7-1 response to small group discussion 01

1

4

7-1 Small Group Discussion: Implementation and IGR

7-1 Small Group Discussion: Implementation and IGR

The article by Kwon & Feiock (2010) provides an in-depth analysis of the barriers to cooperation. According to the authors, inter-jurisdictional fragmentation can result in unrealized gains and inefficiencies in production and service provision exacerbated by population change and lack of funds. Moreover, through cooperation and coordination, local government units can find opportunities to offer solutions and reduce costs arising from the barriers of cooperation. Although there are potential benefits gained from cooperation, local entities are still facing a collective action issue. Successful creation of an interlocal agreement is hindered by enforcement and negotiation costs. The authors argue that the potential to accomplish economies of scale or decrease externalities are critical. The only way to ensure accountability in public service is through cooperation and coordination. Interlocal service arrangements offer potential cost advantages for all local governments that implement them as they are considered easy to design and implement. Research studies reveal that still, all local governments are yet to take advantage of the interlocal agreements’ benefits. However, despite that, this article advocates for the implementation of intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs) in order to solve issues of mutual concerns. Some have implemented it to share or coordinate service responsibilities. Nevertheless, most local governments have not implemented it because inter-jurisdictional fragmentation results in unrealized gains and inefficiencies in production and service provision. I believe that the most significant takeaway from this article is that a local government can be provided with more choices if the potential partners are in close proximity to improve service efficiency and increase mutual interdependencies. Because this helps to encourage the adoption and implementation of IGRs or IGSAs by providing different potential aspects of such interlocal agreements.

In the article by Andrew (2009), the author attempts to explain the role of intergovernmental agreements (IJAs) plays in confronting issues of governmental fragmentations. Local governments for centuries have utilized IJAs to plan for disasters, provide public services and coordinate action on various collective issues. According to this article, IJAs are an essential tool in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of delivering services for the local public. As such, it is a critical component of metropolitan governance in America. Andrew defines intergovernmental agreements as “An innovative governance arrangement and one of the critical features of contemporary local government management” (p.133). Jurisdictions often use memoranda of understanding or agreement as a means of addressing specific and short-term policy problems. The mutual aid agreement is a significant form of IJAs. Scholars’ longstanding presumption is that what motivates the local government in adopting IJAs is fiscal stress (Andrew, 2009). If parties can work mutually and collaboratively, they can fully realize the benefits of IJAs adoption. The article argues that local governments can enjoy cost savings through use of IJAs. This article plays an albeit indirect role in encouraging local governments to implement IGR initiatives through the adoption of IJAs that function more or less the same when it comes to influencing policy formation and implementation via a cooperative decision-making process. According to this article, IJAs serve as a means of minimizing costs while serving the needs of the public like intergovernmental relations (IGRs). I believe that the most significant takeaway from this article is that the functions of local government is linked to the network of fiscal relationships that makes credible commitment and trust possible and solves coordination and search issues. This is because it helps to enhance the understanding of readers of how local jurisdictions respond to issues related to public services.

References

Andrew, S. A. (2009). Recent Developments in the Study of Interjurisdictional Agreements: An Overview and Assessment. State and Local Government Review, 41(2), 133–142. doi:10.1177/0160323X0904100208 

Kwon, S. W., & Feiock, R. C. (2010). Overcoming the barriers to cooperation: Intergovernmental service agreements. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 876-884.