We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The main goal of this volume is to explain how governance authorities in a particular policy arena overcome fragmentation and solve vertical and horizontal collective action problems. Our chapter addresses this goal in two ways: first, we apply Norton Long's (1958) analysis of the ecology of games played in territorially defined metropolitan areas to regional governance, and second, we analyze the relationships between collaboration networks, trust, and political influence in the context of regional land-use and transportation policy. The central argument of the ecology of games framework is that local political outcomes emerge from actors pursuing their self-interest in multiple, interdependent, and rule-structured games. The resulting decisions lead to the type of fragmentation and decision externalities discussed throughout this volume. Collaborative partnerships and networks are considered potential self-organizing mechanisms for overcoming these dilemmas, and our empirical study explicitly examines the resulting patterns of cooperation, trust, and political influence.
Our use of the ecology of games metaphor is partly a reaction to the burgeoning social science literature that examines the dynamics and effectiveness of collaborative processes as new institutions for political decision making. This literature itself has emerged in response to (and perhaps also partly caused) the widespread appearance of collaborative policy and its aliases in nearly every policy subsystem, especially environmental policy (O'Leary, Gerard, and Bingham 2006). These collaborative institutions are designed to alleviate many symptoms of institutional collective action (ICA) problems discussed in this book.