City-to-City Networks and Compacts
In the absence of federal and state government support, one way that mayors might address common policy challenges is by working together through formal city-to-city networks and compacts. These compacts, such as “Global Covenant of Mayors,” “Cities United,” and “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” vary in terms of their substantive focus (e.g., environment, violence, etc.) and their maturity, as some have relatively long histories while others have recently developed in response to new trends and events.
Mayors referenced a number of compacts ranging from international networks of very large cities to regional groups within one US state. As shown in Figure 21, two-thirds of mayors spoke positively and expressed optimism in such compacts while describing the reasons cities participate in them.1 For example, the mayor of a midsize city in the Midwest said that “people understand that the success of cities is intertwined.” Similarly, the mayor of a smaller city in the West said, “Collectively, we can have a greater impact than if we acted alone.” On the other hand, a portion of mayors, including policy supporters, were neutral or even cynical about the value of these compacts. For example, one southern mayor said, “Some want to be seen as part of the group.” Others pointed to political reasons underlying participation. The Democratic mayor of a large city noted the ability to “publicly say we support it” saying, “we can’t really say no,” and explaining, “there are constituencies in your community that expect you to be their voice.“
Figure 21: City to City Networks: Perceived Value
Many mayors have joined policy-related city-to-city networks or compacts. Why do you think mayors make these types of commitments? (Open ended comments coded by tone/valence)
More specifically, mayors see public signaling and coordination, rather than access to resources, as the primary benefits of compacts. Speaking of the reasons mayors join compacts, 44 percent of those who expressed optimism in compacts provided responses that speak to their signaling value (see Figure 22). These benefits included strength in numbers, taking a public stand, and raising issue salience. For example, one midwestern Democrat said that joining can help “Frame out a common goal” and “create a level of accountability.” A southern mayor said that compacts “Increase political voice… and give more clout to an issue when mayors unite around common issues.” Twenty-five percent of mayors with positive views of compacts cited reasons related to accessing resources such as shared information and best practices; one mayor observed, “We can share and coordinate activities and information. We can take advantage of economies of scale.” Another 21 percent provided responses that included both categories of rationales such that, overall, 65 percent of mayors provided at least one signaling rationale, and 46 percent cited at least one resource-based reason. Most mayors who were more skeptical about compacts spoke of them in terms of signaling and politics rather than resources.
Figure 22: Benefits of Pacts, Among Mayors Viewing Pacts Favorably
Finally, most mayors do not see compacts as strong constraints on their actions. Seventy-two percent of mayors said that they are not part of any compacts that are “difficult to keep,” while only 21 percent reported being part of at least one pledge that was a challenge to uphold. That is, being part of a compact generally does not have a strong independent effect on prompting cities to take actions that they would prefer not to take. Most mayors said that their cities are thoughtful about the compacts they join and that they get involved in issues that fit their priorities. For example, the mayor of a large eastern city said “They’re policies I was interested in anyway.” Emblematic of the sentiments of many of his colleagues, one southern mayor noted that he is “reasonable about what he commits to.” For example, the mayor did not join Mayors Against Illegal Guns because it was not a good fit for the mayor’s region of the country. Others did, however, note that external changes can make keeping pledges challenging. One mayor mentioned that changes in political leadership make regional water pacts difficult, and another observed that solar subsidies were halved after his city made a specific commitment to expanding their use.
- We qualitatively coded the tone of the response and the valence of the reasons they gave. [return]