Myths and Legends: Exploring Differences in Regional Governance and Collective Action in the North American City

In their 1986 book Goldberg and Mercer find institutional and structural differences between Canadian and American cities attributable to the different ways that political culture has affected the evolution of urban regions. The American preference for individualism and competition, for limited government intervention and for local autonomy have all contributed to a political climate that encourages local government fragmentation and renders formal metropolitan restructuring difficult. This phenomenon is institutionalized in the principle of home rule. These features of the American system are widely cited to explain the relative rarity of metropolitan forms of government. But what of metropolitan governance? New regionalism emerged in response to the challenges of formal government reorganization and is based on the principle that metropolitan coalitions are easier to establish and more flexible than metropolitan reform. This form of regional coordination is more compatible with local autonomy. However, in theory metropolitan collective action may also be more difficult to establish in the American context that privileges individualism and competition. This article is structured around a series of questions: First, is metropolitan governance more difficult to establish in the American context? Second, are certain forms of metropolitan governance more common in each country, reflective of their political cultural and institutional differences? Finally, what do these findings suggest for theory building? Is one theory about the sources and determinants of metropolitan collective action sufficient? This article hypothesizes that despite important differences it is possible to explain the emergence and form of metropolitan governance with a single theoretical framework.