear onemergingurbanproblems; and(3) someformof metropolitanfederalismwas probably the appropriate intergov-ernmentalapproach.Thesecondhalfofthe1960sbrought therenewedsocial activismof the civil rightsmovement and urban riots in major cities, aswell as New Deal-like expansionof federalgovernment programmes, as reected in Bol-lens and Schmadt (1965) The Metropolis,and H. Wentworth Eldredges two-volume1967 collection, Taming Megalopolis. Butwiththeexceptionofmetropolitan-level co-ordination agencies, such as Councils ofGovernments (COGs) (1965), MetropolitanPlanning Organisations (1966) and A-95Clearing Houses (1969), the metropolitanagenda remained very similar to that outlinedbyJonesin1942(seeCommitteeonEcon-omic Development, 1970; Advisory Com-mission on Intergovernmental Relations,197374). Citycounty consolidationsas inthe 19th centuryandlimitedregional co-ordinationandspecial servicedistrictsweretypical of the period. Bythe time ACIRsseriesonSubstateRegionalismappearedinthe early 1970s, the Nixon administrationhad taken steps to defund Kennedy/Johnson-era federal initiatives and, withthem, further moves towards metropolitangovernance. The next 25 years, until thelate1990s,with few exceptions,marked a retreatfromintergovernmental approaches tolocalproblems. The Reagan Revolution of the1980s was especially important for this.Executive Order 12372endedtheA-95re-viewprocess and, between1980and1990,COGs lost federal funding and fell in numberfrom 670 to 435, or by 35 per cent (Ross andLevine, 1996, p. 357). ACIRwasclosedin1996, and only in the second termof theClinton administration has the call for metro-politanchangetrulybecomefocused.3. The Major Problem: GovernmentalFragmentationThe doctrine of metropolitan regionalism hasinsistedfor 70 yearsthatgovernmentalfrag-mentationisthemajor sourceof USurbanproblems. RossandLevine(1996, pp. 310313), arguing more from conviction than evi-dence, present thestrongprogramagainstfragmentation:Localautonomyhas produceda systemofmetropolitan fragmentation whereby themetropolitan area is divided into manysmaller jurisdictions with no governmentpossessing thepower tolookout for thegood of the entire region. No local jurisdic-tion is required to lookat theeffects of itsactions on other jurisdictions.Few suburbsarewillingtoalterlanduse, housing, andschoolarrangements when such alterationsimposenewcostsonexistingresidents.Theconsequences of suburbanautonomyand metropolitan fragmentation are nu-merous. Theycanbrieybesummarizedasfollows:1. Racial imbalanceinthemetropolis2. Incomeandresourceimbalanceinthemetropolis at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 8553. Theprotectionofprivilege4. Increasedbusinesspower5. Theimpact of suburbs oncentral cit-ies [the]exploitationhypothesis6. Problems of housingaffordability andhomelessness7. Thelackofrational landuseplanningand commitment to environmentalvalues8. Problems in service provision citizens denied theadvantagesof econ-omies of scale (emphasis in original)Governmental fragmentation is certainly pro-nounced in urban America, and settlementpatterns are becoming ever-more decen-tralised. Table 1 was constructed by StephensandWikstrom(2000, p. 8) fromCensus ofGovernments information(taken everyveyears by the US Bureau of the Census, begin-ningin1932). Theideaof thegovernmentcensus itself was part of the regionalistmovement.For thelatest reportingyear, 1997, therewere more than 87 000 units of local govern-ment intheUS; all of themdevolvedlegalcreations of the individualstates (Judge Dil-lons Rule; see, City of Clinton,Missouri, v.Cedar Rapids andMissouri River Railroad(1868)). Intermsofthemost basicformofgeneral-purpose government, counties haveremained steady at a countof just over 3000for the last seven decades.4The count ofmunicipalities (urban places) has gone upfrom 16 400 to 19 400, or by 18 per cent; notconsidering, of course, the geographical orpopulation size of the places concerned.Non-urbantownsandtownships havefallenby aboutthesame proportion. Thisdecades-long pattern of rural decline and urbangrowth is reected more clearly by the aban-donmentof rural schooldistricts at an amaz-ing overall rate of minus 94 per cent; as wellas thegrowthof urban-service-type specialdistrictsby240percent.This last statistic is indicative of the mistbetweentheincreasingnumber(andimplic-itly, thesize) of municipalities andthestilllarger geographical areaabsorbedbyurbangrowth. Lookedatfromanotherangle, localgovernment complexityfell by57per centwithruralurban changefrom1932to1972,and then increased once again by 12 per centwith continued urbanisation through 1997.Table 1. Local governments in the US, 193297Towns and School SpecialYear Counties Municipalities townships districts districts Totals1932 3 062 16 442 19 978 128 548 14 572 182 602(1937) 3 053 16 332 19 183 113 571 9 867 162 0061942 3 050 16 220 18 919 108 579 8 299 115 067(1947) 3 049 16 360 18 051 95 521 9 302 142 2831952 3 050 16 778 17 202 56 346 12 319 105 6841957 3 050 17 215 17 198 50 454 14 424 102 3411962 3 043 17 997 17 144 34 678 18 823 91 6851967 3 049 18 048 17 105 21 742 21 264 81 2481972 3 044 18 517 16 991 15 781 23 885 78 2181977 3 042 18 862 19 822 15 174 25 962 79 8621982 3 041 19 076 16 734 14 851 28 078 81 7801987 3 042 19 200 16 691 14 721 29 532 83 1861992 3 043 19 279 16 656 14 422 31 555 84 9551997 3 043 19 372 16 629 13 726 34 683 87 453Notes: Various census reports for later years sometimes differ slightly from the date reported inearlier census reports as to the exact number of local governments for a given Census of Governmentsyear. The years shown in parentheses (1937and 1947)are estimates.Source: Stephensand Wikstrom(2000,p. 8).Data Sources: 1957 through 1992 Census of Governments, Vol.1 and 1997 fax from GovernmentsDivision of the Census Bureau, May 1998;Graves, (1964,p. 699). at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 856This grand total understates settlement-patternchangethough, becauseit overlooksthebroadnationwidedistributionof declin-ingrural school districts andthe compara-tively tightly knit pattern of metropolis-centredspecialdistrictgrowth.To calculate changinglevels of US metro-politanfragmentation duringthemostrecentreporting periods for which detailed statisticsareavailable, wedevelopedourownmetro-politan fragmentation index (MFI) for thecensusyears 1972and 1992(see the Appen-dix for details). Over 300 MetropolitanStatisticalAreas(MSAs)werebrokendowninto: population-size groupings; and, geo-graphical regions (Northeast, Midwest,South and West). These categories werechosen because it is frequently assumedthat large, older MSAs in the Northeastand Midwest will be more governmentallyfragmented than smaller, newer metropolitanareas fromthe South and West (see, forexample, Stephens and Wikstrom, 2000,pp. 328).In1972, 311metropolitanregions of theUS had an average MFI of 3.8 (fromatheoreticalrangeof1toinnity)(seeTable2). The distribution was skewed, in that therewere a few regionswith very highscores, asdemonstrated by the median MFI of 3.4.Heading the list was Philadelphia with anindexof 14.3. Roundingout the topsevenmost-fragmented regions were St Louis(12.3), Boston (11.2), Pittsburgh (10.7),ScrantonWilkes Barre, PA (9.3), Min-neapolisSt Paul (8.5)andChicago(8.3). Attheotherend of thescalewas Midland, TX,with a score of 1.3.The top seven most-cen-tralised MSAs also included Owensboro, KY(1.4), San Angelo, TX(1.4), Jackson, TN(1.5), Odessa, TX(1.5), Las Cruces, NM(1.5)andTucson, AZ(1.6).In terms of both size and geographicallocation, MFI scores tended to followtheexpectedpattern. Thescalewasstatisticallysensitivetopopulationsize. Theupper partofTable2presentsthe1972MFIs byMSApopulation-sizegroupings. Aspopulationin-Table 2. Metropolitanfragmentation index (MFI), 197225th 75thPopulationsize Count Median Mean percentile percentileBy MSA sizeLarge (over 2 million) 24 5.65 6.64 4.63 8.23Medium-large (12 millions) 32 5.03 4.99 3.43 6.54Medium (500 000 to 1 million) 41 4.09 4.23 3.36 4.89Medium-small (250 000 to 500 000) 73 3.46 3.69 2.92 4.45Small (under 250 000) 141 2.79 3.04 2.17 3.62Total 311 3.40 3.83 2.58 4.63F587.52sig. 000By regionNortheast 46 5.38 5.85 4.22 7.29Midwest 87 4.14 4.25 2.89 4.89South 122 2.83 2.98 2.13 3.55West 56 3.10 3.37 2.66 4.17Total 311 3.40 3.83 2.58 4.63F543.61sig. 000Source: Calculated by the authorsfrom data in US Bureau of the Census (1972). at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 857Table 3. Metropolitanfragmentation index (MFI), 1972(by both MSA size and region)Populationsize Northeast Midwest South West TotalLarge (over 2 million) 8.12 8.66 4.87 5.00 6.67Medium-large(12 millions) 6.68 6.30 3.36 5.19 5.38Medium(500 000 to 1 million) 6.40 4.48 3.69 3.01 4.40Medium-small (250 000 to 500 000) 4.96 4.30 3.14 3.10 3.88Small (under 250 000) 4.59 3.53 2.38 2.74 3.31Total 5.85 4.25 2.98 3.37 3.83Source: Calculated by the authors from data in US Bureau of the Census (1972).creased, so did the index. Density and higherpopulations were related to complexity, asevidenced by the higher MFIs. A statisticallysignicant relationship was also found be-tweenMFIscoresandgeographical regions,showninthelowerportionof Table2. TheNortheast, withanaverageMFIof5.9, wasindeedmorefragmentedthanthe other re-gions. Conversely, the South, as generallyassumed, was more centralised than the otherregions.Combiningpopulationsize and geographi-cal regionbyaverage MFIs for 1972 pro-ducesthedatapresentedinTable3.Severalanomalies should be noted. First, althoughthe Northeast generally had higher scoresthanother regions, largemetropolitanareasintheMidwest weremorefragmentedthantheir Northeast counterparts. Secondly, al-though the Southwas generallymorecen-tralised than other regions, medium andmedium-small sized MSAs in the Westtended to be more centralised than theirsouthern counterparts. Finally, in all geo-graphical regions except the West, largeMSAs were substantially more fragmentedthan smaller metropolitan areas within thesameregion.Twenty years later, in 1992, the mean MFIforthesame311MSAshadincreasedfrom3.8to4.2an8.6percentriseintheindex(seeTable4). Moreimportantly, 248MSAsor 80 per cent had an increase in their MFIs,signifying greater fragmentation. An im-mediateexplanatoryhypothesis wouldbetoassume that this additional fragmentationshould followpopulation change: as popu-lation increases, so should the MFI. How-ever, the correlation between populationchangeandchangesin thefragmentationin-dex is statistically insignicant. Twootherfactors contributed more to a higher scorethan did population.The rst was an increaseintheabsolutenumber of governments perMSA, and the second was the fact that subur-ban governmentswhich experienced thebulk of population growth in metropolitanareasplayedagreaternancial roleinthedeliveryofpublicservicesthantheyhad20yearsearlier.Philadelphiacontinuedto have the highestscoreonthemetropolitanfragmentationin-dex at 15.4. St Louis and Boston retained thesecond and third positions, respectively.Chicagojumped from seventhto fourth witha46.1per cent increaseintheindex, from8.3 to 12.1. Pittsburgh, ScrantonWilkesBarre, PA, and MinneapolisSt Paul com-pleted thetop seven most-fragmented MSAsin1992. ThegreatestabsolutechangeintheMFIoccurredinChicago, 3.8points. Hous-tonandSt Louis werenext witha2.1in-crease in their scores. They were followed byLakeCounty, IL(1.9) andJoliet, IL(1.9).Chicagos 46per cent increase intheMFImade it themostfragmentingMSAduringthe197292period. Fiveothermetropolitanareas also had an increase in their scoresgreater than 40 per cent: Houston (44 percent); Galveston, TX (44 per cent);Tuscaloosa, AL(42per cent); Greeley, CO(42 per cent); and Midland, TX (41 per cent).Thisall suggeststhat MSAs intheMidwest,South and West might have been decentralis- at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 858Table 4. Metropolitanfragmentation index (MFI), 199225th 75thPopulationsize Count Median Mean percentile percentileBy MSA sizeLarge (over 2 million) 24 6.73 7.59 4.87 9.30Medium-large (12 millions) 32 5.41 5.39 3.56 7.49Medium (500 000 to 1 million) 41 4.34 4.55 3.37 5.14Medium-small (250 000 to 500 000) 73 3.68 3.97 3.03 4.52Small (under 250 000) 141 3.04 3.29 2.30 4.01Total 311 3.67 4.16 2.75 4.97F587.52sig. 000By regionNortheast 46 5.78 6.39 4.63 7.84Midwest 87 4.32 4.62 2.95 5.13South 122 3.04 3.22 2.30 3.90West 56 3.36 3.69 2.76 4.13Total 311 3.67 4.16 2.75 4.97F543.61sig. 000Source: Calculated by the authorsfrom data in US Bureau of the Census (1992)ingmore rapidly thanthenationas a whole,or than the older, more fragmented northeast-ernregion(Table5).Changes in the MFI between 1972 and1992 by population-size group and geograph-ical regionarepresentedinTables6and7.Twonotable trends emerged. First, overallpopulation size was not a statisticallysignicant factor. Indeed, all populationgroups were fragmenting at approximatelythesamerate. Ahigher rateof increaseforlargemetropolitanareas,14.3per cent,was,however, suggestivethat areas which alreadyhad a higher MFI were apt to fragment fasterthan MSAs that were not already as frag-mentedas others. Thisobservationwassup-ported by index changes in the 75thpercentileMSAs inmedium-largeandsmallmetropolitanareas.TheseMSAs, relativetotheir population groups, had comparablyhigher MFIs. They also experienced moreacceleratedgrowthintheir scores: 14.5percent and10.8percent, respectively.Secondly, geographical region was alsonot signicantlyassociatedwithchanges inthefragmentationindex. However, althoughTable 5. Metropolitanfragmentation index (MFI), 1992(by both MSA size and region)Populationsize Northeast Midwest South West TotalLarge (over 2 million) 8.93 10.36 5.61 5.71 7.65Medium-large(12 millions) 7.04 6.96 3.56 5.85 5.85Medium(500 000 to 1 million) 7.22 4.77 3.92 3.11 4.76Medium-small (250 000 to 500 000) 5.40 4.67 3.31 3.35 4.19Small (under 250 000) 4.99 3.75 2.61 2.99 3.59Total 6.39 4.62 3.22 3.69 4.16Source: Calculated by the authors from data in US Bureau of the Census (1992). at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 859Table 6. Metropolitanfragmentation index, 197292 (percentage change)Populationsize Count Mean 25th percentile 75th percentileBy MSA sizeLarge (over 2 million) 24 14.2 5.2 13.0Medium-large (12 millions) 32 8.2 3.8 14.5Medium (500 000 to 1 million) 41 7.6 0.3 5.1Medium-small (250 000 to 500 000) 73 8.1 3.8 1.6Small (under 250 000) 141 8.6 6.0 10.8Total 311 8.7 6.6 7.3F50.15sig. nsBy regionNortheast 46 9.0 9.7 7.5Midwest 87 7.4 2.1 4.9South 122 8.9 8.0 9.9West 56 10.3 7.8 21.0Total 311 8.7 6.6 7.3F51.299sig. nsSource: Calculated by the authorsfrom the data available in Tables 25.Table 7. Metropolitanfragmentation index, 197292 (percentage change)Populationsize Northeast Midwest South West TotalLarge (over 2 million) 10.4 19.6 14.8 13.8 14.2Medium-large(12 millions) 5.5 10.4 7.4 11.6 8.2Medium(500 000 to 1 million) 11.1 7.0 6.8 6.8 7.6Medium-small (250 000 to 500 000) 9.1 8.3 6.9 9.8 8.1Small (under 250 000) 9.2 5.6 10.2 10.5 8.6Total 9.0 7.4 8.9 10.3 8.7F50.549sig. nsSource: Calculated by the authors from the data available in Tables 25.locationwas statisticallyinsignicant, thepossible implications of this fact were farfrom insignicant: metropolitan Americawas becoming more governmentally frag-mentedregardless of geographical location.As can beseen in the lower section of Table6, allregionsexperiencedfragmentation.Tointerpretfurtherthesechanges, weas-signed MSAs into the six groupingsfor 1972shown in Table 8. Twelve per cent wereclassied as centralisedand 4.8per cent assuper decentralised. Of the centralisedMSAs, 36 of 37 were located in the South orWest. Conversely, all 15 of the super decen-tralised metropolitan areas were in theNortheast andMidwest.Another groupingwas made to capture thetrend in fragmentation between 1972 and1992. Five groupswere created based on therateofchangeinMFIs, as seeninTable 9.5Asmentionedearlier, 80percent ofmetro-politanareasfell intoadecentralisingcate-gory. Conversely, only 63 MSAs (out of 311)were centralising. In theNortheastand West at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 860Table 8. Fragmentation groupmembership by region, 1972Group 1972 Score Northeast Midwest South West TotalHighly centralised 1.002.00 1 26 10 37Moderately centralised 2.003.00 2 21 42 15 80Slightlydecentralised 3.004.00 8 19 33 17 77Moderately decentralised 4.005.00 10 26 17 5 58Highly decentralised 5.007.50 15 16 4 9 44Superdecentralised 7.50 1 11 4 15Total 46 87 122 56 311Source: Calculated by the authors.Table 9. Fragmentation trend groupmembership by region, 197292197292 trend group Percentage change Northeast Midwest South West TotalCentralising 25 or more 5 16 7 28Slow centralising 05 3 18 13 1 35Slow decentralising 010 24 34 41 16 115Rapid decentralising 1020 15 20 33 22 90Hyper decentralising 20 or more 4 10 19 10 43Total 46 87 122 56 311Source: Calculated by the authors.this representedonly6.5per cent and14.3per cent, respectively. Over 26per cent ofMidwest MSAs were centralising, as were 24per cent of Southern areas. At the high end ofthescale,42.8percentof all US metropoli-tan areas fell into the rapid or hyper decen-tralisingcategories.The percentage of southern and westernMSAs that were included in this latter group-ing exceeded those in the Northeast (41.3 percent) andMidwest (34.5per cent). Infact,57.1per centof western MSAs and 42.6percent of southern areas increased their frag-mentation over the 20 years by greater than 10per cent. So while the Northeast and Midwestwerethemostfragmentedregions, theSouthand West were the most fragmenting. Thehighly centralised category, see Table 10,had 37 entries in 1972, but only 20 in 1992asignicant decline. Whileat theother ex-treme, the number of super decentralisedMSAs across the country increased from 15 to25, fora67percent gaininonly20years.Thetrendthroughtheearly1990s inmetro-politan America was, thus, toward increas-inglyuniformgovernmental fragmentation.The questions then are: what has happenedduringtherest of thedecade; and, howarewetoevaluatethesecontinuingchanges, inrelation to the Regional Coalitions policyagenda?Weaddresstheseissuesinthenexttwosections.4. Hollowing-outoftheUSMetropolisTentative answers to such questions require abroad perspective. First, we will considerdemographic changethe root cause ofgovernmentaladaptationduringthesecondhalf of the 1990s. Ahundred years ago,metropolitan growth in the US was rst doc-umentedbyAdna F. Weber (1899) inTheGrowthofCities inthe NineteenthCentury.6Three-score years later, Jean Gottman (1959)wrotehisclassicstudyof Megalopolis: TheUrbanizedNortheasternSeaboardof the US,analyzing the vertical arm of theBoswash/Great Lakes urban systemcom- at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 861Table 10. Fragmentation groupmembership by region, 1992Group 1992 Score Northeast Midwest South West TotalHighly centralised 1.002.00 17 3 20Moderately centralised 2.003.00 1 22 42 14 79Slightlycentralised 3.004.00 5 13 34 24 76Moderately decentralised 4.005.00 10 24 22 5 61Highly decentralised 5.007.50 16 19 6 9 50Superdecentralised 7.50 1 14 9 1 1 25Total 46 87 122 56 311Source: Calculated by the authors.plex. John Friedmann (Friedmann andMiller, 1965) expanded the metropolitanconcept toincludeTheUrbanFields, likeSouthern California: a veritable island on theland. C. F. Whebell (1969) proposed hisCorridors: a theory of urban systems toexplain Canadian metropolitan clusters alongthe St Lawrence River. And Brian Berry(1973a)completed this celebration of metro-politangrowthwithhismassive,nationwideempirical study of Growth Centers in theAmerican Urban System. This was the end ofan era, however. In the same year Berry(1973b) alsopublished The Human Conse-quencesof Urbanisation, and by 1980wroteof Urbanisationandcounterurbanisationinthe United States. Fromthis intellectualquestioningof large-scale urban growth dur-ing the second half of the 1970s and through-out the1980s, the1990s provedatimeofactualmetropolitandeclineinAmerica.It is impossible to present an accurateanalysis of changing US urban populationpatterns until after the decennial census of2000. But theUSBureauoftheCensushasreleasedpopulationestimatesforthedecade198797. These showthat average 10-yearpopulation growth for MSAs was 9.9 percent, compared with a national average of10.4percent(Mitchell-Weaveret al., 2000,p. 4)i.e. the growth rate for MSAs was 0.5percentlowerthanthenational average.Declines in the central cities have beencommon as Americans headed for suburbsinrecentdecades, but nowthemetropoli-tanareascityandsuburbarelosingtothe countryside (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1997, p. A8).Inthesamevein,Growth areas are able to offer countryliving with proximity to the city For therst time, moreAmericansaremigratingfrommajormetropolitanareas torural ar-eas, often referred to as exurbs (PittsburghPost-Gazette, 1997, p. S8).Such marginal net rates change annually.While the 199596 report concluded thatMore people left than moved into metroareas in199596, the1997County Popu-lation Estimates argued that the fastest-growing counties [were] predominantlySouthern, Western and Metropolitan (USBureau of the Census, 1997,p. 1; US BureauoftheCensus, 1998, p. 1).But thiscouldbemisleading, becausetheaverages are skewed by changes in thelargest UScounty, LosAngeles, withmorethan9millionresidentslarger thanaboutone-third of all US states and most membersof the United Nations. California reversed itspopulationdeclineduringthemid1990s: in1994, at the bottomof its longrecession, thestatelost 430 000residents, but in1997itspopulationgrewby410 000(Baker, 1998).Thus, Southern Californias turnaround,alone, frompost-Cold War aerospace lay-offs, signicantlychangedtheaverages fornational metropolitan net growth in the latestreporting year, 1997. The reality is that, from at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 862at least 199097, many US metropolitancounties, even by generous geographicaldenitionsofMSAs, lost population.Los Angeles Countyaccounts for approxi-mately 200per centofall netgain/lossesti-matesduringthelatest tworeportingyears.National averages for metropolitan growthare even more equivocal, however, given thenational-regional nature of both rates ofgrowth and absolute population growth byMSA. Accordingtothe1997CountyPopu-lation Estimates, the top 10 counties in termsof growth rate were all locatedinthe USWest andSouth. The10biggest numericalgainers inpopulationwere, inorder: Mari-copa, AZ; LosAngeles; Clark,NV; Orange,CA;SanDiego; Harris,TX; Riverside, CA;Broward, FL; Dallas and Collin, TX(USBureauof theCensus, 1998, p. 2). LA, Or-ange, SanDiegoandRiverside, California,are all part of the Southern California conur-bation. Maricopa, AZ, and Clark, NV, arebothjust next door. WiththeexceptionofBroward, FL, all other major growth countieslieinmetropolitancentral Texas. Thepointisthat these10counties experiencedanin-crease of nearly one-half a million inhabi-tants, whichmeans that real growthinthemajority of other MSAs must have beennegative. Thisalso suggeststhat in 6 or 7 ofthe 10 US federal government regions,metropolitan hollowing-out may be thenorm.Hollowing-outthe doughnut effectoccurs when regional populationshifts moveboth people andjobs awayfromcities to-wards surroundingoutlyingsuburbs. Sub-urbs grew twice as fast in 199697 ascentral-city counties. More strikingly, in thissame reportingperiod, metropolitancountiesfollowedasimilarpattern, with1.3percentgrowthrates, whileoutlyingcountiesinthesame general populationcluster increased by2.6 per cent. This was most marked in metro-politanareas likeMinneapolisSt Paul, At-lanta,Nashville,TN, DallasFortWorthandSan Antonio, TX (Baker, 1998). In economicterms,couldit bethat its not thesuburbs thatdepend on the hub, but that it is instead theexact opposite? (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1998).Concerning the so-called dependency hy-pothesis, quoted earlier from Ross andLevine (1996) (see p. 312), if anything, itseems that the core city is probablydependenton its edge cities and suburbsforits economic vitality (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1998). Arecent studyof thePitts-burghMSAfoundsimilar results, withthehighest wage bill in the region paid by outly-ing low-skill manufacturing industries(Mitchell-Weaveretal., 2000, p. 16).So what does this suggest about coreperiphery relations in US metropolitan re-gions?It contradictstheclassicalhypothesissummarised by John Friedmann (1972) in hisA general theory of polarized develop-ment. StartingwithGunnarMyrdal(1957),polarised development theory was alwayspainted with very broad brush strokes, and itsgeographical scaleof referencetosaytheleastwas ambiguous. In terms of USmetropolitan regions, its stark spatial dualismwouldappear tobeunfounded. Rather thanendless cumulative causationor revolution-ary decentralisation, core-area rot anddribblingperipheralgrowthwouldseemtobe the unspectacular outcome. Perhaps this isone possible manifestation of Friedmannsurbanelds.However thismaybe, thereissomethingsignicantly more complex unfolding herethan can be portrayed by simple physicalanalogue models (such as doughnuts, orwaterdropletsspreadingacrossatabletop)or virtual-realityrepresentations onacom-puter. It alsoappearstobesomethingquitedifferent fromunending urban-like sprawltexturedbyChancyHarrisandEdwardUll-mans (1954) multiple-nuclei patternof ur-ban growth (see Friedmann and Weaver,1979). As quoted above, Americans wouldappear to be actually moving out of themetropolis into rural areas and smaller townsand cities, some of themapparently free-standing; escapingthemetropolisandreset-tling the countryside. This observation at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 863cannot be proved or documented for two orthree more years, until the rst statisticalsummaries are produced comparing the 1990and2000USCensusesofPopulation. Eventhen, the Census Bureaus propensity togather and analyse minimal informationabout non-metropolitan areas may lead tosomeratherunrepresentativeconclusions.Itcouldbearguedthatpoliticallyandso-cially conservativegroupsand upper-incomeclasses within the populationhave frequentlytriedtoescapethehassle, expenseanddan-ger of living in the city centre, throughout thelong history of ruralurban relations (seeMitchell-Weaver, 1995). Thisthoughwouldmiss the crucial structural economic-geographical changestakingplacein theUShuman landscape. Asimple scenario sum-marising US experience might run somethinglikethefollowing.Forovera hundredyearsafter theAmeri-can Civil War (186165), the US space econ-omywasintegratedonanearlycontinentalbasis bythe processes andsocial forces ofthe second industrial revolution. Manifestdestiny, the God-given right to controlNorth America, was not limited by pre-industrial economic organisation andsocialformations, likecontinentalist imperial Rus-sia or China. The US national economy,orderedintoahierarchical systemof urbanplaces, marchedacrossthecontinent. Largeurban corridors along the easternseaboardandGreatLakes,andtheninCaliforniaandTexas, madetheUSanurban-industrial be-hemoth, withahighly concentratedthoughdecentralisedmetropolitancore. Duringtherst quarter-century following World War II,rapid metropolitan growth and continuingin-ternational and ruralurban migration fuelleda dramatic process of suburbanisation, basedoncheapenergy, the automobile, suburbanroads and highways and middle-incomeight fromthe increasingly heterogeneous,polluted, worn-out andcrime-riddenmetro-politan core citiesrst to inner-ring sub-urbs, then to outer-ring communities andnally exurbs. The centre city becamepoverty-stricken as it lost higher-incomegroups, jobs, taxbase: economic-geographi-calpoweringeneral.Andbythelate1960sand early 1970s, it became the focus ofconcentrated government attention and redis-tribution payments, because of widespreadsocial unrest, civil disobedienceandrioting.Urban policy and newplanning measureswerearesponsetodomesticpolitical crisis(Friedmann, 1973).By the end of the 1970s, the same middle-and higher-incomepeoplewho were movingtotheurbanfringevotedbyanoverwhelm-ing majority for passage of Proposition13 inCalifornia, whichcut propertytaxes inthestate by60 per cent.(Propertytaxes or ratesarethebasisof urbanpublicnanceintheUS.) Proposition13proponents arguedthatgovernment spending could be cut by asmuch as 25 per cent without any deterio-ration in public services (to middle-classhome-owners). Awide spectrumof votersresentedthegrowthof governmental subsi-dies for the poor, withtwo-thirds of thosecitizens who voted yea believing that welfarepayments should be cut. This marked thebeginningsoftheconservativeReaganRev-olution of the 1980s, when all manner offederalsupport forurban-focusedredistribu-tion programmes was drastically cut back(Herson and Bolland, 1998, pp. 352355).Duringthe1990s, thesesamepeopleappar-ently continued voting with their feet, mov-ing out of megalopolis back to thecountryside.Since the 1890 US Census, rural areas hadbeen losing population. Farmers left the land.Central-place market centres dried up andbecame ghost towns, and thesettlementsys-temwas dominatedbyhigher-level serviceand manufacturingcentres inthe urban hier-archy. One hundred years laterstarting per-hapsonlyadecadeagothepoliticallyandeconomically dominant white middle classbegan, selectively, moving back to small andmid-sizedcities, andrural areas ontheex-tremeperipheryof urbanclusters alongtheUS Defense and Interstate Highways System.Thispopulationshift hasbeenaccompaniedbyasimilar locational change injobs andserviceactivities. Theoutlyingmetropolitanperipheryandfreestandingtowns of 5000 at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 86415 000 (and larger) are nowthe sites ofmajor greeneld (automated, low-skill) man-ufacturing plants, vast shopping mallsofferingeverything that canbebought inthebigcityandtractsof pleasant suburb-like, upper-middle-class homes, surroundedby large lawns and protected by geographicalisolation and locally controlled police forces.If this is indeed a real demographic shift, atrend which continues and accelerates intothe21st century, thenmetropolitanAmericais likelytobecomeevenmorefragmented.The large city will experience a changedecologyand increasingeconomic, social andpolitical difculties (Waste, 1998, p. 6). Sowhat is to be done in public-policy terms? Inthe next section, we examine this secondquestion, howdoes the agenda of the newRegionalist Coalition propose tocope withthe hyper-fragmentation of urban America?5. TheRegional CoalitionAgendaDavidB. Walker(1987) publishedawidelyused breakdown of typesof intergovernmen-tal co-ordination in the venerable and ad-mirably persistent National Civic Review.Wepresent hisclassicationscheme hereinTable 11. Walker grouped modes of inter-governmental co-operationaccordingtotheperceived degree of politicaldifculty in ini-tiating and managing them. The rst twogroups primarily refer to regional approachesto urban-type service delivery; limited re-gional governance, if youwill. Theeasiestare informal, non-bindingand contractual ar-rangements, as well as federal or state en-couraged or mandated co-ordination.Moderatelydifcult co-ordinationgenerallyincludesspecialdistricts, annexationandre-formedurban counties (i.e. counties withmodern governmentalstructures that provideurban-typeservices).The Very difcult category (numbers1517), refers to actual unitsof metropolitangovernment, and what Stephens and Wik-strom(2000, p. 102, T5.1) call limitedre-gional structures. This group requires afuller explanationbecause it is here that theRegional Coalition Agenda tends to lead, anditisherethatitwill bethemostdifculttoachieveitsobjectives.Table 11. Types of intergovernmental co-ordination, governance andgovernmentRelatively easy1Informal co-operation2Interlocal service agreements3Joint powers agreements4Extraterritorial powers5Regional councilsof government (COGs)6Federally encouraged single-purposedistricts7State planningand developmentdistricts (SPDDs)8Contractingfrom private vendorsModerately difcult9Local special districts10Transfer of functions11Annexation12Regional special districts and authorities13Metropolitanmultipurposedistricts14Reformed urban countyVery difcult15One-tier consolidation: city-countyand area-wide consolidation16Two-tier restructuring:federal structures17Three-tier reform: metropolitan-widestructuresSource: Adapted from Walker (1987,p. 16). at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 865One-tier consolidation means a totallynewlevel of regional government. Histori-cally, it hasbeenestablishedbycity-countyand area-wide consolidation. There were sev-eral such mergers in the 19th century, asmentioned abovein section 2; 710, depend-ing on how one counts. These were typicallyestablished by state legislative authority.SinceWorldWarII, therehavebeenintheneighbourhoodof 20, includingwell-knownexamples like Baton Rouge, LS (1949),Nashville, TN (1962), Jacksonville, FL(1968) and Indianapolis, IN(1970). Mostwere in the South and required voter ap-proval. The last notable one, in 1970,Unigov,whichinvolvedanorthernindus-trial city, Indianapolis, could only beachieved by legislative at. Ten smallergrowth anticipation consolidations tookplacebetween1971and1992intheSouthandWest(specically, Alaska).Consolidations aretheepitomeof metro-politanregionalism, bringingeverythingun-der one governmental unit. They areextremelyhardtoget past thevoters, how-ever. In1997, theProvinceof Ontariopro-posed an area-wide consolidation of sixexistingcitiesthat since1953hadmadeupToronto Metro, a two-tier structure. Seventy-ve per cent of voters, perhaps following thelead of the six municipal mayors, all ofwhomopposedamalgamation, votedagainstthe measure. Nevertheless, provincialofcialsenactedBill 103inMay1997, andin January 1998 the six cities and Metro werereplaced by a unitary City of TorontoGovernment. It is hard to imagine such high-handed manipulation across the border in theUSat thispoint intime.Two-tier restructuring involves metro-politan-level federalism. Area-wide func-tions are separated fromlocal ones. Thebest example is MiamiDade County,Florida (1957), a two-tier urban county.Localities control zoning, lot sizes, educationand other lifestyle choices (amenities),while the county arranges for system-servingfunctions suchashighways, transport, sew-ers, water treatment, solid waste disposal,etc. This allows the regiontobenet fromrather obvious scaleeconomies, without lo-cal citizenslosingcontrol oftheirneighbor-hoods. There are distinct advantages andlimitations, in terms of metropolitanefciency and equity. But it is frequentlyadvocatedas thebest possible compromise(Stephens and Wikstrom, 2000, pp. 167174).Therearemerelytwoexamplesof three-tierreform intheUS today: MinneapolisStPaul andPortland, OR. Botharecelebratedby the newRegional Coalition (see Leo,1998, and Rusk, 1999). They represent ahalfwayhouse betweenfederatedstructuresand consolidated metropolitan government.Each has unique characteristics. The older ofthe two, MinneapolisSt Paul, was estab-lished in 1967. It was done by the statelegislature of Minnesota,and has a 16-mem-ber regional council, appointed by the gover-nor, which exercises policy-reviewpowersand provides regionwide services. The regionalsobenetsfromrevenuesharing, eveningout the scal resources of local governmentalunits.Portland Metropolitan Service Districtcame into existence in 1979.It was based onalonghistoryof regional co-operation, in-volvingspecial service districts and the localCOG, theColumbiaRegionalAssociation ofGovernments. Metro was part of a packageproposedbyOregongovernor TomMcCallas a radical no growth policy, to protectnorthernCascadiafromthe fateof sprawl-infested California. It was passed by the statelegislature and approved by the voters. Metrohas a seven-member elected council withpolicy-review and service-delivery functions.Aspart of itsland-useplanningmandate, itoperates a regional greenbelt, called themetropolitanurbangrowthboundary, UGB.The UGBwas approved by the statewideOregon Land Conservation and DevelopmentCommission, and specically operates tostopurbansprawl beyondtheboundaryandpromote more intensive, new urbanism-type development in the City of Portland anditsinner-ringsuburbs(seeWeitz, 1999).Portland and MinneapolisSt Paul, withoutcreating another level of general government, at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 866represent the ideals of the new RegionalCoalitionAgenda. Stateregionallocal fed-eralismprovides co-ordinated planning andinfrastructuredevelopment, regionwidepro-vision of municipal services, metropolitanrevenue sharing, and smart growth, limitingsprawlandredevelopingthecore. Fromthisperspective,all that remains to be added is areactivatednational government, creating amore powerful nancial and legal carrot-and-sticksystem. Thiswill probablydepend, inthe rst instance, on the outcome of theNovember2000elections.Publicists forthenewRegional CoalitionAgenda present a nowfamiliar argument,almostexnihilo. BruceKatz, directoroftheBrookingsInstitutionsCenteronUrban andMetropolitan Policy, gives an overviewofthe Coalitions argument in the BrookingsReview(KatzandBernstein, 1998):Americans have been content, for the mostpart, with a publicsector that consists of afragmented maze of local governmentsandspecial districts andaprivate sectorthat builds mostlyunrelatedsubdivisionsratherthanintegratedcommunities(p. 4).While hundreds of independent jurisdic-tionsstillpartitionmostofourmetropoli-tan areas, their economic activities areborderless(p. 4).In the past few years, metropolitanismhasreemerged as a notableforce indozensofmajor metropolitan regionsand it is evenbeginning to alter market practices (em-phasisadded; p. 4).They are appalled by explosive sprawl intoperipheral farmlandsandopenspace, ris-ing suburban trafc congestion, andslower growth or absolute decline in manycentral citiesandoldersuburbs(pp. 45).In manyAmerican metropolitanareas, es-pecially in the Northeast and Midwest,central cities and older inner-ring suburbshave been left behind Consequently,these once-proud places now harbor higherand higher concentrations of the poor, par-ticularly the minority poor, without thescal capacitytograpplewiththeconse-quences: joblessness, family fragmen-tation, failing schools, and deterioratingcommercial districts (emphasis added;p. 5).Inmetropolitanareas across thecountry,thesechangesarecreatinganimpetusforthe formation of new, powerful, some-times-majoritycoalitions at local andre-gional levels. Electedofcialsfromcitiesand inner suburbs; downtown corporate,philanthropic,and civic interests; minorityand low-income community representa-tives; environmentalists; no-growthadvo-cates in the new suburbs; farmers and ruralactivists; and religiousleaders all are real-izingthat theyloseassprawl accelerates(p. 5).Some states are joining the action Marylandenacted smart growth NewJerseyisconsidering preserv[ing] hun-dredsof thousands of acres Minnesotahas upgraded metropolitan govern-ment Oregon continues its landmarkland uselaw Missouri, Ohio andPenn-sylvania debatesimilarreforms(p. 6).7Even the federal government has gottenintotheact [when]Congresspreserved[the] metropolitanfocuswhenit reautho-rised the [1991 Intermodal Surface][T]ransportation[A]ct earlier this year(p. 6).In the same issue of the Brookings Review,Anthony Downs (1998, p. 11) summarisestherecommendationsinhis1994book:Therst [specic tactictostopsprawl]issome type of urbangrowth boundary tolimit the outward draining of resourcesfromthecoreareas.Thesecondtacticisregionalcoordinationandrationalizationoflocallanduseplan-ning, done by some regional planningbody, such as the MetropolitanCouncil intheTwinCities.Thethirdtacticissomeformof regionaltax-base sharing, with all additions tocommercial and industrial tax bases sharedamongall communitiesintheregion, notjust captured by the places where thosedevelopmentsarebuilt.The fourthtactic is regionwide develop- at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 867ment of housing for low-income house-holds, either byregional vouchers or re-gional new subsidies or by requiringdevelopers tobuildashareof affordablehousingineachnewproject.A fth tactic is regionaloperationof pub-lic transit systems and highways, includingnewfacilityconstruction.A nal tactic is vigorousregional enforce-ment of laws against racial discrimi-nation.8Effectivelyadoptinganyof thesetactics,orcertainlymostofthemtogether, wouldlikelyrequireastrongregionwideimple-mentingbody.Myron Oreld, head of the MetropolitanAreaResearchCorporationinMinneapolis,givesanin-depthstatement of theRegionalCoalitionsanalysisinMetropolitics: ARe-gional AgendaforCommunityandStability(1997), and provides a summary for action inhyper-fragmentedChicagobytheUSCon-gress(1998):9Inordertostabilizethecentral citiesandolder suburbs and prevent metropolitanpolarisation, there aresixsubstantive re-forms that must be accomplished on ametropolitanscale. Thereformsareinter-relatedandreinforceeachother substan-tively and politically. They are: (1)property tax-base equity; (2) reinvestment;and (3) fair housing. Together these re-forms provide resource equity,supportthephysical rebuilding necessary to bringback the middle class andprivate econ-omy, and gradually relieve the concen-trated social need that existsdisproportionatelyinoldersuburbancom-munities. The second three(4) land plan-ning/growth management coordinated withinfrastructure; (5) welfare reform/publicworks; and(6) transport/transit reformreinforce therst three andallowthemtooperateefcientlyandsustainably. Inad-dition, these reforms provide for growththat is balanced socioeconomically, ac-cessible by transit, economical withgovernmental resources, andenvironmen-tallyconscious(Oreld, 1998, p. 35).In June 1999, the US Department of HousingandUrbanDevelopment published itsthirdannualTheStateoftheCitiesreport.It con-tains a succinct statement of the waning Clin-tonadministrations urbanpolicywhich, ineffect, is adoption of the Regional Co-alitions essential analysis and agenda (USHUD, 1999):ThreeMajorFindingsFinding #1. Thanks to a boomingnationaleconomy, most cities are experiencing astrong scal and economic recovery. How-ever, toomanycentral citiesarestill leftbehind and continue to face the challengesofpopulationdecline,lossof middle-classfamilies, slow job growth, income in-equality, andpoverty.Finding #2.Some oldersuburbsare expe-riencing problems once associated withurban areasjob loss, populationdecline,crime,anddisinvestment. Simultaneously,manysuburbs, includingnewerones, arestraining under sprawlinggrowth that cre-ates trafc congestion, overcrowdedschools, loss of open spaces, and othersprawl-related problems, andalackofaf-fordablehousing.Finding#3. There is astrongconsensuson the need for joint city/suburbstrategiestoaddress sprawl andthestructural de-cline ofcities andoldersuburbs. Wenowhave an historic opportunity for co-operationbetweencitiesandcounties, ur-banas well as suburban, to address thechallenges facing our metropolitan areas(emphasisintheoriginal, p. vi).The 21st Century Agenda for Cities and Sub-urbsiscomposedoffourparts:(1) Opening Doors to New Markets. TheAdministrationsNewMarkets Initiativeis designed toensure communities canaccesstheriskcapital andtechnical ex-pertise theyneed totake advantage oftheir untappedmarketsfor labor, retail,andland.(2) Investing in Americas Working Men andWomen. The Agenda provides tools toensure that central city residents have the at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 868skillsneededfor todaysjobmarket andthe means to learn aboutand access jobsthatmay bedistantfromtheirneighbor-hoods.(3) ExpandingHomeownershipandAfford-able Rental Housing. Homeowners canbuild strong neighborhoodsboth in citiesthat are beginning to do better and inthosethat have been left behind. Provid-ing more assistanceforrental housingiscritical: for alleviating the distress ofworstcasehousingneedsandhomeless-ness; for overcoming the housing/jobsmismatch createdby metropolitande-velopment patterns; and for providingfamilies with the support and stabilitythey need to become part of the new labormarkets (4) PromotingSmarterGrowthandLivableCommunities. Torealizethebillions insavings that could be generated bystrengthening existing developed com-munities, the Agenda includes a majorinitiative to promote livable communi-ties. Theagendaalsoincludesmeasuresto ensure public safety, strengthen ourschools, and preserve natural resourcesand historic amenities. By providingcommunitieswithstrongtoolstotacklethese challenges, we canhelp enhancetheir attractiveness for residents, busi-nesses, andinvestors (USHUD, 1999,pp. 4647).6. ConclusionsTheClintonadministrationhas adoptedthelanguage of the new Regional CoalitionAgenda. Its urban and socioeconomic pro-grammes are presentedas the needed federalboost to get metropolitan regions co-operatingintermsof governance: taxation,service delivery and growth management. It isthereforeappropriate tomakeanumber ofcritical observations. First, the Administrationis now a lame duck, and will be even morehardpressedthanbeforetomoveambitiouslegislation through anopposition-controlledCongress. Theseissuesshouldbepart of the2000electoral campaignandbrought beforethe voters, if they have merit. Otherwise, theywill remain anarcane subject for elite think-tanksandBeltwayexperts.Secondly, theRegional CoalitionandtheClinton administration both bring a heavyload of ideological baggage to the metropoli-tangrowthdebate. Rather thanfocusingonshared governance in system-serving func-tions that has demonstratedsomeappeal inMSAs across the US (Wallis, 1993), theyboth emphasise government intervention inso-calledlifestylechoices, immediately rais-ingthe suspicions of the middle-class ma-jority. Urban policy is being used as asubstitutefornational socialprogrammes. Ifurban problems are important public issues, inand of themselves, as we believe, then everyeffort shouldbemadetobroadenthespec-trum of supporters for workable solutions. AsBruce Katz enumerated in the last section, theregional coalition can contain a wide cross-section of mainstream interests. Interests thatmust be mobilised if metropolitan regionalismis to be more successful now than in the pastinNorthAmerica.Kathryn Foster (2000, p. 91) observed, in areviewof Donald Rothblatts MetropolitanGovernanceRevisited(1998):Top-downdirectives, thoughoutoffavor,are necessary for managing metropolitandevelopment andensuringscalequaliza-tion. These are increasingly unlikely inCanada and a long shot in the US. Nonpub-lic groups, apotential regionalforce, lackunityandcoherence. Voluntaryconsensusbuildingisnicebut not enoughtoshaperegional patterns.State and federal government must actifthere is to be actionand in the US thismeans that the majority must approve ofgovernmentsintentions.There are even more fundamental ques-tions to be asked,though,than worries aboutpolitical timingandstrategies. ThenewRe-gionalCoalitionhasgonesomewaytogainpublic attention in the press (see, for example,Pierce, 1998, 2000; Firestone, 1999), butseemslargelyinnocent of anhistorical im-agination, andevenlessconcernedwithan at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 869empirical understanding of changing regionalsettlement patternsandeconomicstructures.Their objectivescentralisedcontrol of ur-ban development and redistribution of income(Niebanek, 2000, p. 92)areunclouded byanalyses of American political history and theUSspaceeconomy.10In thispaper,wehavebeguntollinthelacunae. Metropolitanregionalismandplan-ning have played a unique role in the USurban reform movement. From the early yearsoftherepublic, localgovernmentconsolida-tion has been seen as a tool to overcomemunicipal fragmentation, and thus solve alonglistofurbanproblems. Beforethedaysof activist state and federal government,metropolitanism was one of the fewap-proaches open to reformers to cope with whatSinclair Lewis called the shame of the cities.Thereis alarge collection of public docu-ments and a wealth of scholarlypublicationsthat paint invividcoloursthehopes of thereformers and detail their successesand fail-ures. This is nowthe third generation ofmetropolitanreformintheUS(seeWallis,1994a, 1994b), andwe wouldbeprofoundlynegligent not to learn from earlier experience.This includes the limited acceptability of cen-tralisedmetropolitangovernment withinUSpolitical culture, withits celebrationof thelocalcommunityandindividual liberties.The distinction drawn so often betweenplaceprosperityand peopleprosperitybythe great American planner, Harvey S.Perloff, seems crucial here. Metropolitan gov-ernance may be the appropriate means ofimproving the quality of life and competitive-ness of particular places, but it probably is notthe way to ensure the well-being of people. Ifpeople suffer from class-based and race-baseddisadvantages in the US, it is class- andrace-based problems that should be addressedin the national political discourse and bynational policy (Powell, 1998)not the formof metropolitangovernment, whichKathrynFoster(2000, p. 90)darestosuggestsimplydoesnot matter that muchfor re-gional development. Regardless of form,metropolitansystems provetoopower-less, purposeless, ordiscouragedtoshapeurbanoutcomes.John Kains (1992) famous spatial mismatchhypothesis, and the related central-citysuburbdependencyhypothesis, needtobethoroughly analysedandperhaps rejected.Decades ago, when these ideas were rstformulated, the upstream and downstreamlinkages within metropolitan economies werewell documented. Regional industrial com-plexes within the urban economy were re-sponsiblefor much of an MSAs growth andjobcreation.Suburbsandresidential growthcorridors depended onthe central city andcentralised industrial zones for their jobs andeconomic well-being. None of these relation-ships necessarilyholds truetoday, withthehollowing-out ofmetropolitancores,andin-vestment andjobcreationintheexurbsandrural-greeneldlocations purposelytargetedby international corporations. We need a newtheoretical basis for our understanding ofurban and regional economics in the US.Generalisations, based primarily upon the cir-cumstances prevailing in the 1960s and 1970s(orthe1920sand1930s), cannotprovideanadequate basis for informed public policy.Pop economics supplied by journalists cannotllthegap.Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson (1998)of the University of Southern California pointthis out from another perspective, carrying onRichardsons well-known crusade againstoptimum city size concepts at the turn of the1970s. They argue that we simply do notknowenoughaboutthecosts andbenets ofurbansprawl tomakeinformedpolicydeci-sions. Weneedtodoour homeworkbeforewriting slogans and entering the national pol-iticalfray. Janet RothenbergPack(1998) ofthe Wharton School at the University ofPennsylvania, writing in the BrookingsReview, argues that we also do not knowenoughabout citysuburbrelations, andthather preliminary work suggeststhat citysub-urban links change signicantly fromonenational regiontoanother, as wellaswithinthe regionsthemselves. We need much moredetailed analyses of variousgroupsof MSAs at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 870before appropriate public policy decisionscan be made. Arthur Nelson and KathrynFosters (1999) careful study of Metro-politan governance structure and incomegrowth is a step forward in creating thisnewknowledge-base about urban politicalboundaries and socioeconomic processes.Muchmoreworkisneeded, however.Our own analysis here of governmentalfragmentation in US MSAs points to anothernecessaryresearchthrust. For therst time,we are able to make precise statistical gener-alisations about metropolitan fragmentationwhichare sensitivetomostoftheimportantaspectsofthefragmentationdebate. Asnewdata become available from the 1997 Censusof Governments, themodel needstobeup-dated, and analyses of the relationship be-tweenthemetropolitanfragmentationindex(MFI) and a number of critical socioeco-nomic variables can be undertaken. Analysesof the MFI and particular forms of metropoli-tangovernance shouldalsobehighonthe21st centuryresearchagenda. Wecanthenbegintomakespecicpublic-policyrecom-mendations about when different types ofmetropolitan governance might be a practicalalternative, and whenit is unlikely toim-proveaparticularurbansetting.Metropolitanregionalismhas acontribu-tion to make in solving US urban problems atthe turn of the 21st century. This idea cannotbe approached in a doctrinaire mannerthough. Regional governance must standorfall on its merits. It should not be expected toprovide a conduit for other liberal or con-servative social policy agendas. Inthe lastweeks of 1999, the Brookings InstitutionshelvedabookprojectentitledTheInterde-pendence of Central Cities and Suburbs, aproject meant apparentlytodemonstratetheravages of suburban-dominated central-citydependency: thecities left behind.11Thisseems to us to be a healthy retreat fromideology. Areasonable debate of the USmetropolitan crisis, informedby anunder-standingof changingruralurbansettlementpatterns and increasing nationwide metro-politanfragmentation, maydrawinrespon-sibleelementsfromboththemajorpoliticalparties. This could thenbe incorporated inelection-year political platforms, andtheis-suewouldbeput beforetheelectorate. Thisis the only way the Regional CoalitionAgenda can nd a place in the newUSadministrationthatwilltakeofcein2001.Notes1. The dual use of the termliberal in USpolitical discourse must be kept in mind.Confusingly, liberal can refer either to freemarket economy solutions topublic prob-lems or to progressive, activist government.Inthispaper, wemeantoinvokethelattersetofideasandconcepts.2. This section is drawn primarily fromStephens andWikstrom(2000), Kweit andKweit (1999), HersonandBolland (1998),RossandLevine(1996) andFriedmannandWeaver (1979). Stephens and Wikstroms200-pagetreatment of MetropolitanGovern-ment and Governanceis invaluable. Chapter11, Beyondthe Central City: Cities, theirSuburbs andtheir States(pp. 230265), ofthe recent second edition of Herson and Bol-lands well-known urban politicstext adds anumberof importantinsights.And RossandLevines three solid chapters on metropolitanregionalismoffer a concise but systematicsourceof reference. All threebooks adherevery closely to the political science and soci-ologyliterature, however, and must becom-plemented with material from thetraditionally more technical areas of urbanstudies: urban-regional economics, urban-economicgeographyand urban and regionalplanning.3. Thecruciallinkageofmetropolitanpoliticalinstitutionsandpolitical geographywiththeempirical analysis of other socioeconomicfactors is still uncommon over 50 years later.4. Counties are the fundamental unit of localgovernment in the US, originally chargedwith the maintenance of roads and someformof local policeprotection. Municipali-ties areurbanlocalities, whichmeans theymust deliverarangeofurbanservicesforexample, water, sewer, re, police, parks,solidwastedisposal. Towns andtownshipsare typicallybasicsub-divisionsof counties,but in some states they may also have urban-typeservice responsibilities. School districtsare special-purpose local governments whichonly provideelementary, secondary and per-haps community-college level education toresidents. Special districts are urban-typeservice unitsoutsidetherealm of education, at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 871such as water, sewer or re protection.Names, legal descriptions andresponsibili-ties varyfor all of thesedifferent designa-tionsfromstatetostateandovertime.5. MSAs withnegative change of 5per centwere classied as centralising; those with anegativescoreof lessthan5per cent wereclassied as slowcentralising. Negativechange means a decreaseinthe MFI. Thelowertheindex, themoretheMSAisgov-ernmentally centralised. Therefore, a de-creaseintheindexrepresentsacentralisingtrend,and theresultingpercentage wouldbeaminusornegativenumber.6. Originally a PhD thesis, submitted to Colum-biaUniversityin1898.7. TheCommonwealthofPennsylvaniapassedSenate Bill 300 at the end of December1999. This bill amends the states 1968 Plan-ningCode, andallowslocal government ju-risdictions to band together and designateurbangrowth boundaries (URBs). UnliketheOregonlaw, however, thereis nostaterequirementtocreate URBs aroundexistingcities.8. The dean of American land-use lawyers,CharlesM. Haar (1996a, 1996b) ofHarvardUniversity, arguesthat court-mandatedpro-vision of affordable housing to overcomesegregationmust befocusedonthemetro-politanlevel.9. Special thanks to Heather Tureen and un-known members of the BrookingsInstitutionstaff for helping us track down stray publica-tions.10. Paul Niebanek(2000, p. 92), theconscienceof USurbanplanning, categorisedthesub-stance of the new Regional Coalition Agendainareviewof DavidRusks InsideGame/OutsideGame:WinningStrategies forSav-ingUrbanAmerica(1999):requireregional landuseplanning;ensure that all suburbs have their fairshare of low- and moderate-incomehousing;implementregional revenuesharing.11. Telephone conversationbetweenthe seniorauthor andananonymous employeeof theBrookings Center onUrbanandMetropoli-tanPolicy, 29December1999.12. Theuseof thestandarddeviationasamea-sureoffragmentationhaslimitedutility. Be-causeitisameasure ofdispersal aroundthemean, onegovernment withall theexpendi-tures and100governments eachwith1percent of theexpenditures wouldbothhaveastandard deviation of 0. Yet, the rst casewouldrepresent ahighlycentralisedsystemand the second a highlydecentralised system.13. Unfortunately, after 1992, austerity measuresat the Census Bureau have drastically re-duced the information available to the public.Detailed data for the 1997 Census of Govern-ments are much abbreviated and still unavail-ableatthetimeofwriting.ReferencesADVISORYCOMMISSION ONINTERGOVERNMENTALRELATIONS (1961) Governmental Structure,Organization and Planning in MetropolitanAreas. Washington, DC: US GovernmentPrintingOfce.ADVISORYCOMMISSION ONINTERGOVERNMENTALRELATIONS (1962) Alternative Approaches toGovernmental ReorganizationinMetropolitanAreas. Washington, DC: US GovernmentalPrintingOfce.ADVISORYCOMMISSION ONINTERGOVERNMENTALRELATIONS (1966) Metropolitan America:Challengeto Federalism. Washington, DC: USGovernmentalPrintingOfce.ADVISORYCOMMISSION ONINTERGOVERNMENTALRELATIONS(197374)Regional Decision Mak-ing. Vols. IVI. Washington, DC:USGovern-mentalPrintingOfce.AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION(2000) Specialissueonsmart growth, Planning, 66(1), pp. 431.ANDERSON, W. (1934) TheUnitsof GovernmentintheUnitedStates. Chicago, IL: PublicSer-viceAdministrationService.BAKER, G. (1998) West is still best for a nation tomove, Financial Times, 19March, p. 7.BARNES, W. R. andLEDEBUR, L. C. (1998) TheNewRegional Economies: The US CommonMarket and the Global Economy. ThousandOaks, CA:SagePublications.BERKE, P. R. and CONWAY, M. M. (2000)Are weplanning for sustainable development? Anevaluationof30comprehensiveplans,Journalof the AmericanPlanning Association, 66(1),pp. 2133.BERRY, B. J. L. (1973a) GrowthCenters intheAmerican Urban System, 2 vols. Cambridge,MA:Ballinger.BERRY, B. J. L. (1973b) The Human Con-sequences of Urbanization. New York: StMartinsPress.BERRY,B. J.L.(1980) Urbanizationandcounterurbanization in the United States, Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and SocialScience,451, pp. 1320.BOLLENS, J. C. andSCHMADT, H. J. (1965) TheMetropolis:Its People,Politics,andEconomicLife.NewYork: HarperandRow.BOLLENS, S. A. (1986) A political-ecologicalanalysis of income inequality in the metro- at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 872politan area, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22(2),pp. 221241.BRENNAN, J. andHILL, E. W. (1999) Wherearethejobs?: cities, suburbs, andthecompetitionfor employment. Series 99112, Center onUrban and MetropolitanPolicy, The BrookingsInstitution, Washington, DC.BROOKINGSINSTITUTION(1998) The newmetro-politan agenda, Brookings Review, 16(4),pp. 238.BURNHAM, D. H. and BENNETT, E. H. (1909)Planof Chicago, C. Moore (Ed. ) Chicago: TheCommercial Club.CISNEROS, H. G. (1995) Regionalism: The NewGeography of Opportunity. Washington, DC:USDepartment of HousingandUrbanDevel-opment.COMMITTEE ONECONOMICDEVELOPMENT (1970)ReshapingGovernmentin MetropolitanAreas.NewYork:CED.COMMITTEEON PLAN OF NEW YORK (192931) TheRegional PlanforNewYorkandItsEnvirons,10vols. NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.DOLAN. D. A. (1990)Local government fragmen-tation: does it drive up the cost of government?UrbanAffairsQuarterly,26(2), pp. 2845.DOWNS,A.(1994) NewVisionsforMetropolitanAmerica. Washington, DC:TheBrookings In-stitution.DOWNS, A. (1998) How Americas cities aregrowing: the big picture, Brookings Review,17(4), pp. 811.ELDREDGE, H. W. (Ed.) (1967) Taming Mega-polis, 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.FIRESTONE, D. (1999) Runaway growth aroundAtlanta, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 21 Novem-ber,p. A16.FORDFOUNDATION(1999) Risking the future ofour cities, Ford Foundation Report, 30(3),pp. 37.FOSTER, K. A. (1997)Regionalimpulses, Journalof UrbanStudies, 19, pp. 375403.FOSTER, K. A. (2000) Reviewof MetropolitanGovernance Revisited: American/CanandianIntergovernmental Perspectives, edited by D.N. ROTHBATTandA.SANCTON, Journal of theAmerican PlanningAssociation, 66(1), pp. 9091.FRIEDMANN, J. (1972) Ageneral theoryofpolar-ized development, in: N. HANSON (Ed.) GrowthCentres in Regional Economic Development,pp. 82107. NewYork:FreePress.FRIEDMANN, J. (1973) Retracking America: ATheoryof TransactivePlanning. GardenCity,NY:AnchorBooks.FRIEDMANNJ. andMILLER, J. (1965) TheUrbanFields, Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners,31, pp. 312320.FRIEDMANN, J. andWEAVER, C. (1979) Territoryand Function: The Evolution of Regional Plan-ning. Berkely, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.GOODMAN, J. S. (1980) TheDynamicsof UrbanGrowthandPolitics.NewYork: Macmillan.GORDON, P. and RICHARDSON, H. W. (1998) Proveit: thecostsandbenetsofsprawl, BrookingsReview, 16(4), pp. 2325.GOTTMAN, J. (1959)Megalopolis:TheUrbanizedNortheastern Seaboard of the United States.Cambridge, MA: MITPress.GRAVES, W. B. (1964) American Intergovernmen-tal Relations. NewYork: Charles ScribnersSons.GULICK,L. H. (1962)TheMetropolitanProblemand American Ideas. New York: Alfred Knopf.HAAR, C. M. (1996a)Suburbsunder Siege: Race,Space, andAudacious Judges. Princeton, NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.HAAR, C. M. (1996b) Canthe courts breaktheaffordable housing deadlock in metropolitanareas of the USA.?, Ekistics, pp. 376378(JanuaryJune), pp. 152157.HARRIS, C. D. and ULLMAN, E. L. (1954) Thenature of cities, Annals of the Academy ofPolitical andSocial Science,242, pp. 717.HAWKINS, B. (1971) Theenvironmental baseofurban government reforms, in: B. HAWKINS(Ed.) Politics andUrbanPolicies, pp. 4447.Indianapolis, IN:Bobbs-Merrill.HERSON, L. andBOLLARD, J. (1998) The UrbanWeb: Politics, Policy and Theory, 2nd edn.Chicago, IL: Nelson-HallPublications.HILL. R. C. (1974)Separate and unequal: govern-mental inequality, AmericanPolitical ScienceReview, 68, pp. 15571568.IMMERGLUCK, D. (1999)Cities and Finance Jobs:The Effects of FinancialServices Restructuringon the Location of Employment. DiscussionPaperand SurveyServices99:111, CenteronUrban and Metropolitan Policy, The BrookingsInstitution, Washington, DC.JONES, V. (1942) Metropolitan Government.Chicago, IL: UniversityofChicagoPress.KAIN, J. F. (1992) The spatial mismatchhypo-thesis: three decades later, Housing PolicyDebate, 3(1), pp. 1726.KATZ, B. andALLEN, K. (1999) Help wanted:connecting inner-city job seekers with suburbanjobs, BrookingsReview,17(4), pp. 3135.KATZ, B. andBERNSTEIN, S. (1998) The newmetropolitanagenda,BrookingsReview, 16(4),pp. 47.KATZ, P. (1994) The NewUrbanism: Towardan Architecture of Community. New York:McGraw-Hill.KWEIT, R. W. and KWEIT, M. G. (1999) PeopleandPoliticsinUrbanAmerica, 2ndedn. NewYork: GarlandPublishing.LEO, C. (1998) Regional growth managementregime:thecaseof Portland, Oregon, JournalofUrbanAffairs, 20(4), pp. 363394. at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 873LEWIS, P. (1996) ShapingSuburbia: HowPoliti-cal Institutions OrganizeUrbanDevelopment.Pittsburgh, PA:UniversityofPittsburghPress.LINDSTROM, B. (1998) Regional cooperationandsustainablegrowth: nineCouncils of Govern-ment in Northeastern Illinois, Journal of UrbanAffairs,20(3), pp. 327342.MAXEY, C. (1922) The political integration ofmetropolitancommunities, National MunicipalReview, 11, pp. 229253.MCKENZIE,R.D.(1993)TheMetropolitanCom-munity.NewYork: McGraw-Hill.MERRIAM, C. E., PARRATT, S. D. and LEPAWSKY,A. (1933)The Government of the MetropolitanRegionofChicago.Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.MITCHELL-WEAVER,C.(1995)Theurbanandtherural: an historicalgeographicoverview, in:G.BENKOandU.STROHMAYER(Eds)Geography,History, and Social Sciences, pp. 97132.Boston: KluwerAcademicPublishers.MITCHELL-WEAVER C., DEITRICK, S. andRIGOPOULOU, A. (2000) Linkages betweenre-conversion of old industrial milieux, intra-regional dynamics and continentalization: thecase of Pittsburgh, in: J. M. FONTAN (Ed.) Entrela Metropolisation et le Village Global: LesScenesTerritorialesdela Reconversion. Mon-treal: Presses de lUniversitedu Quebec (forth-coming).MYRDAL, G. (1957) Economic Theory and Under-developedRegions. London: Duckworth.NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (1937) Our Cit-ies: Their Role in the National Economy.Washington, DC:NRC.NELSON, A. C. and FOSTER,K.A. (1999) Metro-politan governance structure and incomegrowth, Journal of Urban Affairs, 21(3),pp. 309324.NIEBANEK, P. (2000) Reviewof Inside Game/OutsideGame: WinningStrategies forSavingUrban America by D. Rusk, Journal of theAmerican PlanningAssociation, 66(1), pp. 9293.ORFIELD, M. (1997) Metropolitics: A RegionalAgendaforCommunityandStability, rev. edn.Washington, DC:BrookingsInstitution.ORFIELD, M. (1998) Chicago metropolitics: aregional agenda for members of the USCongress. Discussion Paper and SurveySeries, 98:1, Center on Urban and MetropolitanPolicy, The BrookingsInstitution, Washington,DCPACK, J. R. (1998) Metropolitan areas: regionaldifferences, Brookings Review, 16(4), pp. 2630.PARKS, R. B. and OAKERSON, R. J. (1992)Metro-politan Organization: The Allegheny CountyCase. Prepared for ACIR. Washington, DC: USGovernmentPrintingOfce.PHARES, D. (Ed.) (1999) Metropolitan Gover-nance without Metropolitan Government?Brookeld, VT:AshgatePublishingCo.PIERCE, N. (1993) Citistates: How Urban AmericaCan Prosper in a Competitive World. Washing-ton, DC:SevenLocksPress.PIERCE, N.(1998) Atlantapayspriceforgrowth,Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1 December, p. A7.PIERCE,N.(2000)Smartregions: smart politics?,PittsburghTribune-Review, 17January, p. A7.Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (1997) City folks take thehighway out of towns, 26 November, pp. 51and58.Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (1997) Americansleavingtown, 4December,p. A8.PittsburghTribuneReview(1998) Whodependsonwhom?10May, p. A6.POWELL, J. A. (1998) Race space: what reallydrivesmetropolitangrowth, BrookingsReview,16(4), pp. 2022.ROSS, B. H. andLEVINE, M. A. (1996) UrbanPolitics: Power inMetropolitanAmerica, 5thedn. N. Itasca,IL: F. E. Peacock.ROTHBLATT, D. N. and SANCTON, A. (Eds) (1998)Metropolitan Governance Revisited: American/Canadian Intergovernmental Perspectives.Berkeley, CA:Instituteof GovernmentalStud-ies,UniversityofCalifornia.RUSK, D. (1993) CitiesWithout Suburbs. Wash-ington, DC:WoodrowWilsonPress.RUSK, D. (1999) Inside Game/Outside Game:WinningStrategiesfor SavingUrbanAmerica.Washington, DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.SCHERER, F. M. andROSS, D. (1990) IndustrialMarket StructureandEconomicPerformance.Boston: HoughtonMifin.SHEPHERD, W. G. (1985) The Economics ofIndustrialOrganization. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.STEPHENS, G. R. and WIKSTROM, N. (2000)Metropolitan Government and Governance:Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis,andtheFuture.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.STUDENSKI,P. (1930)TheGovernmentofMetro-politanAreasin theUnitedStates. NewYork:National Municipal League.US BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (1972) Census ofGovernments 1972. Washington, DC: USGovernment PrintingOfce.US BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (1992) Census ofGovernments 1992. Washington, DC: USGovernment PrintingOfce.USBUREAUOFTHE CENSUS(1997) GeographicalMobility: March19951996. Census Bureau,DepartmentofCommerce,Washington, DC.USBUREAUOFTHE CENSUS(1998) 1997CountyPopulation Estimates. Washington, DC: USGovernment PrintingOfce. at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from CLYDE MITCHELL-WEAVERET AL. 874USHUD(DEPARTMENTOFHOUSINGANDURBANDEVELOPMENT)(1999) TheStateof theCities,1999. third annual report. Washington, DC: USHUD. June.WALKER, D. B. (1987) SnowWhiteandthe 17dwarfs: from metro cooperationto governance,National CivicReview,76, pp. 1428.WALKER, D. B. (1995) The Rebirth of Federalism:SlouchingTowardWashington. Chatham, NJ:ChathamHouse.WALLIS, A. D. (1993) Governanceandthecivicinfrastructure of metropolitan regions, NationalCivicReview, 82, pp. 131137.WALLISA. D. (1994a)Inventingregionalism:therst two waves, National Civic Review, 83,pp. 170171.WALLIS A. D. (1994b) The thirdwave: currenttrends inregional governance, National CivicReview, pp. 290310.WALLIS A. D. (1994c) Inventing regionalism: atwo-phase approach, National Civic Review,83, pp. 447468.WASTE, R. J. (1998) Independent Cities: Re-thinkingUSUrbanPolicy.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.WEBER, A. F. (1899)TheGrowthof Cities in theNineteenthCentury. NewYork:Macmillan.WEITZ, J. (1999)Sprawl Busting:State Programsto GuideGrowth. Chicago, IL: American Plan-ningAssociationPress.WHEBELL, C. F. (1969) Corridors: a theory ofurban systems, Annals of the Association ofAmericanGeographers,59, pp. 126.ZEIGLER, D. J. and BRUNN, S. D. (1980)Geopolit-ical fragmentation and the patternof growthandneed: deningthecleavagebetweenSun-belt and Frostbelt metropolises, in: S. D.BRUNN and J. O. WHEELER (Eds) The AmericanMetro-politan System, pp. 7792. London: V. H.Winston.Appendix. Methodology for Creation of aMetropolitanFragmentationIndex(MFI)Comparativeanalysesof governmental fragmen-tation in metropolitan areas across the USfallbroadly into two methodologicalgroups.The rstapproach is a simple process of counting thegovernments, either inabsoluteterms, asinthetext in Table 1, or on some per capita basis. Dolan(1990, p. 28) denedlocal government fragmen-tation as the proliferation of government units thatmay exist within a given metropolitan region.This measure was built onthe earlier workofGoodman (1980), who identied four types offragmentation, twoof whichwerecounts of (1)incorporatedmunicipalities, and(2) special dis-tricts,publicauthoritiesandschool districts. Hill(1974), inaneffort toassess inequality amongresidentsofmetropolitanareas,usedthenumberof municipalities andthenumber of municipali-ties per capitaasmeasuresof government frag-mentation. Bollens(1986) wasalsointerestedininequality within metropolitan areas, and used thenumber of non-centre city municipalities withover 10 000 populationper 100 000 of non-centrepopulationas a measure of fragmentation. ZeiglerandBrunn(1980)used thenumberoflocalgov-ernments per 100 000 inhabitants to distinguishgeopoliticalpatterns in theUS Frostbeltfrom theSunbelt. Hawkins (1971)developeda measure offragmenation as total governments per 100 000populationinan attemptto determinetheimpactof fragmentation on the cost of government. Parksand Oakerson (1992) used governments per10 000inhabitantsasafragmentationscore.Theideahasmeritthatthemoregovernmentsthere areeither in absolute or in per capitatermsthemorefragmentedisthemetropolitanregion. Creatinga government putsintoplayan-other actor with political power and rights ofentry into the public decision-making process.Onesignicantproblemisthatit failsto provideameasureof theroleeachgovernment playsinwhat it contributes to the regions. As such, havinga signicant number of governments that exist onpapercan overinate thatstatisticas a meaning-fulindicator.Indeed, several of theauthorscitedabovead-dressed this weakness. Dolan tried to compensateby introducing the concept of scal dispersionfragmentation, denedasthestandarddeviationof the per capita expendituresof the governmentsinthe region under study.12Bollens addedthepercentage on non-central-city population thatlives in incorporated municipalities with over10 000 population as a measure. Zeigler andBrunn attempted to reduce several dimensionsintoasingleindexbyusingthenumberofgov-ernments as a direct proportion and the percentageof thepopulationlivinginthecentrecityasaninverseproportion.Regardlessoftheworkofthesewriters toadda geopolitical dimension to their fragmentationindex, noneof thestudieshas addedatimedi-mension. This generally canbe understood be-cause the authors were using their measure offragmentationtoexplainsomeotherconditioninmetropolitan areas of the US. As such, they failedtoassess howfragmentationchangedovertime.Thesecond broadapproachto measuring frag-mentation applies a methodologyfrom the privatebusiness sector. It relates the market share ofseveral rms ina competitivearena,andisoftenreferredtoastheHirshHerndal Index(HHI).Relativepower is measuredbymarket share. Ifone rm has 90 per cent of the market, whether 50players or 5playerssharetheremaining10per at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARA on March 16, 2015 usj.sagepub.com Downloaded from METROPOLITAN REGIONALISMIN THE USA 875cent isof marginal interest. Thesesmall playershavelittlepolitical power. Indeed, SchererandRoss (1990, p. 72) observed that the HHIweights more heavilythe value for large rmsthan for small (also see Sheperd, 1985). Thetechnique employed is the use of the squaredpercentageofeach playersmarket share.Asap-plied to local governments in a metropolitan area,a measure of expenditureson some array ofpub-lic services usuallysubstitutes for sales by theprivate-sectorrm.Lewis(1996)employedavariationofthisap-proach in his political fragmentation index. Usingthe sum of the squared percentages of total expen-dituresinrelationtothedegreeof expenditures,this indexcreatedasinglenumber that is moresensitive to the total level of expendituresthan tothedistributionof thoseexpenditures withinthemetropolitanarea.Although bothmethodologies capture import-ant principlesthe rst a measure of politicalpower and the second a measure of economicpowertheyneedtobe combinedsothat bothmaymakeacontribution tothe resultingscale.Theproblemnowboilsdowntoamathematicalone. How does one mathematically representthesetwoperspectivesonasinglescale?Acol-league suggestedto usthat the square rootof thesquared contributionscouldbesubstitutedfor thesquareof thecontributions. Whereas, thesquareofthepercentagecontributionshastheimpactofexaggeratingthecontributionof thelarger play-ers, the square root of the percentage contributiongives greater mathematical value tothe smallerunits. Basing the scale on the percentage contribu-tion of each player serves to reect theeconomicdimension, while using the square root of thecontribution reects the political dimension ofpowerderivedfromthesemi-sovereigntyofpol-itical jurisdictionsin a metropolitanenvironment.Intheprocessofusingthesquared-percentageapproach, theresultingscalerangesfrom0to1.As the scale approaches 1, the greater is theconcentration of market power. Hence, a lowscorerepresents amorefragmentedsystem. Byswitchingtothesquareroot, thescalestarts at1andgoes, theoretically, toinnity. Liketherstscale, 1 represents pure concentration or oneplayer with 100 per cent of the market. Fragmen-tation, however, is representedby higher num-bers.Developingfragmentationscoresfor eachre-gion in the US using the revised formula requiresa data source that has information on eachgovernmental jurisdictionwithineachmetropoli-tan region. The Census of Governments, takenevery ve years, develops a summary of expendi-tures, revenues and intergovernmental transfersforvirtuallyeverylocal government intheUS.13Included inthe analysis areall general-purposegovernments suchas counties, boroughs, townsandtownships. Alsoincludedareall single-pur-posegovernmentssuchasschool districts, utilityauthorities andspecial districts. It is possible togroup these census data into the appropriateMetropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), at leastback to 1972. As a result, 1972 is used here as thebeginning year for our studies, and subsequentanalyses wereundertakenfor 1977, 1982, 1987and1992.TheUSBureauof theCensushascategorisedmetropolitanregions intometropolitanstatisticalareas(MSAs). However, theCensusofGovern-ments,althoughundertakenbytheBureauoftheCensus, has never structured its reports on MSAs.Hence, categorisinglocal governmentsintotheirrespectiveMSAisnot aneasytask. Inorder tohave those MSAs approximate their current struc-ture, 1992 was selected as the base year. Countiesand municipalities within counties were coded,basedonthe1992denitionofeach MSA. Thatcodingwas also used to groupthe1972data.Asa result, therepresentationofthe1972dataisasthe MSA was dened in 1992. In our case, of 336MSAscurrentlyidentied, only311couldactu-ally be used in the analysis. Those 311 metropoli-tan regions contain slightly less than 33 000individual governments fromwhich data wereused.Selectingam