public management in the u.s.-mexico border region: toward increased cooperation between texas and...

Public Management in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region: Toward Increased Cooperation betweenTexas and Mexican Officials?Author(s): John P. Tuman and Grant W. NeeleySource: State & Local Government Review, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 38-47Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4355331 .

Accessed: 22/09/2013 18:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to State &LocalGovernment Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.198.50.13 on Sun, 22 Sep 2013 18:50:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4355331?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


State and Local Government Review

Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter 2003): 38-47

Public Management

in the U.S.-Mexico Border

Region: Toward Increased

Cooperation

between Texas and Mexican Officials?

John P. Tuman and Grant W. Neeley

MUNICIPAL

managers in the U.S.-

Mexico border area have been

confronted with a series of pub? lic policy challenges in recent years. With the

large growth in cross-border trade following

implementation of NAFTA, ports, bridges, and

rail links have become seriously congested and

strained (Sharp 1998). The industrialization of

border municipalities has also created serious

groundwater contamination and air pollution

problems in El Paso, Cuidad Juarez, and in

other U.S. and Mexico border municipalities.

Furthermore, as Mexicans migrate to the bor?

der in search of work, unplanned growth oc?

curs, leading to further problems in the form

of substandard housing, disease caused by un?

treated sewage, and lack of access to safe drink?

ing water (Ingram, Laney, and Gillilan 1995,

28-103;Mroz,Momles,andVanDei^lice 1996). The forces that create economic integra?

tion are international, but the costs of re?

gional trade and economic integration are

borne at the local level, particularly in U.S.

and Mexican border municipalities. In this

context, policymakers in subnational govern? ments have expressed interest in developing local, binational solutions to regional prob? lems (Saint-Germain 1995a; Rubaii-Barrett

and Taggart 1996; Sharp 1998; Barkdull and

Tuman 1999). Tb date, however, very little re-

cent research has examined the extent of co?

operation between municipal public manag? ers in Mexico and the United States. Indeed,

although there are numerous border munici?

palities, most recent studies have focused on

only two border cities: El Paso, Texas, and

Ciudad Juarez, Mexico (e.g., Saint-Germain

1995a; 1995b). In addition, the recent litera?

ture has tended to analyze cooperation in only one policy domain or area (Homedes and

Ugalde 2000; Ward 1999). Despite the cre?

ation of international organizations to pro? vide development resources for the border-

plex, virtually no research has examined the

linkages between these organizations and mu?

nicipal managers in the region. This study examines the degree of local-level

cooperation between U.S. and Mexican mu?

nicipal managers and investigates attitudes

about the barriers to effective cooperation. The analysis is extended to all Texas munici?

pal governments in border counties in order

to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how local projects have developed under

regional integration.

Studies of the U.S.-Mexico Border Area

Previous research on U.S. and Mexican bor?

der municipalities has found that officials have

38 State and Local Government Review



Public Management in the Border Region

implemented a variety of formal and informal

projects. In their study of border towns com?

pleted in the mid-1970s, for example, Sloan

and West (1976; 1977; see also West 1979) noted that law enforcement, fire, and public health officials in the United States and Mex?

ico cooperated in a number of different areas.

Some of these programs?including retrieval

of stolen property, provision of vaccines and

health services to low-income residents, and

eradication of disease-spreading insects?were

intended to address serious problems in the

border region. Because of the increasing level

of economic integration and growth since the

1970s, local officials have recendy established

cooperative projects in transportation and in?

frastructure development and planning while

maintaining cooperation in the areas of law

enforcement and public health (Saint-Germain

1995b; Rodriguez and Ward 2000). In addi?

tion, over the course of the past two decades,

professional organizations have become rela?

tively more important in stimulating contact

among U.S. and Mexican municipal managers

(Sloan and West 1976; 1977; West 1983; Saint-

Germain 1995b). Yet, despite these trends, in

1993 (the latest year for which data are avail?

able) over 60 percent of U.S. managers in

one border city reported that they had never

met, called, or written their counterparts in

Mexico; the level of contact among Mexican

managers was similar (Saint-Germain 1995b, Table 2).1

Studies of public management in the bor?

der region have also identified a number of

potential barriers to cooperation between lo?

cal officials. Some of these barriers stem from

differences in the structure of local govern? ment and public administration in Mexico

and the United States. Although the Mexican

constitution provides for a federated system that grants powers to state and local govern? ments, historically the Mexican political struc?

ture has been highly centralized, emphasizing control over policy implementation and re?

sources in the executive branch of the federal

government (Ward 1995). Local governments in Mexico provide some public goods, but

federal agencies are responsible for many ser?

vices such as electricity, and federal and state

agencies play a large role in water manage? ment (Ingram, Laney, and Gillilan 1995; Bark-

dull and Tuman 1999). Recent efforts to de?

centralize power have increased the autonomy of state and local governments. Nevertheless,

public managers at the local level may still

lack the legal authority, local revenue base, and fiscal resources to implement policies

(Cabrero-Mendoza 2000, 379-80). By con?

trast, federalism in the United States has cre?

ated a system in which public managers enjoy real authority to address local issues (Saint- Germain 1995a). U.S. officials in border cit?

ies?although often in need of greater finance

?generally have had more capacity to initiate

projects than have their counterparts in Mex?

ico (Ganster 1999, 28). Given the difference

in local governmental structures in the United

States and Mexico, U.S. municipal managers have often voiced concern that their counter?

parts in Mexico may not have sufficient eco?

nomic resources, or the authority, to partici?

pate in joint programs (Sloan and West 1976,

1977; West 1983; Saint-Germain 1995b). Because the process of recruiting public

managers in the United States and Mexico

differs, local officials may also exhibit diver?

gent views on the scope and duration of coop? erative projects. Mexican managers in border

municipalities tend to be skilled and educated, but they are also political appointees, often

serving only for the duration of the mayor's term in office (which is constitutionally lim?

ited to three years, without the possibility of

reelection) (West 1983; Ward 1995; Saint-

Germain 1995a; Cabrero-Mendoza 2000).

Knowing that their time in office is limited, Mexican managers favor projects that can be

completed during their tenure (Saint-Ger? main 1995a, Table 1, 514?15; Ganster 1999,

46). Mayoral candidates of the National Ac?

tion Party, who often win in local elections in

northern Mexico, reinforce the tendency to

implement inexpensive, short-term projects that have a limited scope (Ward 1995, 145?

46, 149-50). In contrast, local officials in the

Winter 2003 39



Tuman and Neeley

U.S. border municipalities are generally re?

cruited through a competitive civil service sys?

tem, serve a nonpartisan council and mayor, and often work in their position for many

years (Saint-Germain 1995a). Since U.S. man?

agers often serve for a much longer period than do their Mexican counterparts, they may favor costlier, long-term projects (Saint-Ger? main 1995a; Ganster 1999, 46-47). As a re?

sult, Mexican and U.S. officials may disagree about what types of projects they should im?

plement.

Finally, perceived cultural and linguistic differences may also create barriers to coop? eration. Although border cities are highly in?

tegrated economically, nationalism and dis?

tinctive social practices continue to divide

Mexicans and Americans (Martinez 1996). U.S. municipal managers have, at times, ex?

pressed the view that Mexican culture results

in a less efficient system of public administra?

tion in Mexico (Sloan and West 1976; 1977). At the same time, Mexicans often perceive that U.S. officials see Mexico as an exotic

"playground" or as a lawless area racked by

corruption and crime. Mexican managers also

point to the problem of American paternal?

ism, whereby U.S. officials claim they have

much to teach Mexicans but little to learn

from them (Saint-Germain 1995b, 104). Al?

though the social distance between Hispanic

managers and Mexicans might not be very

great, some Hispanics also feel that there are

subde (yet significant) cultural differences be?

tween their group and their Mexican counter?

parts. In addition, Mexican managers?who

generally speak English?may still expect dis?

cussions with U.S. officials to be conducted in

Spanish. Yet despite their proximity to the in?

ternational border, public administrators in

the United States often speak Spanish with

only a minimal degree of proficiency.

Data and Methods

To determine the extent of cooperation and

the barriers to implementing joint projects, data were analyzed from a mail survey of U.S.

municipal managers in the Texas-Mexico bor?

der area. The survey was administered be?

tween November 1999 and February 2000. It

was sent to the department heads in all Texas

municipal governments located in counties

that form part of the U.S.-Mexico interna?

tional border.

Based on information provided by the Texas

Municipal League (1998), a list of department heads was constructed. The survey included

a section for open-ended remarks. A total of

124 valid responses from managers in 18 dif?

ferent departments was received.2 The re?

spondents in the sample come from 32 cities

that vary in population size and are located in

a geographically dispersed region from El Paso

to the middle and eastern portions of the

Texas-Mexico border.

Results

Contact and Cooperation

Communication between Texas

and Mexican Officials

The results of the survey indicate that there

are moderate to high levels of contact be?

tween managers in the Texas-Mexico border

region (Table 1). The first series of questions measured whether Texas municipal public

managers had contact with any state or local

officials in Mexico, regardless of the Mexican

agency or department involved.3 Sixty-nine

percent of the managers reported having vis?

ited with a Mexican public official. However, U.S. managers tend to meet with Mexican

city government officials (63 percent) more so

than with state government officials (44 per?

cent). With the exception of staff in two emer?

gency medical service (EMS) departments,4

managers from nearly every department re?

ported some contact with a Mexican official.

Face-to-face meetings remain the preferred mode of communication, although the pro?

portion of managers making phone calls to

Mexican officials (51 percent) was higher than

that reported in earlier surveys (see Saint-Ger?

main 1995a, Table 2). More than two-thirds





Table 1. Levels of Contact, Attitudes toward

Cooperation

Visited Mexican official No 31% Yes 69%

Visited Mexican public official in border city government No 37% Yes 63%

Visited Mexican public official in state government No 56% Yes 44%

Number of times visited in person with public officials from a Mexican border city or state government

Never 31%

1-2/year 40%

3-4/year 7%

>4/year 22%

Number of times telephoned public officials in a Mexican border city or state government

Never 49%

1-2/year 24%

3-4/year 8%

>4/year 19%

Number of times sent electronic mail to public officials in a Mexican border city or state government

Never 88%

1-2/year 5%

3-4/year 3%

>4/year 4%

Number of times sent mail to public officials in a Mexican border city or state government

Never 65%

1-2/year 24%

3-4/year 3%

>4/year 8%

ls your city/department currently conducting any joint projects with local or state governments in Mexico?

No 64% Yes 36%

Would your city benefit from increased cooperation be? tween state and local governments in the U.S. and Mexico?

Not benefit 7% Minor benefit 13% Benefit 24%

Greatly benefit 56%

How likely is your city/department to conduct joint projects with local or state governments in Mexico in the future?

Not likely 31% Doubtful 8%

Probably 38%

Very likely 23%

N for all answers = 1 24.

of the managers indicated that they do not use

e-mail to communicate with Mexican offi?

cials. In part, this outcome might reflect the

lack of access to Internet service in many

municipal departments in small- to medium-

sized Mexican border cities.

The results indicate that Texas managers also have low to moderate levels of contact

with Mexican officials who work in a similar

policy domain. Of those department heads re?

porting meetings with their Mexican counter?

parts, the majority had met only one to two

times a year. There is also a clear pattern of

variation in levels of contact across city de?

partments. Managers in parks, community ser?

vice, fire, police, planning, public works, health, and the city manager's office were more likely to initiate meetings with their counterparts in

Mexico. Many in this group suggested that

there were clear benefits to cooperation, which

would appear to be the chief incentive to ini?

tiate contact. In contrast, those managers who

felt that the performance of their department would be unaffected by conditions in Mexico

displayed little interest in making contact.

This pattern was evident among managers in

the tax and city attorney offices.

As in previous studies of Texas public man?

agers in the border area, professional organi? zations appear to stimulate some cross-border

contact (see Sloan and West 1977,273; Saint-

Germain 1995a, 101). For example, meetings

among Texas and Mexico fire officials were

facilitated partly by national professional or?

ganizations and other government agencies. A manager from the Brownsville Fire Depart? ment noted the following:

In 1997 and 1998 the City of Brownsville,

Texas, in conjunction with the City of

Matamoros, Mexico, and the National As?

sociation of Hispanic Firefighters (NAHF) hosted the first and second U.S./Mexico

Border Cities Conference. These confer?

ences were focused on training Mexican

fire fighters in combating wild land (for?

est) fires. The training was conducted by personnel from the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management (BLM). This year (Septem-

Winter 2003 41



Taman and Neeley

ber 2000) the City of Brownsville in con?

junction with the City of Matamoros will

host the NAHF International Training Conference. Seventeen Latin American

countries are expected to be here as well

as members of the NAHF from through? out the U.S. Again, among those provid?

ing training... will be personnel from the

U.S. BLM.

Fire department officials in Eagle Pass also

pointed to the role of the U.S. Environmen?

tal Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas

Natural Resources Commission (TNRCC) in facilitating the planning of joint confer?

ences of Mexican and U.S. fire officials. In

other policy areas, however, professional as?

sociations and federal agencies appeared to be

less important in promoting cross-border con?

tact.

Extent of Cooperation and

Types of Cooperative Projects

Approximately 36 percent of the department heads in the sample reported the existence of

a joint project with a municipality or state gov? ernment in Mexico. Managers had a positive view of the benefits of cooperation. The vast

majority (80 percent) felt that their city would

benefit at some level from increased coopera? tion. Perhaps because of the perception of in?

terdependence and the need for ongoing co?

operation, many cities are contemplating future

projects as well. Sixty-one percent stated that it

is "probable" or "very likely" that their city or

department will initiate a joint project with

local or state governments in Mexico in the

future. Nevertheless, while municipal manag? ers often take the initiative in creating joint

programs, some department heads feel that

U.S. federal and state authorities are putting too much pressure on them to cooperate: "There is a lot more gained by Mexican offi?

cials in cooperative efforts than by American

officials. Many initiatives for cooperation be?

gin at upper U.S. levels pressuring border

towns to cooperate, even if the U.S. towns

don't have the will or personnel resources [to initiate projects]."

Although the cooperative ventures that ex?

ist are similar to those documented previously

(Sloan and West 1977; Ingram, Laney, and

Gillilan 1995; Saint-Germain 1995a), the find?

ings suggest that certain types of projects have

clearly received more attention than other

types in recent years. Since the implementa? tion of NAFTA, the volume of cross-border

pedestrian and vehicle traffic has grown tre?

mendously, placing a burden on the regional

transportation system (see Barkdull and Tu?

man 1999; Sharp 1998). As a result, a number

of cities have initiated cooperative programs to deal with traffic congestion and expand in?

frastructure. In 1999-2000, for example, the

Planning Department of El Paso implemented a transportation study with their counterparts in Ciudad Juarez in order to understand traf?

fic flows. Similarly, McAllen has worked with

Reynosa to develop a "Dedicated Commuter

Lane" for cross-border commuters, and the

City of Mission recently received a presiden? tial permit to construct an international bridge to Mexico. Meanwhile, officials in Harlingen, Welasco, Eagle Pass, Pharr, Laredo, and Mc?

Allen have cooperated with their Mexican

counterparts to repair or widen international

bridges. Such projects do not always go

smoothly, however, as one traffic manager ob?

served: "About two years ago we made repairs to Bridge #1. So we told them [the Mexican

traffic officials] that we were planning to replace the asphalt on our half, and would they be in?

terested in doing their half at the same time?

(It's better to do it all at the same time for traf?

fic.) Well, as we got closer to construction, all

communication from their side stopped." Cities in the border region are also taking

steps to address a series of common health

and environmental problems. As previously noted, rapid population growth in Mexican

border municipalities has outstripped the ca?

pacity of sewage treatment facilities, resulting in surface and groundwater contamination

that often affects cities on the U.S. side of the

border. In at least two cities, Welasco and Mc?

Allen, municipal managers are working with

Mexican officials to deal with this problem. In





order to prevent the spread of disease from

Mexico to Texas, health departments in El

Paso, McAllen, Laredo, and Brownsville have

also developed a number of informal arrange? ments. Some departments provide resources

for mosquito abatement to their sister cities

in Mexico; others participate in programs that

aim at prevention. As one official observed, there is u[e]xcellent cooperation and even

joint programs in dengue fever control, tuber?

culosis control, professional workshops, [and] environmental issues of minor scale."

Mexican and Texas police departments on

the border have also developed ties to one an?

other. About one-third of the police chiefs sur?

veyed report the existence of a cooperative ar?

rangement with Mexican law enforcement

officials. The police in Eagle Pass and McAllen, for example, frequendy work with Mexican of?

ficials to retrieve stolen vehicles and property, a serious problem in many border municipali? ties. A few other cities conduct joint training with Mexican SWAT teams and coordinate

with the U.S. consulate to address legal prob? lems for U.S. citizens visiting Mexico.

There is extensive cooperation between

fire departments. Afire chief noted, "We cur?

rently have a joint hazardous materials re?

sponse plan [with Piedras Negras]. We also

periodically conduct joint training sessions.

TNRCC, EPA, and local emergency man?

agement meetings are well attended by Mexi?

can officials." The cities of Harlingen, Browns?

ville, Hidalgo, and Laredo also participate in

joint training programs with Mexican fire de?

partments. However, because of concerns

about liability, Texas fire departments are less

prone to loan equipment and personnel to

help Mexican cities respond to emergencies.

Indeed, Brownsville is the only department that reported providing equipment and per? sonnel to help Mexican authorities fight ma?

jor fires.

Participation in International Organizations

At the time NAFTA was negotiated, the gov? ernments of Mexico and the United States rec?

ognized that communities in the U.S.-Mexico

borderlands face special challenges. To help these cities cope with the externalities of in?

dustrialization and increased trade, both gov? ernments created the North American De?

velopment (NAD) Bank. The NAD Bank is

designed to provide finance and oversight of

local environmental infrastructure develop? ment in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands, with

an emphasis on wastewater treatment, munic?

ipal solid waste disposal, and water supply. It

works with the Border Environmental Coop? eration Commission (BECC), which has re?

sponsibility for providing engineering and

environmental certification of projects evalu?

ated by the NAD Bank. Given the emphasis

placed on the NAD Bank in fostering coop? eration and development, it was important to

assess the degree of contact between the Texas

border cities and the bank.

As the data in Table 2 show, the majority of

managers surveyed had not contacted or ap?

plied for funding from the NAD Bank.5 How?

ever, the results indicate that, controlling for

the department of the manager, rates of con?

tact and funding requests were higher in cer?

tain departments, including the city manager's

office, finance, planning, and public works.

This pattern would appear to be explained by the scope of the bank's activities and its evalu?

ation process. Because the NAD Bank funds

only a limited range of infrastructure projects,

managers in some departments (e.g., parks,

community service, fire, police, planning, EMS, data processing, etc.) probably felt that

they had no incentive to initiate contact.

Moreover, to comply with the application

Table 2. Contact with the North American

Development Bank

Contacted the NAD Bank No 73% Yes 27%

Applied for NAD Bank funding No 82% Yes 18%


Winter 2003 43



Taman and Neeley

process, city managers probably coordinated

and developed funding requests on behalf of

their various municipal departments.

Barriers to Cooperation

Differences in Resources and

Public Administration

As noted, previous studies have found that

because of differences in the structure of local

governance and public administration, Mex?

ican managers may not have sufficient re?

sources to implement joint projects. In addi?

tion, because the average length of service of

U.S. and Mexican officials varies, U.S. and

Mexican managers may have different views

regarding the appropriate duration and scope of cooperative efforts.

The data in Table 3 show that concerns

over resources and differences in public ad?

ministration are potential barriers to coopera? tion. Over 50 percent of U.S. managers in?

dicated that a lack of resources in Mexico

constituted a barrier or serious barrier to co?

operation. Similarly, 43 percent rated differ?

ences in public administration systems as a

barrier or serious barrier to cooperation. For

both of these questions, the difference between

answers given by Hispanic and non-Hispanic

managers was not statistically significant,6 in?

dicating that views about differences in re?

sources and public administration are not me?

diated by ethnicity. Nevertheless, although the U.S. managers in this sample have longer tenures in office than do Mexican officials,7

only one-third felt that different orientations

toward projects (as measured by having differ?

ent priorities from their Mexican counter?

parts) was a barrier to cooperation.

Culture

To what extent do cultural differences consti?

tute a barrier to cooperation between U.S.

and Mexican officials? As the data in Table 3

show, the majority of officials surveyed did

not point to culture as a serious obstacle to

cooperation. To determine if evaluations of

culture were mediated by ethnic background,

Table 3. Barriers to Cooperation

Please identify potential barriers to cooperation with Mexican officials by degree of importance. Mexican official's lack of resources to implement joint projects:

1 Not a barrier (= 1) 6% 2 (= 2) 9%

3 (= 3) 28% 4 (=4) 17% 5 Significant barrier (= 5) 40%

Please identify potential barriers to cooperation with Mexican officials by degree of importance. Public management is different in Mexico:

1 Not a barrier (= 1) 8% 2 (=2) 16% 3 (= 3) 33% 4 (= 4) 20% 5 Significant barrier (= 5) 23%

Please identify potential barriers to cooperation with Mexican officials by degree of importance. Mexican and U.S. officials have different priorities:

1 Not a barrier (= 1) 11% 2 (=2) 15% 3 (=3) 41% 4 (= 4) 18% 5 Significant barrier (= 5) 15%

Please identify potential barriers to cooperation with Mexican officials by degree of importance. Communica? tion (phone, mail, e-mail):

1 Not a barrier (= 1) 34% 2 (= 2) 29% 3 (- 3) 22% 4 (= 4) 6% 5 Significant barrier (= 5) 9%

Please identify potential barriers to cooperation with Mexican officials by degree of importance. Cultural differences:

1 Not a barrier (= 1) 43% 2 (= 2) 23% 3 (= 3) 22% 4 (= 4) 6% 5 Significant barrier (= 5) 6%

Please identify potential barriers to cooperation with Mexican officials by degree of importance. Language differences:

1 Nota barrier (= 1) 2 (=2) 3 (=3) 4 (=4) 5 Significant barrier | ?5)

61% 19% 10%

3% 7%






results for Hispanics and non-Hispanics were

compared. The vast majority of both His?

panic and non-Hispanic managers rated cul?

ture as either not a barrier or only a slight barrier to increased cooperation. Moreover, the difference between both groups was not

statistically significant.8 This finding suggests cooperative programs

are not hampered by cultural differences be?

tween U.S. and Mexican managers.

Language

In an effort to be treated like equal partners, Mexican officials often expect U.S. managers to conduct discussions in Spanish. This ex?

pectation is true even when Mexican officials

possess fluency in English. As one U.S. man?

ager commented, "If you can't make yourself understood?I mean, really speak Spanish, and speak it the way they [Mexican officials] talk?then it doesn't matter.... You won't be

able to accomplish anything." In examining the effects of language as a

barrier to cooperation, it is useful to look at

the variation in Spanish language skills among

Hispanics and non-Hispanic managers. The

data suggest that there is a clear and marked

difference in speaking skills between Hispan? ics and non-Hispanics. Approximately 83 per? cent of the Hispanic managers rated their

Spanish-speaking skills as "good" to "excel?

lent," whereas the corresponding figure for

non-Hispanics was only 10 percent. The dif?

ference in the Spanish-speaking skills reported

by Hispanic and non-Hispanic managers is

also statistically significant.9 Assessments about

the importance of language as a barrier to co?

operation, in turn, are plainly affected by lan?

guage skills and ethnicity. Not surprisingly,

non-Hispanics and managers with no or only fair Spanish-speaking skills were much more

likely to view language as a barrier to coop? eration.

Conclusion

This article has examined the extent of coop? eration between municipal managers in Texas

and their counterparts in Mexico.10 The find?

ings suggest that a variety of formal and infor?

mal projects are in progress, although coop? eration tends to concentrate in certain policy domains such as transportation, health, envi?

ronmental protection, and public safety. In

addition, federal officials and professional as?

sociations have helped to increase contact be?

tween local managers in both countries. Al?

though the results suggest that most officials

clearly think that they would benefit from in?

creased cooperation, a number also believe

that there are potential barriers to improved

cooperation. The most serious barriers in?

clude perceptions about the lack of resources

in Mexico and differences in the structure of

public administration.

It remains unclear if perceptions of barri?

ers can be easily overcome. Certainly, better

language training of U.S. officials might help facilitate improved cooperation. Nevertheless,

problems that stem from the public adminis?

tration environment in Mexico are structural

in nature, and they are unlikely to change un?

less the federal government of Mexico in?

creases resources for municipal governments and creates a civil service system at the local

level. Ultimately, the fate of local, binational

cooperation may be influenced significantly

by the course of political reform in Mexico.

John P. Tuman is assistant professor of political science and interim chairperson of Latin Ameri?

can Studies at the University ofNevada-Las Ve?

gas. His current research interests include the pol? itics of economic reform in Latin America and

public administration in the U.S.-Mexico border?

lands. He is author 0/Reshaping the North

American Automobile Industry: Corporatism,

Restructuring, and Union Democracy in Mex?

ico (Continuum 2003). In addition, he has pub? lished articles in Industrial Relations Journal, Latin American Research Review, Political

Research Quarterly, Social Science Quarterly, State and Local Government Review, and Stud? ies in Comparative International Development.

Winter 2003 45



Tuman and Neeley

Grant W. Neeley is a research associate at the

Institute for Policy Research, University of Cin?

cinnati. Urban politics and public policy are among his research interests. His work has appeared in

Evaluation Review, Political Research Quar?

terly, Policy Studies Review, Social Science

Journal, Social Science Quarterly, Southeast?

ern Political Review, Spectrum: The Journal of State Government, and State and Local

Government Review.

Notes

1. In the same survey, 46 percent of Mexican respon? dents reported never having met their counterpart in the United States; 68 percent had never called and 75 percent had never written U.S. managers.

2. The survey's response rate was 41 percent. Seventy- five percent of the respondents were Hispanic, 16

percent were white, 1 percent was Asian, 1 percent was African American, and 7 percent identified them? selves as "other" race/ethnicity. The mean age of

respondents was 45 years. Eighteen percent came from city and assistant managers' offices; 15 percent from police departments; 11 percent from finance departments; 11 percent from fire departments; 8

percent from building departments; 7 percent from

public works departments; 7 percent from planning departments; 5 percent from city attorneys' offices; 3 percent from community service departments; 3

percent from health departments; 3 percent from

purchasing departments; 2 percent from emergency medical service departments; 2 percent from parks departments; 2 percent from aviation departments; 1 percent from engineering departments; 1 percent from data processing departments; and 1 percent from economic development departments. Because there is no indication of systematic nonresponse by department, city, or geographical area, it is reason? able to consider the sample to be a representative cross section of municipal managers in the Texas border region.

3. Contact between U.S. and Mexican officials work?

ing in similar agencies was distinguished from gen? eral contact because cooperative projects often in? volve different departments and agencies.

4. No contact was reported in two small cities in which emergency medical service (EMS) is functionally separated from the fire department. Contact with Mexican officials occurred in those situations in which EMS merged with the fire department.

5. Similarly, only 15.5 percent (n = 19) reported con? tact with the Commission for Environmental Co? operation (CEC), the trinational secretariat that has responsibility for enforcing the NAFTA environ? mental side agreement.

6. For public administration differences as a barrier to

cooperation, the chi-square was 2.65 (p = 0.62), Hispanic-non-Hispanic differences. For lack of re? sources as a barrier, the chi-square was 6.60 (p =

0.16), Hispanic-non-Hispanic differences.

7. Mexican officials were not surveyed in this study. Previous studies have found that Mexican manag? ers had a median length of service of less than one

year (Saint-Germain 1995a, 512). In the current

study, U.S. managers had a median length of service (in their current position) of 10 years.

8. The chi-square was 1.70 (p = 0.79), Hispanic-non- Hispanic differences.

9. The chi-square was 63.65 (p = 0.00), Hispanic-non- Hispanic differences.

10. The current study is part of a larger project that will include survey data from the Mexican side of the border. Although previous studies provided cover?

age of Mexico (e.g., Sloan and West 1976; 1977; Saint-Germain 1995a; 1995b), the findings are somewhat limited because data from Mexico are not

presented. Nevertheless, the results are important because some of the previous findings on U.S. man?

agers have been updated.

References

Barkdull, John, and John P. Tuman. 1999. Texas and the international economy. State and Local Government Review 30, no.2 (spring): 106-22.

Cabrero-Mendoza, Enrique. 2000. Mexican local gov? ernance in transition: Fleeting change of permanent transition? American Review of Public Administration 30, no. 4 (December): 374-88.

Ganster, Paul. 1999. Sustainable development in San

Diego and Tijuana: A view from San Diego. In Sus- tainable development in the San Diego-Tijuana region, edited by Steven J. Bachelor, 19-52. San Diego: Cen? ter for U.S.-Mexican Studies, UCSD.

Homedes, Nuria, and Antonio Ugalde. 2000. Constraints to binational U.S.-Mexico border health coopera? tion. School of Public Health, University of Texas- Houston at El Paso.

Ingram, Helen M., Nancy K. Laney, and David Gillilan. 1995. Divided waters: Bridging the U.S.-Mexico border. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Martinez, Oscar J. 1996. Introduction. In U.S.-Mexico borderlands: Historical and contemporary perspectives, edited by Oscar J. Martinez, xiii-xix. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources.

Mroz, Richard C., Loretta L. Morales, and James Van- Derslice. 1996. Health and hygiene in the Colonias: Water and disease. Family and Community Health 19, no. 1 (April): 49-58.

Rodriguez, Victoria E., and Peter M. Ward. 2000. Reach? ing across the border: Intergovernmental relations between Texas and Mexico and the implications for public policy. Austin: Lyndon B.Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas.





Rubaii-Barrett, Nadia, and William A. Taggart. 1996. Economic development and international transpor? tation along the border: Exploring feasibility issues for state and local governments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Social Science Association, 17-20 April, Las Vegas.

Saint-Germain, Michelle A. 1995a. Similarities and dif? ferences in perceptions of public service among pub? lic administrators on the U.S.-Mexico border. Pub? lic Administration Review 55, no. 6 (November-De? cember): 507-16.

-. 1995b. Problems and opportunities for co?

operating among public managers on the U.S.-Mex? ico border. American Review of Public Administration 25, no. 2 (June): 93-117.

Sharp, John. 1998. Bordering the future: Challenge and

opportunity in the Texas border region. Austin: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Sloan, John W, and Jonathan West. 1976. Community integration and policies among elites in two border cities: Los Dos Laredo. Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 18, no. 3 (November): 451- 74.

-. 1977. The role of informal policy making in U.S.-Mexico border cities. Social Science Quarterly 58, no. 2 (September): 270-82.

Texas Municipal League. 1998. Texas city officials directory. Austin: Texas Municipal League.

Ward, Peter M. 1995. Policy making and policy imple? mentation among non-PRI governments: The PAN in Ciudad Juarez and in Chihuahua. In Opposition government in Mexico, edited by Victoria E. Rod?

riguez and Peter M. Ward, 13 5-51. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

-. 1999. Colonias and public policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by stealth. Austin: University of Texas Press.

West, Jonathan P. 1979. Informal policy making along the Arizona-Mexico international border. Interna? tional Review of Public Administration 1, no. 1:435-58.

-. 1983. Public administration and local coor? dination. In Borderlands sourcebook: A guide to the lit? erature on North Mexico and the American southwest, edited by Elizabeth R. Stoddard, Richard L. Nost? rand, and Jonathan P. West, 195-203. Norman: Uni? versity of Oklahoma Press.

Winter 2003 41



public management in the u.s.-mexico border region: toward increased cooperation between texas and...

Documents