Home » Deil S. Wright Symposium

Category Archives: Deil S. Wright Symposium

DEIL S. WRIGHT SYMPOSIUM 2017 CALL FOR PAPERS

The Section on Intergovernmental Administration and Management (SIAM) invites scholars and practitioners to submit proposals for papers to be presented at the 4th annual Deil S. Wright Symposium. The symposium honors the career and contributions of Professor Deil S. Wright, who was a charter member of the Section and remained active until his passing in 2009. The Wright Symposium will be a preconference event held on Friday, March 17, 2017 at the national conference of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) in Atlanta, Georgia.

The theme of the all-day symposium is “Evidence-Based Intergovernmental Management: Knowledge at Work.” It will focus on U.S. federalism and comparative federalism. Through decades of research on federalism and intergovernmental relations, public administration scholars have generated knowledge about effective governance and management in federal systems. While the cumulative lessons of this research may be familiar to some, they have not been discussed widely by scholars or used by professional public managers. Today, public officials are expected to take evidence-based approaches to policy design and implementation, and the record of research evidence about what has worked and what has failed to produce desired results would be an invaluable resource. Scholars of federalism, intergovernmental relations, intergovernmental management, and collaborative management can help improve federal systems by providing meta-analyses and synthesizing evidence in the field to inform practice. The 2017 Wright Symposium provides an excellent forum for doing so.

 

Proposed paper topics are invited that would help scholars and government professionals better understand what we have learned from the cumulative research on intergovernmental relations and management.  Papers are welcome to advance new research propositions, identify research gaps, or provide empirical evidence. The goal is to emphasize for public managers how evidence can be used to shape intergovernmental management practice.  Topics might include, but are not limited to the:

  • Design, accountability, and evaluation of intergovernmental grants and programs, including revenue sharing and fiscal equalization;
  • Development of collaborative intergovernmental competencies or skills by federal, regional, state, and local public managers;
  • Effectiveness of elected executives in managing intergovernmental relations in presidential and parliamentary federal systems;
  • Effectiveness of intergovernmental, interjurisdictional, and intersectoral management networks;
  • Value of intergovernmental institutions, such as the U.S. Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations, Council of Australian Governments, or the White House Office on Intergovernmental Affairs;

  • Impact of federalism executive orders or presidential decrees on intergovernmental relations;
  • Impacts of federal mandates and conditions attached to federal grants-in-aid;
  • Effectiveness of regulatory waivers;
  • Diffusion of evidence-based practices horizontally across constituent units such as states, provinces, and cantons;
  • Performance of regional governments and organizations, such as consolidated or amalgamated local governments, metropolitan governments, councils of governments, and city-states;
  • Advantages and disadvantages of optional forms of local government;
  • Consequences of litigation for the authority of public managers in intergovernmental programs;
  • Impacts of court orders, consent decrees, and other judicial interventions into intergovernmental relations.

 

Proposals for the symposium should be submitted by email to Carl Stenberg (stenberg@sog.unc.edu) before October 1. Proposals should be well developed and clearly demonstrate the ability to deliver a finished paper. The Wright Symposium planning committee – Ann Bowman, John Kincaid, Michael McGuire, Eric Zeemering, and Carl Stenberg — will review proposals and make decisions by October 22.  Questions can be directed to committee members.  Please circulate this call for papers among interested colleagues.

Deil Wright Symposium Presenters

 

Presenters at the Deil Wright Symposium (L-R): Chang-Gyu Kwak (Florida State University), Meghan Rubado (Temple University), Yu Shi (University of Illinois at Chicago), Hyungjun Ji (Arizona State University), KyungWoo (John) Kim (University of North Texas), Dr. Richard Feiock (Florida State University).

image1

Panel Discussion on Mission and Future Work: March 18 at 11:00 a.m during the Wright Symposium

We invite all members of SIAM to join us in the ongoing and important discussion about our section’s mission and future work.  The Wright Symposium has become a hallmark event for the presentation of research on federalism and intergovernmental relations.  This year, we invite members to join us for a panel discussion regarding the recent membership survey and work of the mission implementation committee, which will be held during the Wright Sympoisum, March 18 at 11:00 AM.  This panel will provide members an opportunity to hear about the deliberative work of the Mission Implementation Committee, and hear an early preview of their recommendations before the business meeting.  Then, please be sure to attend the section business meeting, scheduled for Saturday afternoon at 2:00 PM.  The SIAM events in Seattle provide us with an opportunity to unite behind our shared interests in federalism, intergovernmental relations, and collaborative management.

 

2016 Deil S. Wright Symposium: Friday, March 18, 2016

      

2016 DEIL S. WRIGHT SYMPOSIUM ANNOUNCEMENT

The Section on Intergovernmental Administration and Management (SIAM) invites ASPA members to attend the 2016 Deil S. Wright Symposium at the 2016 ASPA national conference in Seattle. The symposium honors the career and contributions of Professor Deil S. Wright, who was a charter member of SIAM and remained active until his passing in 2009. The all-day meeting on Friday, March 18 will feature cutting edge research on local governance and intergovernmental management by outstanding doctoral candidates and junior scholars, collaborating with faculty members, as well as a panel discussion on the Section’s mission. The theme of the symposium is “Intergovernmental Management in Transition” Following is the preliminary agenda.

    

8:30-8:45 Welcome Richard Feiock and Carl Stenberg
8: 45-10:00 Panel 1: Local Governance and Intergovernmental Management Research
The Rise of Specialized Governance in Federalism: Links between Local Autonomy and Special Districts among States
Yu Shi, University of Illinois at Chicago
The Dynamics of Interorganizational Risk Management Networks: Following the 2015 South Korea MERS Response  
KyungWoo (John) Kim, University of North Texas            
Policy Abandonment at Multiple Levels of Government: Understanding Why State and Local Governments Abandon Economic Development Incentives
Eric Stokan, George Washington University
External and Internal Influences on Local Governments to Design Comprehensive Sustainability Programs
Hyungjun Ji, Arizona State University
Why Do Local Leaders Cooperate Across Boundaries? Results from a National Survey Experiment on Mayors and Councilors
Meghan Rubado, Temple University
10:00-10:15 Break
10:15-11:00 Discussion of Panel 1 Papers
Discussants include editors of State and Local Government Review, Public Administration Review, Urban Affairs Review
11:00-12:30 Panel 2:  What Future for SIAM?  Exploring and Adjusting the Mission of ASPA’s Intergovernmental Section
This roundtable features leading scholars and practitioners who served on the committee to review the recent SIAM mission change and make implementation recommendations.  Eric Zeemering will present results of the survey of SIAM members the committee conducted and panel members will provide their thoughts, assessments, and ideas in a dialogue with the other panelists and the audience.
Participants
Eric Zeemering, Northern Illinois University (Chair)
Ed Benton, University of South Florida
David Miller, University of Pittsburgh
David Warm, Executive Director, Mid-America Regional Council
12:30-1:30  Lunch Break
1:30-3:00  Panel 3: Local Governance and Intergovernmental Management Research
Bottom-up Federalism: An Examination of U.S. Local Governments’ Climate Change Policy
Benoy Jacob, University of Colorado, Denver, Brian Gerber, Arizona State University, Sam Gallaher, University of Colorado, Denver
Equipment Sharing Among Local Governments
Daniel D. Wendt, Bowling Green State University
Empathy and Ethics in Public Servants: The Role of Public Administration Education in Developing Competencies for Collaborative Governance
Mariglynn Edlins and Stephanie Dolamore, University of Baltimore
Can You Put Food on the Table? Redefining Poverty in America
Maureen Berner and Alexander Vazquez, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Discussant
John Kincaid, Layafette University
3:00-3:15  Break
3:15-4:45  Panel 4: Public Administration and Providing and Managing Collaborative and Environmental Programs in the New Era
Providing Public Services in a Networked and Collaborative Environment
David K. Hamilton, Texas Tech University
The Municipal Governance of Sustainability: Climate Change, Polycentricity, and Public Administration
Dennis Patterson and Robert E. Forbis, Jr., Texas Tech University
Determinants of Change and Innovation in U.S. Local Governments Natural Hazard Management Practices
Brian Gerber, Arizona State University
The Conflicted Role of Professional Managers: Help Guild or Insulate from the Metropolitan Region
David Miller, University of Pittsburgh
Discussant
Beverly Cigler, Penn State Harrisburg

 

4:45-5:00 Wrap-Up  Richard Feiock and Eric Zeemering

Deil Wright Symposium: Draft Schedule

            D                R                A                F                 T                 12/10/15

    2016 DEIL WRIGHT SYMPOSIUM
INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN TRANSITION
                                    Westin Hotel, Seattle, WA, March 18, 2016 

8:30-8:45 Welcome Richard Feiock and Carl Stenberg

8: 45-10:00 Panel 1:  Outstanding Student/Junior Scholar Research on Local Governance and Intergovernmental Management

This panel will showcase cutting edge research on local governance and intergovernmental management from outstanding doctoral candidates and junior scholars were selected for presentation on this panel.  

Paper #1
The Rise of Specialized Governance in Federalism: Links between Local Autonomy and Special Districts among States
Yu Shi, University of Illinois at Chicago

Paper #2
The Dynamics of Interorganizational Risk Management Networks: Following the 2015 South Korea MERS Response  
John Woo, University of North Texas            

Paper #3
Policy Abandonment at Multiple Levels of Government: Understanding Why State and Local Governments Abandon Economic Development Incentives
Eric Stoken, Georgetown University

Paper #4
External and Internal Influences on Local Governments to Design Comprehensive Sustainability Programs
Hyungjun Ji, Arizona State University

Paper #5
Why Do Local Leaders Cooperate Across Boundaries? Results from a National Survey Experiment on Mayors and Councilors
Meghan Rubado, Temple University

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-11:00 Discussion of Panel 1 Papers
Discussants include editors of State and Local Government Review, Public Administration Review, Urban Affairs Review

11:00-12:30 Panel 2:  What Future for SIAM?  Exploring and Adjusting the Mission of ASPA’s Intergovernmental Section

This roundtable features leading scholars and practitioners who served on the committee to review the recent SIAM mission change and make implementation recommendations.  Eric Zeemering will present results of the survey of SIAM members the committee conducted and panel members will provide their thoughts, assessments and ideas in a dialogue with the other panel members and the audience.

Participants:

Eric Zeemering, Northern Illinois University (chair)

Ed Benton, University of South Florida

David Miller, University of Pittsburgh

David Warm, Executive Director, Mid-America Regional Council

12:30-1:30  Lunch Break

1:30-3:00  Panel 3: Outstanding Student/Junior Scholar/ Faculty Research on Local Governance and Intergovernmental Management

This panel showcases cutting edge research on local governance and intergovernmental management topics from outstanding doctoral candidates and junior scholars, collaborating with faculty members.

Paper #1
Bottom-up Federalism: An Examination of U.S. Local Governments’ Climate Change Policy
Benoy Jacob, University of Colorado, Denver, Brian Gerber, Arizona State University, Sam Gallaher, University of Colorado, Denver

Paper #2
Equipment Sharing Among Local Governments
Daniel D. Wendt, Bowling Green State University

Paper #3
Empathy and Ethics in Public Servants: The Role of Public Administration Education in Developing Competencies for Collaborative Governance
Mariglynn Edlins and Stephanie Dolamore, University of Baltimore

Paper #4
Can You Put Food on the Table? Redefining Poverty in America
Maureen Berner and Alexander Vazquez, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Discussant
John Kincaid, Layafette University

3:00-3:15  Break

3:15-4:45  Panel 4: Public Administration and Providing and Managing Collaborative and Environmental Programs in the New Era

This panel focuses on some of the current and emerging challenges confronting intergovernmental management, including the competencies that will be needed to navigate transitionary times.

Paper #1
Providing Public Services in a Networked and Collaborative Environment
David K. Hamilton, Texas Tech University

Paper #2
Public Administration and Environmental Sustainability Policy
Dennis Patterson and Robert E. Forbes, Jr., Texas Tech University

Paper #3
Determinants of Change and Innovation in U.S. Local Governments Natural Hazard Management Practices
Brian Gerber, Arizona State University

Paper #4
The Conflicted Role of Professional Managers: Help Guild or Insulate from the Metropolitan Region
David Miller, University of Pittsburgh

Discussant
Beverly Cigler, Penn State Harrisburg


4:45-5:00 Wrap-Up  Richard Feiock and Eric Zeemeringf

DEIL S. WRIGHT SYMPOSIUM ANNOUNCEMENT

The Section on Intergovernmental Administration and Management (SIAM) invites ASPA members to submit proposals for papers to be presented at the 2016 Deil S. Wright Symposium. The symposium honors the career and contributions of Professor Deil S. Wright, who was a charter member of SIAM and remained active until his passing in 2009. The Wright Symposium will be held as a preconference event at the 2016 ASPA national conference in Seattle. The all-day meeting will feature morning student research sessions, and workshops on research and academic careers in intergovernmental management.   The afternoon symposium will feature roundtables and research paper presentations as well as panel discussion on the Section’s mission. The afternoon sessions will feature research panels (up to 12 papers).

The theme of the afternoon symposium is “Intergovernmental Management in Transition” Proposed workshop and research panel paper topics are invited relating to the following topical questions:

How prepared are local managers to deal with ethical and accountability issues arising from the abuse of discretionary authority by public safety personnel?

Has public administration education kept abreast of developments and related competencies in collaborative governance?

What are the latest theories, emerging issues, and research results in metropolitan governance?

What trends and innovations, in the United States or other countries, could significantly affect the future course of intergovernmental management?

  Proposals should be sent to Carl Stenberg (stenberg@sog.unc.edu), David Hamilton (david.hamilton@ttu.edu), and Richard Feiock (rfeiock@fsu.edu) by October 1, 2015. 

2015 Deil S. Wright Symposium Papers

Thank you to all who participated in the 2015 Deil S. Wright Symposium. Links for each of the papers are below.

An Exploration of Collaboration Risk in Joint Ventures:Perceptions of Risk by Local Economic Development Officials by Jered B. Carr, Christopher V. Hawkins, & Drew E. Westberg


Taking the High Road: Local Government Managers’ Perceptions on Implementing LocalOption Recreational Marijuana in Colorado by Bruce J. Perlman, Sara Shoemate, Nicholas Edwardson, Michael J. Scicchitano, & Tracy L. Johns


Is the Teaching of Federalism and Intergovernmental RelationsDead or Alive in American Public Administration? by Richard L. Cole & John Kincaid


Jobs, Jobs, Jobs:Energy Efficiency and Growth through State and Local Implementation by Benjamin H. Deitchman


Funding the Built and NaturalEnvironment (Infrastructure) inthe 21st CenturyAn Evolving Example of Deil Wright’sOverlapping Model of IGR by Mark Pisano


The Status of Home Rule in Illinois* by Heidi Koenig

* paper requested from author. When it is received, a link will be developed.

2015 Deil Wright Symposium: Friday, March 6


                           INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT: TENSIONS AND TRENDS
                        Sponsored by the Section on Intergovernmental Administration and Management
          Field Room, Hyatt Regency Chicago, March 6, 1:00 – 4:30 p.m. 
1:00-2:30 Teaching and Research Panel  
Moderator: Carl Stenberg, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Richard L. Cole, University of Texas at Arlington, and John Kincaid, Lafayette College, “Is the Teaching of Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Dead or Alive in American Public Administration Programs?”
Bruce J. Perlman, Sara Shoemate, and Nicholas Edwardson, University of New Mexico, and Michael J. Scicchitano, University of Florida, “Taking the High Road: Local Government Managers’ Perceptions on Implementing Local Option Recreational Marijuana in Colorado”
Jered B. Carr, University of Illinois at Chicago, Christopher Hawkins, University of Central Florida, and Drew Westberg, University of Missouri-Kansas City, “Collaboration Risk in Joint Ventures among Governments: Understanding the Risk Perceptions of Economic Development Officials”
Benjamin H. Deitchman, Rochester Institute of Technology, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Energy Efficiency and Growth through State and Local Implementation.”
Heidi Koenig, Northern Illinois University, “The Status of Home Rule in Illinois”
2:30-3:30 Roundtable I: NAPA Perspectives on New Paradigms for Developing a National Infrastructure Agenda
Moderator: Paul Posner, George Mason University
            Mark Pisano, University of Southern California
            Peter J. Basso, Parsons Brinckerhoff
  
3:30-4:45 Roundtable II: New Approaches to the Study of Contemporary Intergovernmental Relationships
Moderator: David Hamilton, Texas Tech University
Robert A. Agranoff, Indiana University
Beryl A. Radin, Georgetown University
Ann O’M. Bowman, Texas A & M University
Michael Pagano, University of Illinois at Chicago
           
4:45 Concluding Comments
                        David C. Wright

                        Richard C. Feiock, Florida State University



*****
Roundtable I information: “This is the charter of a special working group on Infrastructure that the Board of NAPA has established. The purpose of the working group is to use the resources of NAPA to provide guidance to Congress and the Administration, on a subject chosen by the board.  I chair the working group and was the scribe of several sessions of the working group that developed the charter for our group, which is reflected in the paper.  We are currently developing the resources to flesh out the paper to be available later this year.” — Mark Pisano, Chair.


Developing a National Infrastructure Agenda

Introduction

The national consensus for building and regenerating existing infrastructure is broken.  Witness the debate on the transportation reauthorization: the highway, transit interest groups, automobile clubs and trucking associations-the users, business and labor organizations all unsuccessfully asked Congress to raise taxes to continue the program; the Corps of Engineers authorization by several orders of magnitude dwarfs the appropriation each year; FEMA insurance premiums where recently established to reflect actuarial costs were put in abeyance because of user pushback; users (voters) feel that they have already paid for expenditures; etc.. These actions reflect the changing priorities of the country, which focuses on personal issues of people, their health care, pensions and education.  All the while the looming debate over the national deficit clouds the issue, leaving the country adrift to deal with the issue at the state and local level, who are also facing long term budget stress.

A new approach, you might say a new paradigm is needed, to enable infrastructure to be built and regenerated and still deal with these contemporary realities.  Infrastructure enables growth and wealth creation to prosper.  Infrastructure creates many benefits that can be captured and generates a return on investment for those who invest in its development.  The nation has liquidity that that is seeking long-term returns. Jobs can be created for many who have been displaced and have the skills to perform them.  Infrastructure jobs are our best strategy to deal with our structural unemployment crisis.  If the nations has the money and we have unused people resources and we have a desperate need to regenerate and build our infrastructure, then we need to organize ourselves to so we can solve this dilemma.  

President Clinton at his Global Initiative Conference in Los Angeles, noted, “we are organized for the past and not to solve the issues of the future. The issue is not money, we have under utilized liquidity here and abroad, but how we organize ourselves and use our resources to build our future.” The issue is designing the rules of the game so that we deplore our resources, money and people to solve the infrastructure problem.

Purpose and Performance

Infrastructure of all types, are systems and serve multiple purposes and roles. The benefits of these systems are mostly experienced locally and regionally but have significant national implications.  Witness the current grain crisis of not being able to get the plentiful crop out of the nations breadbasket because of railroad logjams.  Goods movement blockages due to deficit infrastructure investments prevent the Interstate Commerce clause of our constitution from operating, and will put American businesses and consumers at risk from effectively participating in the global market place.  The same can be said about not developing energy transport, particularly renewable access to the urban market places and water systems that traverses multiple states.

Clarity of purpose for our infrastructure investments is the starting point of the new paradigm. How do we capture the regional and local benefits, using existing tools of benefit assessment and beneficial use arrangements and fees while capturing national benefits and responsibilities? While investments and benefits will be regional focused, the results will be advancing national goals; requiring a different set of intergovernmental financing arrangements that focuses on outcomes and results, so the purpose and benefits can be understood and transparent. If this is accomplished, then governmental and organizational assignments can be established and resources will follow.

A broader conception of public infrastructure that encompasses not only the built environment, but changes in the natural environment will lead to changes in how we approach our built environment, e.g., severe weather conditions, rising sea level, persistent increase in temperature, will require us to work with nature instead of fighting nature. Using natural systems may in fact be the only resolution to many of our current infrastructure challenges.
This regeneration of the existing built environment will enable us to rebuild cost effectively and deal with our extensive deferred maintenance.  

Focusing on Performance of investments- their outcomes/results and the lifecycle cost and the source of revenues -will enable the nation to rationalize the over $2 trillion infrastructure backlog estimate of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which if addressed would require a multifold level of increased of investment that runs into the changing priorities of the nation.

Strategies that focus on performance as opposed to programs would encourage investments that generate multiple outcomes and benefits that create multiple revenue streams that can be captured to increase funding sources from the beneficiaries.  Connecting beneficiaries to expenditures will enable the public to understand the purpose of these investments and the costs of the infrastructure challenge facing the country.  For the most part the current paradigm separates collections of revenues from their expenditures and diminishes the public understanding of the reasons and purposes for the investments.

Institutions

Getting the purpose clear, focusing on performance and structuring revenues by linking them to benefits so that our national liquidity can be put to work is an institutional challenge. Institutions and the rules of the game, so that we can organize ourselves for the future, is the key to the infrastructure dilemma facing the country. How do we get the purposes clear so that there is greater understanding of the reasons for the investments? How do we make decisions that focus on performance and link our beneficial revenue streams to the life-cycle expenditures and costs of the investment? How do we enable trillions of dollars of liquidity to find investments in infrastructure that will be paid back from beneficial use streams?  How do we enable the national government to participate in these investments?  How do we deal with market risk of revenue projections without creating a moral hazard for government? How do we jumpstart infrastructure without adding to the fiscal stress of the intergovernmental system?  

NAPA’s Response

The National Academy of Public Administration has undertaken development of a 21st Century Infrastructure Blueprint for the Nation. NAPA was chartered by Congress to provide advice and recommendations on addressing the nations governance problems. A working panel of NAPA Fellows that have experience at all levels of government, business and Universities has been assembled. The panel builds upon NAPA reports to Congress on the Corps of Engineers post Katrina experience, the Reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, improvements of the Presidio Trust for the National Park Service, a recent “Memo to National Leaders: Partnerships as Fiscal Strategy.” The outcomes of the Blueprint are:

  • The first outcome will be to collect the best practices and catalog what is working in the country, which could be used as building blocks for this emerging way of building the nation’s infrastructure. The historical pathway to developing governance innovations has been to start with experiments undertaken in the states and regions of the country. Twenty-eight states have enacted laws providing for tolls or fees to fund transportation and even more have laws that fund utilities; but now many states are also returning to directly capturing the economic benefits that infrastructure creates and capturing the revenue streams from people and property to fund these investments.  The working group members have participated in many of these experiments in states including: Virginia, Maryland, Texas and California.  Virginia used assessment financing to complement federal funding on the Metro Silverline. Maryland is doing the same on transit in the district. California has enacted legislation SB628 “Enhance Infrastructure Districts” that uses these principles.  The effort will encourage all states and regions to develop a legislative structure for financing infrastructure using the lessons and practices learned.

  • The next outcome will be to develop policy options that Congress could enact that flesh out the national role in this framework and accelerate mobilization of this new national capacity to fund critically needed national infrastructure. Creating the federal role in linking benefits with revenues could accelerate the experiments in the country. Some of these options are identified in the “Memo to National Leaders:” developing risk assessment and mitigation capacity assistance for fiscal, environmental, institutional and technical issues that will be encountered in this approach.  Included in this work is the intergovernmental regulatory overlay that is frustrating and hindering the capacity of state and regions in making investment decisions, particularly in the natural environment. The working group is also exploring a national loan program that integrates many existing federal loan programs into a de-facto infrastructure bank loan program.  By bringing multiple loans together a diversified portfolio is created and the risks lowered.  The combination of combination of loan programs also creates a significant portfolio without increasing further federal financial exposure.

  • The working group is exploring is new approaches for benefit payment approaches such as distance based charges for transportation, the bundling of fee and revenue sources used by states and regions so that nexus can be improved, and planning approaches that bring better nexus information to the decision making table.  Most importantly this beneficial use approach to funding creates the capacity to capture increasing amounts of private capital that is seeking longer term returns in our nations public goods where the risks are mitigated and shared  

Conclusion

The approach and work described above is aimed to provide recommendations to Congress: on the next re-authorization of the transportation program; approaches that can assist in resolving the dilemma of the COE authorization and appropriation mismatch; guidance to FEMA on the fiscal structure for natural hazard response and numerous other programs where a redefinition of the rules of the game – institutional change- will enable the country to bring private capital into a partnership with public organizations in addressing our pressing infrastructure crisis.

Roundtable II information: The focus of the second Roundtable will be an article by Robert Agranoff and Beryl Radin. Thank you.

Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2014). Deil Wright’s Overlapping Model of Intergovernmental Relations: The Basis for Contemporary Intergovernmental Relationships. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, pju036.



2015 DEIL S. WRIGHT SYMPOSIUM

                           INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT: TENSIONS AND TRENDS
                        Sponsored by the Section on Intergovernmental Administration and Management
          Field Room, Hyatt Regency Chicago, March 6

1:00-2:20 Teaching and Research Panel
Richard L. Cole, University of Texas at Arlington, and John Kincaid, Lafayette College, “Is the Teaching of Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Dead or Alive in American Public Administration Programs?”
Bruce J. Perlman, Sara Shoemate, and Nicholas Edwardson, University of New Mexico, and Michael J. Scicchitano, University of Florida, “Taking the High Road: Local Government Managers’ Perceptions on Implementing Local Option Recreational Marijuana in Colorado”
Jered B. Carr, University of Illinois at Chicago, Christopher Hawkins, University of Central Florida, and Drew Westberg, University of Missouri-Kansas City, “Collaboration Risk in Joint Ventures among Governments: Understanding the Risk Perceptions of Economic Development Officials”
Benjamin H. Deitchman, Rochester Institute of Technology, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Energy Efficiency and Growth through State and Local Implementation.”
Heidi Koenig, Northern Illinois University, “The Status of Home Rule in Illinois”
2:20-2:30 Break
2:30-3:30 Roundtable I: NAPA Perspectives on New Paradigms for Developing a National Infrastructure Agenda
            Mark Pisano, University of Southern California
            Peter J. Basso, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
 3:30-4:45 Roundtable II: New Approaches to the Study of Contemporary Intergovernmental Relationships
Robert A. Agranoff, Indiana University
Beryl A. Radin, Georgetown University
Ann O’M. Bowman, Texas A & M University
Michael Pagano, University of Illinois at Chicago
           
4:45 Concluding Comments
                        David C. Wright

                        Richard C. Feiock, Florida State University