This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Feiock, R. C. Articles by Carr, J. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Incentives, Entrepreneurs, and Boundary Change

A Collective Action Framework

Florida State University

Jered B. Carr

College of Charleston

The authors develop an institutional choice framework to examine and interpret change in local boundaries and provide a single explanation for the use of varied instruments to create new boundaries or expand old ones. Boundary decisions are viewed as the product of actors’ seeking particular outcomes within a context of existing governments and established rules governing boundary change. Selective costs and benefits, rather than collective costs and benefits, are most likely to provide incentives for institutional entrepreneurship and collective action. Such a framework is valuable because it integrates the fragmented literatures on local boundaries, provides a linkage between boundary choices and policy outcomes at the local level, and can guide empirical research into the causes and consequences of boundary change. This framework can provide the foundation of a more general model of institutional choice and institutional entrepreneurship.

Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, 382-405 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/10780870122184902


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. C. Feiock Metropolitan Governance and Institutional Collective Action Urban Affairs Review, January 1, 2009; 44(3): 356 - 377. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. B. Carr Local Government Autonomy and State Reliance on Special District Governments: A Reassessment Political Research Quarterly, September 1, 2006; 59(3): 481 - 492. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M.-G. Jeong Local Choices for Development Impact Fees Urban Affairs Review, January 1, 2006; 41(3): 338 - 357. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. E. Baer and R. C. Feiock Private Governments in Urban Areas: Political Contracting and Collective Action The American Review of Public Administration, March 1, 2005; 35(1): 42 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Dilworth and K. Trevenen When Cities Get Married: Constructing Urban Space through Gender, Sexuality, and Municipal Consolidation Urban Affairs Review, November 1, 2004; 40(2): 183 - 209. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. V. Savitch and R. K. Vogel Suburbs without a City: Power and City-County Consolidation Urban Affairs Review, July 1, 2004; 39(6): 758 - 790. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. B. Carr and R. C. Feiock State Annexation 'Constraints' and the Frequency of Nunicipal Annexation Political Research Quarterly, June 1, 2001; 54(2): 459 - 470. [Abstract] [PDF]