Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Urban Affairs Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elkins, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Testing Competing Explanations for the Adoption of Type II Policies

David R. Elkins

Cleveland State University

The author examines the ability of city leaders to exert influence over the structure of development within their city's borders, particularly heeding the notion that cities are captive to mobile capital. He examines the adoption of Type II developmental strategies: policies that allocate the costs of development more equitably between cities and mobile capital. Using a national survey of directors of chambers of commerce, the author tests a number of hypotheses relating to the adoption of Type II developmental strategies. The analysis both supports conventional wisdom and provides new insight into the more politicized nature of Type II developmental strategies.

Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 30, No. 6, 809-839 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/107808749503000603
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Political Research QuarterlyHome page
E. B. Sharp
Culture, Institutions, and Urban Officials' Responses to Morality Issues
Political Research Quarterly, December 1, 2002; 55(4): 861 - 883.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Economic Development QuarterlyHome page
D. M. Sullivan
Local Governments as Risk Takers and Risk Reducers: An Examination of Business Subsidies and Subsidy Controls
Economic Development Quarterly, May 1, 2002; 16(2): 115 - 126.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
L. A. Reese and R. A. Rosenfeld
Reconsidering Private Sector Power: Business Input and Local Development Policy
Urban Affairs Review, May 1, 2002; 37(5): 642 - 674.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
I. Martin
Dawn of the Living Wage: The Diffusion of a Redistributive Municipal Policy
Urban Affairs Review, March 1, 2001; 36(4): 470 - 496.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
L. A. Reese
Sharing the Benefits of Economic Development: What Cities Use Type II Policies?
Urban Affairs Review, May 1, 1998; 33(5): 686 - 711.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Political Research QuarterlyHome page
E. B. Sharp
A Comparative Anatomy of Urban Social Conflict
Political Research Quarterly, June 1, 1997; 50(2): 261 - 280.
[Abstract] [PDF]