IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v24y1997i3p451-468.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coercive and Cooperative Intergovernmental Mandates: A Comparative Analysis of Florida and New Zealand Environmental Plans

Author

Listed:
  • P R Berke

    (Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140, USA)

  • J Dixon

    (Department of Planning, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand)

  • N Ericksen

    (Centre for Environmental and Resource Studies, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand)

Abstract

Through analysis of two sets of regional plans prepared under cooperative and coercive intergovernmental mandates in Florida and New Zealand, this study examines variation in mandate design features and their influence on plan quality. New Zealand's cooperative mandate has greater flexibility and permits more discretionary action to regional councils, while Florida's coercive mandate emphasizes technical capacity building, strong but limited use of coercion and financial support. Key policy implications of this study concern the design of regulatory mandates, and how the two approaches can learn from one another. Florida's approach leads to stronger plan fact basis and regulatory policies in plans, but could benefit from New Zealand's key mandate strength of building subnational political commitment to advance plan-making. New Zealand's approach leads to strong goals, but lacks strengths of specificity in setting goals, technical capacity building, selected use of strong coercion and funding which are emphasized in Florida's mandate. Thus mandates that lead to high quality regional plans would represent a combination of the two approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • P R Berke & J Dixon & N Ericksen, 1997. "Coercive and Cooperative Intergovernmental Mandates: A Comparative Analysis of Florida and New Zealand Environmental Plans," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 24(3), pages 451-468, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:24:y:1997:i:3:p:451-468
    DOI: 10.1068/b240451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b240451
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b240451?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter J. May & Raymond J. Burby, 1996. "Coercive versus cooperative policies: Comparing intergovernmental mandate performance," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 171-201.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wernstedt, Kris & Hersh, Robert, 2002. "Flood Planning and Climate Forecasts at the Local Level," Discussion Papers 10813, Resources for the Future.
    2. Wernstedt, Kris & Hersh, Robert, 2002. "Flood Planning and Climate Forecasts at the Local Level," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-27, Resources for the Future.
    3. Maddalena Sorrentino & Massimo Simonetta, 2013. "Incentivising inter-municipal collaboration: the Lombard experience," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(4), pages 887-906, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:24:y:1997:i:3:p:451-468. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.