 Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy Debate Series
November 13, 2003
Who Holds Responsibility for Infrastructure?
New Regional Governments or Cities & Their Partners
Introduction
The inaugural event of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy
took place on November 13, 2003, and consisted of a debate on the
subject of regional governance. At issue was the appropriate form
of governance for the provision of infrastructure: should it be
local or regional? Nick Bollman of the California Center for Regional
Leadership and Raphael W. Bostic of the University of Southern
California argued the case in favor of regional governance; Ken
Farfsing, City Manager of Signal Hill, California joined with Peter
Gordon of USC to make the argument against. The conversation was
wide-ranging, covering several major issues in detail. While there
was significant disagreement between the two sides over its implementation
and scope of authority, there was a surprising agreement on the
essential need for regional governance.
First, the participants disagreed on the question of whether or
not the current system works - whether society has been well-served
by investment decisions made by local governments and ad hoc coalitions
of local governments. Bollman and Bostic argued that as it stands
now, regional interests are only sometimes served by the collaboration
of localities, and not often enough. They pointed to the failure
to keep the El Toro airfield functioning and expand the region's
air capacity as a failure to achieve a socially optimal outcome.
Farfsing and Gordon, on the other hand, suggested that the current
system works relatively well - especially in contrast to some examples
of actual regional governments. In particular, they used the Alameda
Corridor East authority and the Metro Gold Line as examples of
successful coalition building among local governments. They further
used the migration of bus lines from MTA to local control as an
example of markets replacing top-down planning with flexible, cost-effective
programs.
These differences over current levels of performance led to differences
over the capacity of regional government to achieve socially optimal
choices, especially those regarding large investments such as infrastructure.
Farfsing and Gordon suggested that "heavy-handed, top-down" government
projects tend to fail. They proposed instead that competition among
cities and governments was a better solution - trying to "cure" the
system, through another (even well-intended) layer of government,
would only make things worse. Bollman and Bostic, on the other
hand, questioned the alignment of regional and local interests,
suggesting that left to their own devices, localities tended to
act in their own interests, ignoring the question of what might
be best for society as a whole. They argued that making local cooperation
routine would require conditions that are rarely met: leadership
able to understand the impact of local choices in a regional context,
a media able to convey the importance of the region to the local
citizenry, and a public willing to become engaged in the dialogue.
What was most interesting was the apparent consensus regarding
the need for regional governance. The common thread running between
both teams was the recognition that governments must somehow be
organized at the level of the problems being addressed. That is,
for example, if cleaning the Los Angeles river is to become a priority
for the region, policies must be enacted that take into account
the interests of all the municipalities through which the river
runs. Without unanimous participation, the actions of the non-coalition
members can undo the coalition. During the debate, then, the contentious
issue was not whether or not regional governance was a valid concept.
Rather, the sides differed most clearly on the it form that governance
ought to take: their mandate, scope of activity, longevity, etc.
The recognition of the need for regional governance is an essential
starting point for future discussion. Given the infrastructure
needs of California, and the nation as a whole, the details will
have to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Christian L. Redfearn, Research Director
Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy
University of Southern California
|
