would enhance the bargaining position of the area interest, for bargaining theory indicates that one's chances of success in bargaining depend in part on the number of alternatives one identifies as acceptable.

Bargaining theory also indicates that the chances for achieving stable solutions where pure conflict does exist can be improved if the members agree on the desirability of maintaining a viable agency and so labor to identify solutions to problems that divide them.56 For example, it may be that the initial impetus to maintaining the agency must come from legal strictures which make its existence one determinant of obtaining Federal or State funds for projects within a given area. Eventually, however, the benefits derived from the existence of a metropolitan planning agency will in themselves encourage solution of conflicts. This occurred in the development of planning in the Winston-Salem area where the planners have moved from an initial period of "institutionalizing" and demonstrating their worth to a more innovative program supported by increased community confidence.57

Finally, the bargaining situation thus seems to have the potential for being turned into a mechanism for enhancing the effectiveness of regional developmental planning. It should be remembered, however, that it will be necessary to provide the agency with some institutional levers to establish the bargaining position of the area interest. Their purpose must be to give the agency a chance to demonstrate where members may need to take short-term losses in order to obtain longrun benefits. This does not imply that planners will bargain as representatives of an amorphous general interest which they pose as more desirable than the concrete current needs of member communities. It is instead a parallel to the situation in business called mutual interdependence, recognized in oligopolistic competition. There each firm is aware that an apparently beneficial short-term action, like a price cut, will lead to a future response by others nullifying the original act. Then all prices will fall and the only result will be that all firms suffer in the long run. On the metropolitan scene we must enable the planning agency to be the intelligence mechanism; with its eye on long-run gains it must have the power to show participants where making short-run sacrifices will result in greater future benefits. 4. CONCLUSION: METROPOLITAN PLANNING CAN BE BENEFICIAL AND EFFECTIVE

Since the 1950's our local governments have exhibited a growing sensitivity to the need for more thoughtful solutions to the problems of development. Sixty planning agencies have sprung up in standard metropolitan areas from Tulsa to Detroit. Some 60 other multijurisdictional and joint planning agencies also exist in areas not coterminous with the Bureau of Census' SMSA's. As yet, this is not a mature, smoothly operating system. It suggests, however, that

5 This theory is exhibited in action in S. Bailey, "Congress Makes a Law; The Story Behind the Reemployment Act of 1946" (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950). 57 R. T. Daland and J. A. Parker, "Roles of the Planner in Urban Development," Urban Growth Dynamics (F. S. Chapin, Jr., and S. F. Weiss, editors), pp. 188-225 (J. Wiley: New York, 1962).

there already exist many groupings in which citizens, experts, and appointed and elected officials who differ in their interests, resources, and reasons for seeking public action at the metropolitan level, have begun to attempt to work out shared policies.

We have learned that the existence of an area planning agency will not make conflicts of interest disappear. Some proposals inevitably disadvantage some groups while bringing net advantages to the region, as in the case of Boston's circumferential highway which nearly foundered on disputes over land taking for local routing. This is the classic problem of "economizing." We are faced with situations in which *** the maximization of one goal frequently conflicts with the maximization of another or even more numerous others. Rational appraisal is usually a matter of calculating how much one is prepared to sacrifice some attainment of certain goals in order to attain other goals." 58 Furthermore, metropolitan plans, like charters, zoning ordinances, and other regulations, often may not have the consequences expected. And there is no doubt that sometimes planners, as well as political leaders, find themselves required to compromise their goals during the planmaking stage in the light of previous associations and anticipation of political hindrances.

These hazards do not, however, differ from those encountered in any policymaking process. But the fact that planning on the metropolitan level must be part of the democratic political process does not mean that developmental planning is by definition destined to be ineffective. Metropolitan politics, like other bargaining processes, is not conducted as a straight-line movement from needs to responses. What occurs is not under anyone's exclusive control. This does not mean, however, that the building of conscious links through the creation of a metropolitan planning agency is doomed to fail, any more than the existence of a political filter prevents solutions to problems in other fields.

The burden of the evidence we have accumulated indicates that the complications in the consensus building process do not outweigh the probable benefits to be derived from metropolitan planning. The problems in making metropolitan planning effective do not sound as signals of impending failure, nor do they appear to be insurmountable. It would seem, therefore, that now is the time to move ahead in encouraging the growth of the existing embryonic system into a more permanent and responsive structure for metropolitan planning.

58 R. A. Dahl and C. E. Lindbloom, "Politics, Economics, and Welfare" (New York: Harper & Bros., 1953), p. 164.

III. THE CURRENT STATUS OF METROPOLITAN
PLANNING

A. A PROFILE OF EXISTING METROPOLITAN PLANNING AGENCIES Many of the problems of large and expanding urban areas are handled by metropolitan planning agencies. To obtain accurate information about them and to discover how they might be assisted, the Office of Metropolitan Development of the Housing and Home Finance Agency studied these agencies through a questionnaire. From this survey it is possible to sketch a picture of metropolitan planning agencies today, the extent and type of planning they undertake, and the manner and degree in which the planning is implemented. The subjects of the study are those parts of the United States in which the greatest urban change is taking place the 212 standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) as defined by the Bureau of the Census.

Of the 212 SMSA's, only 142 had any metropolitan planning activity underway as of July 1, 1963.1 Instead of including all metropolitan planning agencies or programs in these 142 areas, the study was directed at the agency in each SMSA with the largest areal jurisdiction. Since some metropolitan planning agencies have jurisdiction in more than one SMSA, the 126 agencies responding to the questionnaire covered all 142 areas.

Although all respondents to the questionnaire are labeled metropolitan planning agencies, three types of agency can be distinguished by their jurisdiction. Multijurisdictional planning agencies cover two or more counties, cities, and towns. This is the least traditional type of agency and it generally serves large areas. Of the 38 multijurisdictional agencies in the survey, two-thirds serve areas with a population in excess of 500,000 and 71 percent cover an area larger than the SMSA. City-county planning agencies cover a county and its center city. Two-thirds of these 41 agencies serve a population of less than 250,000. The remaining 47 are county planning agencies, 55 percent of which serve areas with populations of less than 250,000.

Structure of the existing organizations.-Four elements are of particular significance: (1) The agency's areal jurisdiction, (2) the nature of its staffing, (3) its source of financing, and (4) its members.

The data on areal jurisdiction, staffing, and financing suggests that multijurisdictional planning agencies are on a more tenuous footing than the two more traditional types. For example, their areal jurisdiction for the most part is subject to rearrangement according to the desires of individual members. Although 88 percent of all the respondents had their jurisdiction determined in the legislation governing their creation, for 58 percent of the multijurisdictional agencies re

1 "National Survey of Metropolitan Planning." 88th Cong., 1st sess.. committee print prepared by HHFA for Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate. Dec. 16, 1963.

vision of boundaries is possible simply by subsequent agreement among the participants. Revision of their boundaries by annexation or incorporation is impossible for all of the multijurisdictional agencies and only 29 percent of them can alter their jurisdiction by action of a State planning board. Furthermore, in 62 percent of these agencies, participants can secede unilaterally without the approval of other members.

Metropolitan planning agencies of all three kinds employ fewer professionals than city agencies serving equal-size population. The average number of staff employees per agency ranges from 25 for those serving populations over 1 million to 5 for agencies serving 99,999 or fewer people, with roughly 1 out of every 2 staff members being a professional. In analyzing staff size according to the three types of metropolitan planning agencies, the multijurisdictional units rank third in average size and in average number of professionals employed per agency. Thus, staff size seems to vary inversely with experimentation in form.

În units serving populations below 500,000, multijurisdictional agencies employ an average of 3.2 professionals per agency while city-county units average 7.3, and county agencies average 5. The average total staff for city-county agencies in this population category is 15.1 and for county agencies, 10.7; however, multijurisdictional agencies employ an average of only 6.4 persons per agency.*

A similar pattern emerges in financing. Metropolitan planning agency operating budgets are lower than those of city planning agencies. Thus, the mean expenditure per agency for city planning units in all population categories is $395,000 as compared to $136,000 for the reporting metropolitan planning agencies. This relationship holds, despite the fact that the amount budgeted for metropolitan planning in 1963 was $16,667,100, a 17 percent increase over the 1962 budget. Almost half of the total increase went to multijurisdictional units as is reflected in a 30 percent increase in the funds budgeted to them, compared to a 17.8 percent increase in the city-county budgets, and a 7.9 percent increase in the county agency budgets. Forty percent of the total amount appropriated for metropolitan planning agencies, however, went to the 16 largest multijurisdictional units, all of which serve areas of over 1 million people. These large agencies excluded, the average budgets for city-county and county agencies in comparable population groups are higher than those for the multijurisdictional units. The average budget for a city-county agency serving a population of less than 500,000 was $99,000 in 1963 as compared to $57,900 for a county agency and $49,600 for a multijurisdictional agency. Overall, 14 cents per capita is spent on metropolitan planning. However, multijurisdictional agencies also have the lowest per capita outlays, spending 8 cents per person compared to 35 cents by city-county agencies and 24 cents by county units.'

6

The burden of support for metropolitan planning appears to be borne largely by the Federal Government and the counties, rather than by

2 See table A, appendix A, p. 125.

3 Figures for city planning agencies are available in 1963 ASPO Planning Advisory Information Report No. 170, "Expenditures Staff and Salaries of Local Planning Agencies." See table B, appendix A. p. 125.

See table C, appendix A, p. 126.

See tables C and D, appendix A, p. 126.

See table D, appendix A, p. 126.

States, cities, private funds, or direct agency taxes. The Federal Government provides 34 percent ($5,416,300) of the total funds while counties provide 31 percent, and States, 15 percent. Added evidence of the tenuous nature of local support for the multijurisdictional agencies is the fact that 85 percent of their financing came from nonlocal sources, as compared to 30 percent for the city-county and county agencies. The largest amount of private support goes to the citycounty agencies, while county planning units receive no backing from this source.

There are also variations in financing by region. While 84 percent of the Middle Atlantic agencies and 90 percent of those in New England are recipients of Federal aid, only 44 percent of the agencies in the remaining parts of the country receive such assistance, with the East North Central (Midwestern) region having the lowest percentage. At the same time, New England agencies place seventh out of the 10 regional divisions in size of budget per agency. The East South Central region (Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama) reports the highest budget per agency-it exceeds New England by 55 percent and also has the largest average professional staff (11.7 per agency). Furthermore, this region has had some kind of metropolitan planning program in existence longer than any other area in the country.

Since the questionnaire was not designed to obtain extensive information concerning the membership of existing metropolitan planning agencies, the replies do not show whether the largest unit in each area usually is a member of the planning agency (as would be required by sec. 2 of the model act proposed by the ACIR and the Council of State Governments), or what percent of the existing subdivisions participate. The replies do indicate that although 79 percent of the respondent agencies include more than one type of political unit, in only 32 percent do all member units participate in selecting the planning commission. Some 70 percent of these are the multijurisdictional agencies. In city-county and county agencies, commission members often are selected by the county board or jointly by the board and city executives.

Most commissions seem to include elected officials designated by office. Seventy-four percent of the respondents are legally allowed to include elected officials on their boards and, in fact, all but three do. In 88 percent of the agencies, appointed officials and citizen members also participate. Only in 3 percent of the agencies do local planning boards exercise any authority in the choice of metropolitan planning commission members.

The

In membership, as in other organizational aspects, existing metropolitan planning agencies have followed traditional forms. county board or chairman and the city government are the most frequent appointers of planning commission members. In 73 percent of the agencies, these are the only types of government represented on the commission. The State and special districts are excluded in all but 9 percent of the units, and townships in all but 18 percent." State

See table F. appendix A. p. 128.

See table G, app. A. p. 129.