See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337917128

Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance: A Consideration of

International Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions

Article in Asia-Pacific Social Science Review · December 2019

CITATIONS READS

15 10,159

3 authors, including:

Grichawat Lowatcharin Charles David Crumpton

Khon Kaen University University of Maryland, College Park
40 PUBLICATIONS 169 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 193 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Charles David Crumpton on 13 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 19(4) 2019, pp. 44–55

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Intergovernmental Relations in A World of

Governance: A Consideration of International
Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions
Grichawat Lowatcharin,1* Charles David Crumpton,2 and Sittipol Pacharoen3
1
Khon Kaen University, Thailand
2
University of Maryland, USA and Federal University of Goiás, Brazil
3
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Japan
*[email protected]

Abstract: The concept of intergovernmental relations (IGR) primarily focuses on the interactions among different levels
and types of governments. With the proliferation of the concept of governance that calls for more actors in the public affairs
arena, the traditional focus of IGR is challenged. The objectives of this article are to perform a fresh review of the concept of
IGR and the practice of IGR research and to address contemporary challenges to them. We find that although the pervasive
concept of governance has played an important role in IGR, it is confronted with a number of crucial questions, one of which
is related to its inadequate consideration of democratic accountability and legitimacy. We further assess that in getting to
questions of accountability and legitimacy of governance approaches, the IGR literature has inadequately considered the
implications of organizational complexity typically found in governance arrangements. Applying theoretical and analytic
lenses of organizational complexity, we offer two suggestions for the future of IGR to make it analytically more robust and
better capable of answering questions regarding accountability and legitimacy dimensions of governance. First, we argue that
the urban regions of the world should receive more attention as dynamic IGR laboratories from students of IGR. Second, we
suggest that hybrid organizational analysis can be a powerful addition to the analytic toolbox of IGR to explore the impact
of organizational complexity on governance arrangements.

Keywords: central-local relations, hybrid organization, intergovernmental relations, multilevel governance, urban governance

Intergovernmental relations (IGR) came to the (NPG) and other movements in practice and research,
attention of public administration scholars in the 1930s IGR across the world have confronted challenges
(Wright, 1974) as an important issue of concern for any in addressing the implications for public policy and
political and administrative system, federal or unitary service problems (Lan, 2003; Nagai, Mektrairat &
(Lan, 2003). As comparative public administration Funatsu, 2008; Kapucu, Arslan, & Collins, 2010;
has transited through New Institutionalism (NI), New Hague, 2010). An enduring concept across these
Public Management (NPM), New Public Governance emphases in comparative public administration study

Copyright © 2019 by De La Salle University

Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance: A Consideration of
International Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions 45

concerning IGR is the importance of governance and functions among levels and types of government;
the search for “good governance” (Andrews, 2008; the administrative and political relations between
Gisselquist, 2012). Some studies have argued that, levels and units of subnational government; and the
although the pervasive concept of governance may be interstitial activities, relationships, and organizations
key to addressing many current problems of IGR, it also that arise between levels and units. Each of these areas
poses new challenges for practice and research (Peters has been studied from a variety of perspectives—
& Pierre, 2003; Wright, 2003; Laffin, 2009; Kapucu et from administrative to fiscal, legal to political, and
al., 2010; Dolinar, 2010). The concept of governance economical to sociological (Painter, 2003). That IGR is
calls for blending inputs of the private and voluntary firmly established as a field of study is seen in important
sectors with the government in the policy arena and textbooks dedicated to it (for example, see O’Toole
provision of public services; thus, challenging the & Christensen, 2012; Welborn,1989; Steinberg &
democratic accountability and legitimacy notions of Hamilton, 2018).
the traditional IGR study (Chan & Rosenbloom, 2010). IGR is an important issue of concern for any
The objective of this article is to review central political and administrative system, either federal
concepts of IGR in light of contemporary challenges or unitary (Lan, 2003). However, the term IGR
that it faces in understanding the implications of originated in the United States and has been most
governance. IGR is considered in four directions. First, frequently used in federal systems contexts (Wright,
we review general ideas and fundamental elements 1974; Cameron, 2001; Painter, 2003; Kapucu et al.,
of IGR, including definitions, key elements, and 2010). There are other terms that connote similar
development. Second, examples of IGR theory and meanings (Peters, 2001; Lan, 2003; Thomas, 1990).
practice in selected countries are illustrated. Third, For instance, in unitary systems such as in the United
a discussion of emerging trends of IGR is offered. Kingdom and China, the term central-local relations
Finally, we offer suggestions regarding how IGR can is more commonplace to identify independent and
better address the challenges of governance in the interdependent relations between the central or
future through a focus on the governance of urban national government and subnational entities (Peters,
regions and the application of an organizational 2001; Laffin, 2007; Lan, 2003;). Intergovernmental
complexity lens. We argue that the governance of management is another word choice adopted by some
urban regions and the “organizational engineering” public administration scholars who emphasize the role
that occurs in this context serves as an underutilized of public administrators in IGR (Cho & Wright, 2004;
laboratory for the IGR study. Radin, 2003).
Despite terminological choices and diverse
Defining IGR definitions, IGR comprises distinctive features
(Anderson, 1960 as cited in Wright, 1974; Cameron,
As a concept, IGR originated more than seven 2001; Laffin, 2009). First, it recognizes all types and
decades ago in the United States (see, e.g., Culver, levels of government, central departments, and local
1940) and has been periodically defined and redefined, authorities. Second, such governmental organizations
gradually gaining more conceptual and analytic are, at the same time, independent and interdependent.
clarity (Wright, 1974, 1992). It refers to “an important Third, it is largely formulated from the formal and
body of activities or interactions occurring between informal relations and behavior of governmental
governmental units of all types and levels” (Anderson, officials. Fourth, the relations are not one-time,
1960, as cited in Cho & Wright, 2004, p. 451). occasional occurrences: they are, rather, continuous,
Such activities or interactions require not only and cumulative. Fifth, it comprises roles played by
coordinated effort but also creativity to successfully all public administrators. Last, it strongly focuses on
address the needs associated with national and sub- policy issues.
national issues of public policy and service (Kapucu
et al., 2010). Relations of Conflict and Collaboration
As a field of study, IGR originated in the 1960s
(Wright, 1992). It encompasses a wide range of IGR is also about conflict-collaboration
dimensions, including the division of powers and contemporaneity, a struggle for proper spheres of
46 G. Lowatcharin, C. D. Crumpton & S. Pacharoen

powers among national and subnational governments New Public Management (NPM) and New Public
(Li, 2010; Haque, 2010). According to this Governance (NPG) perspectives. According to
conceptualization, coordination in IGR is an attempt this conceptualization, organizational resources of
to optimize coherence and consistency of political multiple stakeholders are essentially re-engineered
decisions across levels of government, policies, to address social, economic, and political problems
and actors to find solutions to problems of common in shared organizational environments found
interest to multiple stakeholders (Wollmann, 2003). in national and subnational public economies.
IGR has thus far relied on three types or patterns The organizational products of this blending
of coordination—that is, hierarchy, network, and of organizational interests and resources range
market—which have been widely accepted by public from temporary informal arrangements to new
administration scholars (Wollmann, 2003; Rodríguez, organizational forms with identities distinct from the
Langley, Béland, & Denis, 2007; Kapucu et al., 2010). source organizations that created them. Sometimes,
A traditional form of coordination, hierarchy moves these inter-organizational arrangements result
the decision from the top, most authoritative position, in new organizational entities that represent the
down through the ranks of the organization (Kapucu hybridization of the purposes, objectives, structures,
et al., 2010). It is instrumental for the politically and processes of the organizations that link together
accountable government to make sure that the lower to form them. Hybridization is particularly notable
levels of government carry out the policies in a in dense organizational governance settings such
coordinated manner (Wollmann, 2003). Networks as urban regions, wherein multiple jurisdictions,
are loosely formed voluntary associations among private companies, and NGOs are linked together
organizations (Kapucu et al., 2010). Based on shared to produce public services (Crumpton, 2008). The
values, trust, solidarity, or consensus, network current study is framed by the arguments that the
coordination is related to mechanisms like bargaining addition of the hybrid organization perspective to
and negotiation, in which the actors find themselves analyze organizational complexity—particularly in
basically in a parity or equal footing situation the world’s urban regions—should be added to the
(Wollmann, 2003). Market coordination has emerged theoretical and analytic repertoire of IGR.
with the proliferation of new public management,
and arguably replaced that of hierarchy. Its basic IGR Settings in Federal and Unitary States
assumption is that coordination can be achieved
through the market economy and the self-interest of Relations between different levels and types of
the participants in policymaking and implementation government exist not only in federal states but also in
(Wollmann, 2003). unitary states where decentralization is regarded as a
An additional approach that has not been reflected key ingredient to national development. The difference
in IGR scholarship, but that we argue could offer between federal and unitary states might be seen as
conceptual and analytic contributions to the field, a division of authority and decision-making power
is that of the hybrid organizational perspective. (Hague, Harrop, & McCormick, 2016). According to
Drawing from concepts and research in institutional this framing, federal states are based on “the principle
theory and organization study, as well as practical of sharing sovereignty between central and state
examination of the organizational complexity found (or provincial) governments” (Hague et al., 2016,
in American metropolitan governance, the hybrid p. 202). By contrast, in unitary states, “sovereignty
organization perspective looks beyond hierarchies, lies exclusively with the central government; sub-
networks, and markets to consider how multiple national authorities, whether regional or local, may
governmental stakeholders blend their institutional make policy as well as implement it but they do so by
authority, purposes, goals, and resources to address permission of the centre” (Hague et al., 2016, p. 208).
problems in IGR. The hybrid organization takes into As the form that IGR takes varies across countries, the
account organizational complexity that is common following discussion considers its variation in seven
in modern public administration and policy. It selected federal and unitary countries: United States,
recognizes the inter-organizational/inter-sectoral Canada, Germany, Australia, United Kingdom, China,
public service problem-solving that characterize the and Thailand.
Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance: A Consideration of
International Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions 47

IGR in the Federal States diplomacy,” in which most interactions rest upon a
The United States. The United States is a federal limited number of political or permanent bureaucratic
system in which the federal level, as well as the executives (Cameron & Simeon, 2002; Bakis, Baier, &
individual states, exercise significant legislative and Brow, 2009). The limited number of actors involved in
executive functions in their own right (Wollmann, IGR brings about advantages as well as disadvantages:
2003). IGR in the U.S. is often described as a complex, at times, it helps reach agreements more easily; other
varying structure, constituting layered relations times, it fails to acknowledge the needs of many other
between federal, states, local general service, local actors (Bakis et al., 2009). Therefore, the executive
limited service, and even tribal governmental bodies federalism prism has come under increasing stress
(Wollmann, 2003; Steinman, 2004). IGR in the United in recent years from a number of forces that have
States is unavoidably characterized by two contrasting affected the nature and conduct of federalism and
phenomena: conflict and collaboration (Wright, 2003; IGR in the country. Executive federalism has not been
Cho & Wright, 2004). There are always tensions displaced, but it has been increasingly criticized by a
in defining the proper sphere of powers between set of more open, collaborative practices (Cameron
and among federal, state, and local governments, & Simeon, 2002). Pelletier (2013) has considered
especially in terms of fiscal issues (Thomas, 1990; Canadian IGR in terms of constitutional barriers to
Donahue, 1997; Gillette, 2001; Greenblatt, 2002; IGR innovation and the potential for pursuing extra-
Oates, 2008). Over the past decade, cities have become constitutional alternatives. As in the United States,
laboratories for alternative governance approaches. interesting attention to challenges in IGR in Canada has
The conventional division of labor between federal and addressed the governance of the nation’s metropolitan
state governments is challenged by the state government areas. For example, Spicer (2013, 2014) has compared
performing better than the federal government in the the circumstances under which provincially-imposed
prevention of and in response to security incidents regional schemes, inter-local agreements, and
(Tepperman, 2016). Reform strategies and methods annexation or consolidation have been deployed to
developed at the local level have been adopted by state address governance problems in Canada’s metropolitan
and federal governments. This has raised an important regions.
question regarding a diminishing role for hierarchical The Federal Republic of Germany. Since
coordination (Peters, 2001). This is exemplified in the Second World War, Germany has pursued a
research promoted by the Advisory Commission decentralization policy. Its IGR is unique. The federal
on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). This work government possesses most of the legislative powers,
demonstrated the extent to which collaboration among whereas the executive and administrative functions
local jurisdictions has served as a laboratory for IGR lie almost entirely with lower levels of government
solutions to shared local level public policy and (Wollmann, 2003). Since the Unification in 1990, the
service problems. For instance, in their examination existing system has been challenged and gradually
of the St. Louis and Pittsburgh metropolitan areas on developed into a more “asymmetric” federal system,
behalf of ACIR, Parks and Oakerson (1993) found highlighting the multilevel scenario (Auel, 2014). The
a variety of bilateral and multilateral responses to practice of and experience gained from Germany’s
public policy and service problems among local IGR led to the development and implementation of
jurisdictions in the fragmented local government multilevel governance in many European countries
settings that typify American metropolitan areas. Parks (Dolinar, 2010). German IGR is characterized by a
and Oakerson (1993) offered evidence regarding how maze of vertical and horizontal relationships (Arnold,
organizationally dense metropolitan areas function as 2013). In response to greater European Union
public economies substantially apart from federal and integration, in Germany, greater federal-Länder and
state hierarchies in which local jurisdictions seek IGR Länder-Länder cooperation emerged (Goetz, 1995). As
solutions to public policy and service problems. in the United States and Canada, a useful examination
Canada. IGR in Canada is less institutionalized of problems in IGR has been conducted concerning
than the United States (Bolleyer, 2006). The relations governance within German urban regions. For instance,
have long been influenced and shaped by the concept Blätter (2017) has argued that Germany’s urban regions
of “executive federalism” or “federal-provincial have developed bottom-up policy and administrative
48 G. Lowatcharin, C. D. Crumpton & S. Pacharoen

approaches to the problems of urban governance that devolution, the research found three key elements
involve crossing jurisdictional boundaries and that in U.K. central-local relations. First, the Scottish
vary substantially among urban regions. Benz and and Welsh cases indicate that devolution does not
Meinecke (2007) have also examined the variety of inevitably lead to regional centralism and that central-
inter-jurisdictional arrangements that have emerged local relations at the regional or intermediate levels are
at the sub-Länder level to address urban regional less competitive and more collaborative where a power
governance challenges that are shared by fragmented balance or symmetry exists between the intermediate
local jurisdictions. and the local level. Second, the trend towards
Commonwealth of Australia. The elements of governance is not immutable but, at least partly, a
cooperation and competition among Australia’s tiers of matter of political choice. Third, the post-devolution
government and the problems of coordination have had policy similarities between the metropolitan center
a major bearing on the development of the country and and the three devolved territories remain pronounced
its constituent cities and regions. The balance between with a pattern of continued policy tracking, through
the powers of the national and state governments has which the dominance of the metropolitan center is
undergone major changes over the last century (Stilwell maintained indirectly rather than directly (Laffin,
& Troy, 2000). Tension usually arises because the 2007). Within the post-devolution frame, McEwen,
state governments are responsible for broader state Swenden, and Bolleyer (2012) found that, in the face of
development beyond the metropolitan areas (Stilwell inter-party flux, IGR involved both intense conflict and
& Troy, 2000). Due to highly fragmented local cooperation, with a preference for bilateral relations
government systems, in recent decades, Australian surfacing. In more recent considerations regarding and
states have promoted extensive amalgamation of central and regional relations, McEwen (2017) has
local authorities. Although amalgamation produced examined bilateral and multilateral intergovernmental
beneficial outcomes in some limited local governments, councils as mechanisms to improve coordination
in other cases, it faced council resistance and failed and collaboration in the devolved governmental
to reduce costs. Australian states, thus, have shifted environment. Parry (2012) has reported upon how
their focus to council cooperation as an alternative senior civil servants have played important roles in
way forward (Dollery, Byrnes, & Crase, 2008). facilitating IGR in the post-devolution U.K. In his
Demonstrating the portability of IGR lessons learned analysis of policy development among the constituent
in the laboratory of metropolitan governance, Dollery nations since development, Keating (2012) saw
and Johnson (2005) have applied Oakerson’s work in the development of something akin to competitive
the U.S.’s jurisdictionally complex metropolitan areas federalism in divergent approaches to policy. As
to local governance fragmentation in Australia. IGR with the federated states considered above, a robust
research in Australia has also been pursued regarding literature with IGR implications concerns metropolitan
specific policy domains such as environmental governance in the United Kingdom. For instance, in
protection (Hollander, 2015). Carroll and Head (2010) separate studies of the IGR complexity of governance
found that, as a product of national regulatory reform, a in the London urban region, Turok (2009) has
variety of national-subnational relationships emerged, considered how individual municipal interests within
including new coordinating bodies. In an examination the region can conflict with urban regional governance
of regulatory reform, Collins (2015) compared IGR in objectives, whereas Pilgrim (2006) emphasized inter-
Australia with that found in Canada and argued that, local collaboration to support regional governance
although Canada favors horizontal arrangements, objectives.
vertical relations are found more frequently in The People’s Republic of China. The evidence
Australia. indicates that China’s central-local dynamics are not
as efficient as in many Western nations (Feinerman,
IGR in the Unitary States 1998; Lan, 2003; Lan & Chen, 2010). Two fundamental
The United Kingdom. In 1999, the British factors hinder such efficiency: first, the instructional
government devolved significant powers to the newly structure in which central government is regarded as
established Scottish Parliament and National Assembly the lord and local ones are the subjects; and second, its
for Wales (McConnell, 2006; Laffin, 2007). After the moral philosophy of governance in which the subjects
Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance: A Consideration of
International Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions 49

serve the interests of the master and the master is morally local governments’ roles. With a level of autonomy
obliged to the subjects (Lan, 2003). In other words, not granted to other cities in Thailand, Bangkok is
relationships between central and local governments treated as a special case. Among the IGR issues found
are not on the basis of co-partnership but more on that in the Bangkok urban region involved is the fact that
of principal-agent or supervisor-supervisee (Li, 2010). only 60% of the urbanized area of the region is under
Within the subnational level of government, Yu, Li, and Bangkok municipal control, thus presenting inter-local
Shen (2016) have examined issues of administrative coordination challenges in controlling urban sprawl
capacity and policy development in relation to the (World Bank Group, 2015).
devolution of authority from provincial governments IGR settings in the above-mentioned countries
to townships. Cheung (2014) used the collaborative provide valuable lessons of some, if not all, major
governance regime framework to study economic problems in diverse parts of the contemporary world.
cooperation between Hong Kong and mainland China. One of the most prominent problems found in this
Addressing the vertical relationship between Chinese review is a struggle for the appropriate devolution
central and local governments from a different IGR of powers between different levels of government.
perspective, Fang and Pal (2016) argued that vertical Problems like this, as argued by various public
fragmentation in urban policy has contributed to urban administration scholars, can be diminished by the
sprawl in the country. emerging, yet widely adoptedfr concept of multilevel
The Kingdom of Thailand. Due to political governance.
instability over the past 80 years, relations between The cross-country evidence briefly considered here
central and local governments in Thailand are best also indicates that a rich area of emerging evidence
described as a tug-of-war between centralization and regarding IGR responses to governance challenges
decentralization (Chardchawarn, 2008; Lowatcharin, is coming from the urban regions of the world. In
2014; Wongsekiarttirat, 1999). In the early 1990s, the work of Parks and Oakerson (1993) for the ACIR
Thailand reintroduced decentralization as the key three decades ago, we see that urban regions have
mechanism for providing basic public services been important IGR laboratories for many years.
nationwide. There have been a number of challenges What we also see in the growing body of IGR urban
in the move to more local governance (Krueathep, region governance evidence is the potential value of
2004; Haque, 2010; Ree & Hossain, 2010). These applying the hybrid organizational analytic frame to
challenges are reflected in at least three critical understand better the nature and consequentiality of
issues regarding the relations between Thai central inter-organizational “engineering” that takes place
and local governments. First, fiscal autonomy of to make urban regions not just more governable, but
local governments is , and local administrative also more competitive in the face of globalization
organizations (LAOs) have to heavily depend on challenges.
decisions of the central government on how much
power is shared or granted (Krueathep, 2004). Second, IGR in a Challenging World of Governance
in spite of the plan and process stipulated in Thai
national laws and evidence among LAOs of positive In the 1980s, the term “governance” took hold in
outcomes, many central administration agencies public administration in parallel with the rise of NPM.
have shown reluctance to hand over governmental Like NPM, NPG looks beyond established paradigms
tasks and responsibilities. And at times, the national of governmental production and delivery of public
government has implemented recentralization policies, goods and services for alternative forms within and
undermining the decentralization process and plan outside of governmental hierarchies (Morgan & Shinn,
(Chardchawarn, 2008). Third, the central government 2014). What public administration students agree upon
and its administrative branch—the so-called “regional is that governance differs from the government: it refers
administration”—continue to exert direct and indirect to something broader than government (Kjaer, 2004;
control over the LAOs (Nagai et al., 2008). The Dolinar, 2010). Laffin (2009) argued that the concept
latest coup in 2014 has intensified this situation in of governance not only has changed the structures of
that the military government has ordered a halt to public policymaking and delivery in a more complex
local elections, and the 2016 constitution downplays way but also provides room in public policy arena for
50 G. Lowatcharin, C. D. Crumpton & S. Pacharoen

non-governmental actors, who play an increasingly hypothetical example of how this might occur in
significant role. an urban region setting. It assumes that two local
We argue that the broad conceptualization of jurisdictions—one city and one county—collaborate
governance should also consider the inter-organizational with private businesses and an NGO to produce two
“engineering” that takes place in organizationally public services. It compares their levels of objectives
complex national and sub-national public economies. determination, staffing contributions, budgetary
Responding to changing conditions, public entities contributions, and operational oversight. In this simple
seek solutions that involve complex linkages of hypothetical case, the value of hybrid organizational
shared purposes and organizational resources with analysis’ offer of evidence regarding comparative
other public and non-public entities. The resulting stakes of the participating “source organizations”
hybrid organizational solutions range in nature from (Crumpton, 2008) is obvious. The potential value of
temporary arrangements to new organizational forms this approach to support inter-contextual comparisons
with distinct identities (Crumpton, 2008). Building also should be obvious.
upon the work of Parks and Oakerson (1993), and A number of public administration scholars
drawing from organizational studies and institutional argue that theories and practices of IGR have to
theory, Crumpton (2008) has demonstrated how this move towards those of governance (Peters & Pierre,
works in the organizationally complex settings of 2003; Wright, 2003; Laffin, 2009; Kapucu et al.,
metropolitan areas of the United States. This analytic 2010; Dolinar, 2010). This is largely attributed to the
approach could be gainfully deployed to examine incapability of contemporary mechanisms to deal with
urban regions and other governance settings in other complexity and diversity. For instance, a study on the
countries as well. We see the hybrid organizational inter-organizational and intergovernmental response
conceptualization of inter-organizational arrangements to catastrophic disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and
for governance as fitting nicely into this historical arc Rita in the United States in 2005 found that the use of
of scholarly attention to matters of governance. intergovernmental and inter-organizational responses to
The application of hybrid analysis can assist coordinate complex operations in multiorganizational
in measuring the consequentiality of governance environments of catastrophic disasters was not
arrangements. The table that follows offers a successful. Thus, there should be more emphasis on

Table 1
Hypothetical Hybrid Organization Analysis

Source Organization
Service Role Private
City County NGO
Business
Service A Objectives determination 40% 20% 20% 20%

Budget contribution 50% 30% 0% 20%

Staffing contribution 10% 10% 50% 30%

Operational oversight 40% 30% 10% 20%

Service B Objectives determination 30% 30% 10% 30%

Budget contribution 30% 50% 0% 20%

Staffing contribution 15% 15% 40% 30%

Operational oversight 30% 40% 10% 20%

Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance: A Consideration of
International Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions 51

building up local networks and sub-state partnerships, Nevertheless, governance and MLG are not without
an important characteristic of governance (Kapucu et their shortcomings, mostly related to accountability
al., 2010). The hybrid organizational analysis could be and legitimacy (Laffin, 2006; Papadopoulos, 2007).
utilized to assess the pre-event conditions that impeded Laffin (2006) argued that structural changes and non-
inter-organizational responses and identify future inter- governmental actors in the era of governance have three
organizational “engineering” that is needed to build a crucial implications. First, those in government entities
more responsive institutional framework. need to devise new coordination and management
European interest in multilevel governance strategies for working with non-governmental
(MLG) emerged in parallel with the attention directed counterparts. Second, informal policy actors, that
to European integration. As the European states is, private, voluntary, and civil-society entities, have
collaborated to create new European institutions of their own agenda which may not be in line with formal
governance, scholars took note and began to build the policy actors. Third, involvement of non-government
MLG field of inquiry (Hooghe & Marks, 2001; Piattoni, actors in the policy arena sparks concerns about
2009). As this field became more established, interest accountability and legitimacy of such actors in the
moved beyond questions of inter-state institution democratic political structure (Laffin, 2006). Again,
building to consider more complex questions of we see that hybrid analysis can contribute to bringing
inter- and intra-state consequences of European greater transparency to governance and MLG. For
integration. MLG gained more ground due to the instance, Crumpton (2008) has shown that the tools of
development of the European Union’s policies hybrid organizational analysis can produce evidence
on economic and social divergence, as well as regarding the differential organizational resource
redistribution of resources (Kjaer, 2004). In part, commitments (budgetary, staffing, etc.) among source
the idea of MLG gained force because of the IGR organization participants in hybrid responses to public
forces within the German state. The German Länder service problems. This evidence reveals which source
objected to the idea that they would be treated just as organization or organizations play dominant roles in
administrative units in a model of integration between the formation and operation of the hybrid organization
the German and other European states. They insisted response. Analysis involving a comparison of the
on playing an integral role in building the European purposes of the hybrid response to those of its source
polity (Dolinar, 2010). organizations offers further evidence as to which
MLG can refer to a model in which decision- source organization or organizations exert “ownership”
making competencies are shared by subnational, in the hybrid response.
national, and supranational actors and not monopolized The above implications lead to a number of
by the state (Kjaer, 2004). It can refer to negotiated, important questions regarding IGR. Prominent
non-hierarchical exchanges between institutions at among such questions are: On the one hand, how
the transnational, national, regional, and local levels. formal policy makers in centralized government
It also refers to a layering of governance processes at departments react and adapt to the involvement of
these different levels. Institutional relationships, in non-government entities under the complex and
this light, do not have to operate through intermediary highly decentralized structures for public service
levels but can take place between transnational and delivery? On the other hand, how do informal policy
regional levels (Peters & Pierre, 2003) because MLG actors in the non-government sectors adjust their goals
acknowledges the importance of and focuses on both to accommodate government policy agenda? Does
vertical and horizontal actors and coordination in the decision-making power of central government
the policy arena (Dolinar, 2010). We argue that the agencies diminish, and how do they maintain their
MLG approach can be further enhanced through the policy discretion and influence? What kind of
introduction of hybrid organizational analysis, as structure and mechanism are needed to guarantee
described above. The multilevel exchanges that MLG the accountability and legitimacy of non-government
scholars consider often involve complex vertical and actors in the policy arena and public service delivery?
horizontal organizational “engineering” in response to How to optimize citizen participation and decision-
complex challenges in the national and sub-national making under the ever-growing complex policy
governance environment. structures? (Laffin, 2006). To these questions, we
52 G. Lowatcharin, C. D. Crumpton & S. Pacharoen

propose to add two more regarding the analytic identification of a proper sphere for powers of national
capacity of IGR: Has IGR adequately considered and and subnational governments.
learned from the governance transformations that are We also considered ideas surrounding governance
occurring within urban regions across the globe? Are and its prospective role in IGR. In a world where the
the current analytic tools of IGR adequate to explain concept of governance—multilevel governance, to
the complex inter-organizational “engineering” that be more specific—has emerged as a key mechanism
takes place in IGR responses on the national and for public administration between different levels and
sub-national level? types of government, there are a number of questions
A study by Papadopoulos (2007) echoes the for public administration scholars to address in
problems of democratic accountability and legitimacy searching for answers and deeper understanding. One
of governance, in particular MLG. Papadopoulos of the most crucial questions is that of democratic
(2007) concluded that MLG undermines democratic accountability and legitimacy of networked forms of
considerations mainly for the following reasons: the governance embedded in the concept. Lessons from
weak visibility of MLG networks, their selective the settings of IGR in the selected countries and the
composition, and the prevalence of peer over public argument on multilevel governance bring about several
forms of accountability. And, these problems can yield important questions for further study. How do/have
unintended negative consequences, such as a lack of the relations, hierarchical coordination in particular,
policy efficiency as well as problems of governability between national and subnational governments change/
that may ultimately lead to a decrease in legitimacy. As changed in response to the proliferation and increasing
suggested above, we believe that hybrid organizational significance of the idea of governance and that of
analysis can offer a more robust understanding of these multilevel governance? To what extent should non-
consequences. governmental actors be allowed to play some role in
the public policy arena? How can we acknowledge
Conclusion and legitimate the role of non-governmental actors, and
on the other hand, how and to what extent can they be
IGR refers to activities and interactions occurring accountable to the public?
between governmental units of all types and levels We have offered two suggestions regarding how
in which coordination is essential. It encompasses a the IGR study can be more robust in answering these
variety of important issues for federal nations as well questions. First, we suggest that more IGR attention
as unitary nations where decentralization is favorably should be directed to the urban regions of the world
adopted. This article has provided a fresh review as laboratories in IGR. The urban regions of Europe,
of the concept of IGR to support the consideration North America, and developing regions of the world are
of contemporary challenges to the concept through seeking and finding governance solutions apart from
the theoretical and analytic lenses of organizational the governance issues generally considered in IGR or
complexity. In four parts, this article has offered MLG. In seeking solutions to land use, transportation,
an updated review of the literature concerning IGR housing, and other problems, urban regions often
concepts and research. It has also presented suggestions act independently of their national and sub-national
regarding how the field of IGR might be enhanced hierarchical “superiors” to make themselves
going forward. competitive in a globalized milieu. Additionally,
IGR can be studied from a wide range of urban regions in both the global North and South play
perspectives, from political to fiscal, legal, and critical roles in decentralization and local governance
sociological. It can also be assessed in terms of the consolidation schemes. It can be argued that national
conflict and collaboration that tend to be involved decentralization approaches cannot be viewed apart
in interactions among governmental entities. The from the governance challenges of the world’s urban
coordination found in IGR can be described in terms regions (Eyoh & Stren, 2007). In particular, we
of hierarchy, networks, and markets. We also see suggest that the IGR study should direct attention to
variations and similarities in IGR across federated and the burgeoning urban regions of the developing world.
unitary states. One of the most challenging issues about The megacities of Africa, Southeast Asia, and South
IGR in both federated and unitary states involves the America likely offer interesting IGR lessons within
Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance: A Consideration of
International Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions 53

the contexts of urbanization, sustainable development, Benz, A., & Meinecke, A. (2006). Sub-national government
globalization, and government decentralization. and regional governance in Germany. In V. Hoffmann-
Second, we argue that hybrid organizational Martinot & H. Wollmann (Eds.), State and local
analysis can bring a more nuanced understanding government reforms in France and Germany: Urban
and regional research international, (vol. 7; pp. 59-74).
to IGR regarding the complex inter-organizational
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
“engineering” that takes place in the search for Blätter, T. (2017). Governance in metropolitan regions
governance solutions in organizationally complex in Germany. Presentation given at The European
national and sub-national public economies. We Committee on Democracy and Governance (CDDG) of
see that hybrid organizational analysis might assist the Council of Europe, Thessaloniki, October 18, 2017.
in addressing the accountability, legitimacy, and Bolleyer, N. (2006). Federal dynamics in Canada, the
transparency problems that can be associated with United States, and Switzerland: How substates’ internal
governance and MLG. In the hypothetical case organization affects intergovernmental relations. The
presented above, we have demonstrated how the Journal of Federalism, 36(4), 471–502.
hybrid organization analytic approach can be applied Cameron, D., & Simeon, R. (2002). Intergovernmental
relations in Canada: The emergence of collaborative
in organizationally complex urban regions.
federalism. The Global Review of Federalism, 32(2),
49–71.
Acknowledgments Cameron, D. (2001). The structures of intergovernmental
relations. International Social Science Journal, 53(167),
This work was supported by the Research Group on 12-–127.
Local Affairs Administration, Khon Kaen University, Carroll, P., & Head, B. (2010). Regulatory reform and
under Grant 16/2017. the management of intergovernmental relations in
Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(3),
407–424.
Declaration of ownership
Chan, H. S., Rosenbloom, D. H. (2010). Four challenges to
accountability in contemporary public administration:
This report is our original work. Lessons from the United States and China. Administration
& Society, 42(1S), 1S–11S.
Conflict of interest Chardchawarn, S. (2008). Decentralization under threat?
Impacts of the CEO governor policy upon Thai local
None. government. In F. Nagai, N. Mektrairat, & T. Funatsu
(Eds.), Local government in Thailand: Analysis of the
local administrative organization survey (pp. 31–50).
Ethical clearance
Chiba: Institute of Developing Economies.
Cheung, P. T. Y. (2014). Toward collaborative governance
This study was approved by the institution. between Hong Kong and Mainland China. Urban
Studies, 52(10), 1915–1933.
References Cho, C. L., & Wright, D. S. (2004). The devolution
Andrews, M. (2008). The good governance agenda: Beyond revolution in intergovernmental relations in the 1990s:
indicators without theory. Oxford Development Studies, Changes in cooperative and coercive state–national
36(4), 379–407. relations as perceived by state administrators. Journal
Arnold, R. (2013) The intergovernmental relations in federal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(4),
systems: The model of Germany. In A. López-Basaguren, 447–468.
L. Escajedo San Epifanio (Eds.), The ways of federalism Collins, E. (2015). Alternative routes: Intergovernmental
in western countries and the horizons of territorial relations in Canada and Australia. Canadian Public
autonomy in Spain. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Administration, 54(4), 591–604.
Auel, K. (2014). Intergovernmental relations in German Crumpton, C. D. (2008). Organizational complexity in
federalism: Cooperative federalism, party politics and American local governance: Deploying an organizational
territorial conflicts. Comparative European Politics, perspective in concept and analytic framework
12(4/5), 422–443. development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Bakis, H., Baier, G., & Brow, D. (2009). Contested Portland State University, Portland, OR.
federalism: Certainty and ambiguity in the Canadian Culver, D. C. (1940). A bibliography of intergovernmental
federation. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. relations in the United States. The Annals of the American
54 G. Lowatcharin, C. D. Crumpton & S. Pacharoen

Academy of Political and Social Science, 207(1), federalism in the UK. The British Journal of Politics
210–218, and International Relations, 14(2), 214–230.
Dolinar, M. K. (2010). Multilevel governance within the Kjaer, A. M. (2004). Governance. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
European Union. European View, 9, 97–103. Krueathep, W. (2004). Local government initiatives in
Dollery, B., & Johnson, A. (2005) Enhancing efficiency Thailand: Cases and lessons learned. The Asia Pacific
in Australian local government: An evaluation of Journal of Public Administration, 26(2), 217–239.
alternative models of municipal governance. Urban Laffin, M. (2007). Comparative British central–local
Policy and Research, 23(1), 73–85. relations: Regional centralism, governance and
Dollery, B., Byrnes, J., & Crase, L. (2008). Structural reform intergovernmental relations. Public Policy and
in Australian local government. Australian Journal of Administration, 22(1), 74–91.
Political Science, 43(2), 333–339. Laffin, M. (2009). Central-local relations in an era of
Donahue, J. D. (1997). Disunited states. New York: governance: Towards a new research agenda. Local
HarperCollins: Government Studies, 35(1), 21–37.
Eyoh, D., & Stren, R. (2007). Decentralization and urban Lan, G. Z. (2003). Central-local relations in the People’s
development in West Africa. In D. Eyoh & R. Stren Republic of China. Journal of Public Budgeting,
(Eds.), Decentralization and the politics of urban Accounting & Financial Management, 15(3), 438–465.
development in West Africa. Washington, DC: Woodrow Lan, G. Z., & Chen, G. (2010). Intergovernmental relations
Wilson International Center for Scholars. in mainland China. In E. M. Berman, M. J. Moon, &
Fang, Y., & Pal, A. (2016). Drivers of urban sprawl H. Choi (Eds.), Public administration in East Asia (pp.
in urbanizing China–a political ecology analysis. 75-93). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Environment and Urbanization, 28(2), 599–616. Li, L. C. (2010). Central-local relations in the People’s
Feinerman, J. V. (1998). The give and take of central-local Republic of China: Trend, processes and impacts for
relations. The China Business Review, 25(1), 16–23. policy implementation. Public Administration and
Gillette, C. P. (2001). Funding versus control in Development, 30, 177–190.
intergovernmental relations. Constitutional Political Lowatcharin, G. (2014). Along came the junta: The evolution
Economy, 12(2), 123–140. and stagnation of Thailand’s local governance. Kyoto
Gisselquist, R. M. (2012, January 1). What does “good Review of Southeast Asia, 2014(16). Retrieved from
governance” mean? United Nations University. Accessed http://kyotoreview.org/yav/along-came-the-junta-
from https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/what-does- the-evolution-and-stagnation-of-thailands-local-
good-governance-mean governance/
Goetz, K. H. (1995). National governance and European McConnell, A. (2006). Central-local government relations
integration: Intergovernmental relations in Germany. in Scotland. International Review of Administrative
Journal of Common Market Studies, 33(1), 91–116. Sciences, 72(1), 73–84.
Greenblatt, A. (2002). Enemies of the state. Governing, McEwen, N. (2017). Still better together? Purpose and power
16, 2-–31. in intergovernmental councils in the UK. Regional &
Hague, R., Harrop, M., & McCormick, J. (2016). Federal Studies, 27(5), 667–690.
Comparative government and politics: An introduction McEwen, N., Swenden, W., & Bolleyer, N. (2012).
(10th ed.). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Intergovernmental relations in the UK: Continuity in
Haque, M. S. (2010). Decentralizing local governance a time of change? The British Journal of Politics and
in Thailand: Contemporary trends and challenges. International Relations, 14(2), 323–343.
International Journal of Public Administration, 33, Morgan, D. F., & Shinn, C. W. (2014). The foundations of
673–688. new public governance. In D. F. Morgan & B. J. Cook
Hollander, R. (2015). ESD, federalism and intergovernmental (Eds.), New public governance: A regime-oriented
relations in Australia. Australasian Journal of approach (pp. 3–12). New York City: Routledge.
Environmental Management, 22(1), 21–32. Nagai, F., Mektrairat, N., & Funatsu, T. (2008). Local
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance government in Thailand: Analysis of the local
and European integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & administrative organization survey. Chiba: Institute of
Littlefield Publishers. Developing Economies.
Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Collins, M. L. (2010). Examining O’Toole, L. J., & Christensen, R. K. (2012). American
intergovernmental and interorganizational response intergovernmental relations: Foundations, perspectives,
to catastrophic disasters: Toward a network-centered and issues (5th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
approach. Administration & Society, 42, 222–247. Oates, W. E. (2008). On the evolution of fiscal federalism:
Keating, M. (2012). Intergovernmental relations and Theory and institutions. National Tax Journal, 61(2),
innovation: From co-operative to competitive welfare 313–334.
 Intergovernmental Relations in A World of Governance: A Consideration of
International Experiences, Challenges, and New Directions 55

Painter, M. (2003). Intergovernmental relations and Sharing and Policy Coordination in Diverse Institutional
public administration: Introduction. In G. B. Peters & Settings: Interlocal Cooperation in Asia, Europe and
J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration North America, March 19 – 22, 2014, in San Antonio,
(pp. 591–593). Wiltshire, UK: SAGE Publications. TX.
Papadopoulos, Y. (2007). Problems of democratic Steinberg, C. W., & Hamilton, D. K. (2018). Intergovernmental
accountability in network and multilevel governance. relations in transition: Reflections and directions. New
European Law Journal, 13(4), 469–486. York, NY: Routledge.
Parks, R. B., & Oakerson, R. J. (1993). Comparative Steinman, E. (2004). American federalism and
metropolitan organization: Service production and intergovernmental innovation in state-tribal relations.
governance structures in St. Louis (MO) and Allegheny The Journal of Federalism, 34(2), 95–114.
County (PA). Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 23(1), Stilwell, F., & Troy, P. (2000). Multilevel governance and
19–40. urban development in Australia. Urban Studies, 37(5–6),
Parry, R. (2012). The civil service and intergovernmental 909–930.
relations in the post-devolution UK. The British Journal Tepperman, J. (2016). The fix: How nations survive and
of Politics and International Relations, 14(2), 285–302. thrive in a world in decline. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Pelletier, B. (2013). Intergovernmental relations in Canada: Thomas, R. D. (1990). National-local relations and the city’s
A horizontal perspective. In A. López-Basaguren & L. dilemma. Annals of the American Academy of Political
Escajedo San Epifanio (Eds.), The ways of federalism and Social Science, 509, 106–117.
in western countries and the horizons of territorial Turok, I. (2009). Limits to the mega-city region: Conflicting
autonomy in Spain (pp. 13-37). Berlin: Springer. local and regional needs. Regional Studies, 43(6),
Peters, B. G. (2001). Administrative reform and political 845–862.
power in the United States. Policy & Politics, 29(2), Welborn, D. M. (1989). Intergovernmental relations in the
171–179. American administrative state. Austin, TX: University
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of public of Texas Press.
administration. Wiltshire, U.K.: SAGE Publications. Wollmann, H. (2003). Coordination in the intergovernmental
Piattoni, S. (2009). Multi‐level governance: A historical and setting. In G. B. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of
conceptual analysis. Journal of European Integration, public administration (pp. 594–606). Wiltshire, UK:
31, 163–180. SAGE Publications.
Pilgrim, M. (2006). London regional governance and the Wongsekiarttirat, W. (1999). Central-local relations in
London boroughs. Local Government Studies, 32(3), Thailand: Bureaucratic centralism and democratization.
223–238. In M. Turner (Ed.), Central-local relations in Asia-
Radin, B. A. (2003). The instruments of intergovernmental Pacific: Convergence or divergence? (pp. 71–96).
management. In G. B. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.
Handbook of public administration (pp. 607–618). World Bank Group. (2015). East Asia’s changing urban
Wiltshire, UK: SAGE Publications. landscape measuring a decade of spatial growth.
Rees, C. J., & Hossain, F. (2010). Perspectives on Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction
decentralization and local governance in developing and and Development/The World Bank.
transitional countries. International Journal of Public Wright, D. S. (1974). Intergovernmental relations: An
Administration, 33, 581–587. analytical overview. Annals of the American Academy
Rodríguez, C., Langley, A., Béland, F., & Denis, J. (2007). of Political and Social Science, 416, 1–16.
Governance, power, and mandated collaboration in an Wright, D. S. (1992.). Understanding intergovernmental
interorganizational network. Administration & Society, relations. In J. M. Shafritz & A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics
39, 150–193. of public administration (3rd ed.; pp. 550–563). Pacific
Spicer, Z. D. (2013). Regional organization and the Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
dynamics of inter-municipal cooperation: Policy Wright, D. S. (2003). Federalism and intergovernmental
coordination between Ontario’s separated cities and relations: Traumas, tensions and trends. Spectrum:
counties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Journal of State Government, (June), 10–13.
of Western Ontario, London, ON. Yu, J., Li, L., & Shen, Y. (2016). Rediscovering
Spicer, Z. D. (2014). The dynamics of municipal cooperation intergovernmental relations at the local level: The
in Canadian metropolitan areas. Paper presented at 44th devolution to township governments in Zhejiang
Conference of the Urban Affairs Association Service province. China Review, 16(2), 1–26.

View publication stats