Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Regional governance comprises a system of structures, institutions, and processes through which groups organize and act to pursue purposes at the regional scale. Broader than regional government, with which it is sometimes confused, regional governance involves actions by formal units of government, such as municipalities, counties, states, and provinces, and by private entities (e.g., individuals, firms, business associations) and third-sector groups (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, civic groups, labor, faith-based associations). Often, this occurs through partnerships or associations with one another. As a focus of urban study, regional governance has garnered special attention during several eras of metropolitan change in the twentieth century and is currently a subject of active interest and commentary in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Because region refers to a wide range of territories, the scale of regional governance varies. The label region may denote a small group of communities (e.g., East Bay towns), a city and its surrounding metropolitan area (the San Francisco metropolitan area), a subnational territory (the Pacific Coast region), or a multinational territory (the Pacific Rim). In the context of urban studies, regional governance usually refers to metropolitan-scale governance.

The need for regional governance originates in the mismatch between the scale of policy issues and the scale of formal political units to address those issues. Many urban concerns—such as economic development, environmental protection, traffic, urban growth, public health, workforce training and mobility, the quantity and distribution of affordable housing, infrastructure development, public safety, spreading poverty, and social equity— transcend the borders of municipal government and create impacts (“externalities”) that defy resolution by a single unit of government.

For example, protection of a region-scale environmental resource such as a watershed may occur through the organization and action of multiple groups, including local, state, provincial, and national governments; special-purpose water authorities or natural resources districts; nongovernmental interest groups such as a local parks conservancy or branch of an international environmental organization, such as the Sierra Club; and private interests, including individual property owners, land developers, a fishing club, or homeowners associations. Groups involved in regional governance may operate together through formal or informal agreements, or they may operate independently, sometimes in opposition to one another. Regional governance is also shaped by state and federal policies, rules, and incentives that direct or influence how regional actors operate. Also playing a role in regional governance are media, whose commentary on regional affairs shape popular understanding and influence action.

Evolution of Regional Governance

Approaches to regional governance and problem solving are as old as regions themselves. (The word region, derived from the Latin root regere, meaning to rule or guide, signifies an indefinite territory, such as that under the command of a regent or governor.) In the United States, because colonial and early local governments from the 1600s through the mid-1800s had relatively dispersed districts and limited powers, the dominant approach to addressing regional problems was laissez-faire individualism. Notwithstanding instances of regional structures to address regional prob-lems—in 1790, for example, Philadelphia and its neighboring suburbs formed a joint board of prison inspectors and subsequently collaborated on other regional boards for health, help for the poor, port wardens, and other services—for the most part, urban households acted independently or through private businesses or voluntary organizations to obtain needed metropolitan services, from police and fire protection to public welfare and recreation. Merchants, factory owners and, later, larger industrialists often laid out and built their own roads, in many instances after unsuccessful attempts to compel town and county governments to take the lead. The same was true for many railroad and canal companies, which received legal permission and modest subsidies from state and local governments to build but rarely garnered the significant public investment more recently associated with large-scale infrastructure improvements.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading