The Citistates Group presents

Thank you for reading Citiwire.net. This website is no longer being updated, as of October 2013. We invite you to visit our new site at Citiscope.org.

Confessions of a Messy Regionalist

Bill Barnes / Nov 25 2011

For Release Friday, November 25, 2011
Citiwire.net

Bill BarnesAmong the congenial regional sages at the October Citistates convening at Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Pocantico Conference Center, I felt I could admit to a long-time failing — I’ve been a messy regionalist.

By messy, I mean “devoid of neatness and precision.” That sounds right — regional problem-solving is usually complicated, difficult, frustrating and full of surprises, and often not successful. In other words, it’s like most human collective action endeavors.

Addressing regional challenges is also urgent and important and worthy of special attention. But we would do well to acknowledge and accept the reality of what Dan Gilmartin, executive director of the Michigan Municipal League, calls the “on the ground stuff” in the regionalism picture — the mix of grit and public interest vision that constitutes regional efforts. It’s really not about making nice; it’s about working through competing interests and values and about dealing with often fierce disagreements on matters of mutual concern.

The door through which the Pocantico discussions entered the regionalism topic was the roles that states play in promoting and/or obstructing regional governance. Much of the conversation centered around the issue of purpose — which public goals can be better achieved at inter-local and regional scales, rather than within individual jurisdictions? Attention focused mainly on economic challenges, often framed in terms of global competition, but a range of other topics were also broached, including sprawl, education, transportation, infrastructure, and reducing inequalities.

Another major theme of the sessions was the nature of regional governance. It’s a boundary-crossing activity exercised at a broader scale than the more usual partnerships within a jurisdiction. Regional governance is thus neither weird nor wondrous, nor is it a technocratic silver bullet. It is politics, policy, and problem-solving at the scale where there’s no authoritative governmental unit but there are shared concerns.

Regional governance varies by purpose, place, and time. Each multi-jurisdictional problem or opportunity has its own scale and scope, i.e., its own “region.” There’s no single space that is appropriate for all regional challenges, and thus no definitive size for an encompassing governmental jurisdiction. Furthermore, there‚Äôs no one best way to address the range of problems from water to economic development.

The relevant options for regional action are too often framed as either doing nothing or engineering major structural change, including jurisdictional consolidation. This is a false choice and not a useful way to frame the topic.

The measure of regional governance success is marshaling the capacity to achieve a goal — solving a problem or seizing an opportunity. This may or, more likely, may not result in structural change or governmental consolidation.

Thus, the regional governance discourse could very profitably shift to a less dramatic but more practical focus on regional governance as capacity and purpose. This would align the talk with the walk that is characteristic of practicing regional actors, whether the topic is transportation financing in Atlanta or freight routes in Long Beach or international trade in Seattle. Kathryn Foster and I have done a paper along these lines, based on our work with the MacArthur Foundation’s Building Resilient Regions Research Network. The paper offers an analysis of regional governance capacity, including five dimensions and associated indicators that can provide a means of measuring and assessing a particular area’s capacity for regional action on a specific problem at a specific time. (The paper is forthcoming in Urban Affairs Review; a version geared for practitioner use will appear at www.nlc.org by early 2012.)

It is also time to get beyond the grandiose rhetoric, the should’s and ought’s, and the inflated expectations that have too often accumulated around the regional idea. Like governance at other spatial scales, regionalism is better at dealing with easier things and less good at the really wicked ones.

Moreover, we can do without the judgmental rhetoric that suggests, on the one side, that regional approaches are idealistic, unrealistic dreams or indefensible intrusions on home rule and, on the other, that opposition to regional approaches is always selfish or racist. Any or all of those accusations may be correctly applied in specific circumstances, but jousting at caricatures as the default position is a diversion from the hard work of bringing people to the table. It also poisons the well for future efforts.

Regionalism is a means, not an end. It’s not the answer to everything; it’s a question about the most useful scale for solving a problem. So, it’s neither neat nor precise. But it’s important and we should get on with it.


Bill Barnes is Director for Emerging Issues at the National League of Cities and co-author of The New Regional Economies, with Larry C. Ledebur. Viewers expressed are not necessarily those of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, its staff or trustees.

Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.

5 Comments

  1. Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Bill thanks for this insight. There is no one way to go in regionalism, it’s a constant balancing, a continual adapting to changing conditions. That’s true for all community planning, but most so at the undefined level of the region.

  2. Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Messy is OK, even unavoidable, so it is a matter of where, not how. If you are not corrupt, there is one concern to define, analyze and decide. Find a line where regional expansion in all forms but connective stops at a line and the wilderness or super low density begins. Inside this line in the sand density is encouraged to reach its technical apex. Once done the city and the messy human stuff can be what it will be, but none of it is allowed out unless it is as it came in. The urban world must not be allowed to destroy a billion years of “wild”, as it too must continue to be what it will be. Answer this question — can we draw such a line? If we can, we can measure capacity and define purpose. It is as simple to say, as it is easy to implement. It is simply a matter of where, then when.

  3. Mayraj Fahim
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    I think you would realize you are where you are because the system here is not very evolved.
    Outside the US other systems have benefitted from being more than “messy regionalists”. Consider the regional municipalities of Ontario , one example of which was covered in a Governing magazine article:
    http://www.governing.com/topics/economic-dev/How-Bureaucracy-and-Bickering.html
    How Bureaucracy and Bickering Brought Down Niagara Falls
    In British Columbia with their regional districts, they were able to avoid the explosion of special districts that plague US metro governance-which suddenly fiscal crisis is making some states try to reduce in number. But these are just examples from North America. there are many other examples in different countries that can show you how regionalism delivers more than both fragmented local governance absent regionalism and unitary systems absent decentralization. These create the “dual city” problem that has haunted US cities since at least the 1800s.

  4. Posted November 28, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    I look forward to using the report to be published next year. As one who deals daily with issues pertinent to water across a twenty-one county region in Central Texas, I will find this information very useful. Please keep me posted.

  5. Blair Forlaw
    Posted December 8, 2011 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Bill, this is a wonderful reflection. I find your observation so true: “The relevant options for regional action are too often framed as either doing nothing or engineering major structural change, including jurisdictional consolidation. This is a false choice and not a useful way to frame the topic.” It’s not only a false choice — such framing is a technique (sometimes used consciously and other times unconsciously) to shut down the honest inquiry and difficult dialogue needed to find common cause and act on it. Looking forward to seeing your upcoming paper on capacity.