<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01715nam a2200157   4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">510279</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">510279</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">190809b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Wolman, Harold (Hal)</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">8016</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Looking at regional governance institutions in other countries as a possible model for U.S.. metropolitan areas: an examination  of multipurpose regional service delivery districts in British Columbia</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2019</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.321-354.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">General purpose or multipurpose governments at the metropolitan level have proven extremely difficult to create and sustain in the United States. In their absence, a range of institutions have evolved to address problems of regional fragmentation and to promote interlocal cooperation and collaboration. These include single-purpose regional special districts, interlocal contracts and agreements, and voluntary regional organizations of local governments such as councils of government. However, several countries make use of another institutional form, multipurpose special districts, rather than or in addition to single-purpose special districts, as a mechanism for facilitating regional governance and intermunicipal collaboration. This essay examines one example of such an institution: regional districts in British Columbia. It analyzes what accounts for their successful creation and institutionalization and considers whether such an institutional model is potentially adoptable in the United States. It focuses particularly on the perceived reduction in transaction cost for achieving intermunicipal agreements. - Reproduced.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Regionalism</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">8017</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Urban Affairs Review</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Local government - United States</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">384219</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2019-08-09</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">55(1), Jan, 2019: p.321-354.</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR119912</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2019-08-09</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
