Content area
Full Text
The reallocation of authority upward, downward, and sideways from central states has drawn attention from a growing number of scholars in political science. Yet beyond agreement that governance has become (and should be) multi-level, there is no consensus about how it should be organized. This article draws on several literatures to distinguish two types of multi-level governance. One type conceives of dispersion of authority to general-purpose, nonintersecting, and durable jurisdictions. A second type of governance conceives of task-specific, intersecting, and flexible jurisdictions. We conclude by specifying the virtues of each type of governance.
New forms of governance and dispersion of decision making away from central states have gained the attention of a growing number of scholars across political science. Centralized authority-command and control-has few advocates. Modern governance is-and, according to many, should be-dispersed across multiple centers of authority. But how should multi-level governance be organized?1 What are the basic alternatives?
The question has long been debated between "consolida tionists" and "fragmentationists" in American local government. There is general agreement that decisions on a variety of services, such as fire protection, policing, schooling, commuter transport, and planning, are better taken locally. But how should authority over such services be organized-and for whom? Should the number of jurisdictions for each urban area be limited, perhaps reduced to a single unit, to produce economies in local service delivery and to focus political responsibility? Or should urban areas have numerous, overlapping, special-purpose local jurisdictions to increase citizen choice and flexibility (Keating 1995; Lowery 2000; Ostrom 1972)? The organization of public transit in the San Francisco Bay Area is a vivid example of the latter. As Donald Chisholm (1989) described the situation in the late 1970s, public rail and bus service was fragmented into seven overlapping jurisdictions. Four of these, the Alameda Contra Costa County Transit District, the Santa Clara County Transit District, the San Mateo County Transit District, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, are special-purpose jurisdictions created by California State legislation. All except the last were activated by voters, and all except the San Mateo County Transit District have directly elected Boards of Directors. A fifth jurisdiction was incorporated under California legislation to operate the Golden Gate Bridge and its approaches, with a 19-member board appointed...