1 4 7-1 Small Group Discussion: Implementation and IGR 7-1 Small Group Discussion: Implementation and IGR The article by Kwon & Feiock (2010) provides an in-depth analysis of the barriers to cooperation. According to the authors, inter-jurisdictional fragmentation can result in unrealized gains and inefficiencies in production and service provision exacerbated by population change and lack of funds. Moreover, through cooperation and coordination, local government units can find opportunities to offer solutions and reduce costs arising from the barriers of cooperation. Although there are potential benefits gained from cooperation, local entities are still facing a collective action issue. Successful creation of an interlocal agreement is hindered by enforcement and negotiation costs. The authors argue that the potential to accomplish economies of scale or decrease externalities are critical. The only way to ensure accountability in public service is through cooperation and coordination. Interlocal service arrangements offer potential cost advantages for all local governments that implement them as they are considered easy to design and implement. Research studies reveal that still, all local governments are yet to take advantage of the interlocal agreements’ benefits. However, despite that, this article advocates for the implementation of intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs) in order to solve issues of mutual concerns. Some have implemented it to share or coordinate service responsibilities. Nevertheless, most local governments have not implemented it because inter-jurisdictional fragmentation results in unrealized gains and inefficiencies in production and service provision. I believe that the most significant takeaway from this article is that a local government can be provided with more choices if the potential partners are in close proximity to improve service efficiency and increase mutual interdependencies. Because this helps to encourage the adoption and implementation of IGRs or IGSAs by providing different potential aspects of such interlocal agreements. In the article by Andrew (2009), the author attempts to explain the role of intergovernmental agreements (IJAs) plays in confronting issues of governmental fragmentations. Local governments for centuries have utilized IJAs to plan for disasters, provide public services and coordinate action on various collective issues. According to this article, IJAs are an essential tool in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of delivering services for the local public. As such, it is a critical component of metropolitan governance in America. Andrew defines intergovernmental agreements as “An innovative governance arrangement and one of the critical features of contemporary local government management” (p.133). Jurisdictions often use memoranda of understanding or agreement as a means of addressing specific and short-term policy problems. The mutual aid agreement is a ...

1. 1
4
7-1 Small Group Discussion: Implementation and IGR
7-1 Small Group Discussion: Implementation and IGR
The article by Kwon & Feiock (2010) provides an in-depth
analysis of the barriers to cooperation. According to the
authors, inter-jurisdictional fragmentation can result in
unrealized gains and inefficiencies in production and service
provision exacerbated by population change and lack of funds.
Moreover, through cooperation and coordination, local
government units can find opportunities to offer solutions and
reduce costs arising from the barriers of cooperation. Although
there are potential benefits gained from cooperation, l ocal
entities are still facing a collective action issue. Successful
creation of an interlocal agreement is hindered by enforcement
and negotiation costs. The authors argue that the potential to
accomplish economies of scale or decrease externalities are
critical. The only way to ensure accountability in public service
is through cooperation and coordination. Interlocal service
arrangements offer potential cost advantages for all local
governments that implement them as they are considered easy to
design and implement. Research studies reveal that still, all

2. local governments are yet to take advantage of the interlocal
agreements’ benefits. However, despite that, this article
advocates for the implementation of intergovernmental service
agreements (IGSAs) in order to solve issues of mutual concerns.
Some have implemented it to share or coordinate service
responsibilities. Nevertheless, most local governments have not
implemented it because inter-jurisdictional fragmentation
results in unrealized gains and inefficiencies in production and
service provision. I believe that the most significant takeaway
from this article is that a local government can be provided with
more choices if the potential partners are in close proximity to
improve service efficiency and increase mutual
interdependencies. Because this helps to encourage the adoption
and implementation of IGRs or IGSAs by providing different
potential aspects of such interlocal agreements.
In the article by Andrew (2009), the author attempts to explain
the role of intergovernmental agreements (IJAs) plays in
confronting issues of governmental fragmentations. Local
governments for centuries have utilized IJAs to plan for
disasters, provide public services and coordinate action on
various collective issues. According to this article, IJAs are an
essential tool in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
delivering services for the local public. As such, it is a critical
component of metropolitan governance in America. Andrew
defines intergovernmental agreements as “An innovative
governance arrangement and one of the critical features of
contemporary local government management” (p.133).
Jurisdictions often use memoranda of understanding or
agreement as a means of addressing specific and short-term
policy problems. The mutual aid agreement is a significant form
of IJAs. Scholars’ longstanding presumption is that what
motivates the local government in adopting IJAs is fiscal stress
(Andrew, 2009). If parties can work mutually and
collaboratively, they can fully realize the benefits of IJAs
adoption. The article argues that local governments can enjoy
cost savings through use of IJAs. This article plays an albeit

3. indirect role in encouraging local governments to implement
IGR initiatives through the adoption of IJAs that function more
or less the same when it comes to influencing policy formation
and implementation via a cooperative decision-making process.
According to this article, IJAs serve as a means of minimizing
costs while serving the needs of the public like
intergovernmental relations (IGRs). I believe that the most
significant takeaway from this article is that the functions of
local government is linked to the network of fiscal relationships
that makes credible commitment and trust possible and solves
coordination and search issues. This is because it helps to
enhance the understanding of readers of how local jurisdictions
respond to issues related to public services.
References
Andrew, S. A. (2009). Recent Developments in the Study of
Interjurisdictional Agreements: An Overview and Assessment.
State and Local Government Review, 41(2), 133–
142. doi:10.1177/0160323X0904100208
Kwon, S. W., & Feiock, R. C. (2010). Overcoming the barriers
to cooperation: Intergovernmental service agreements. Public
Administration Review, 70(6), 876-884.