|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Incentives, Entrepreneurs, and Boundary Change
A Collective Action Framework
Richard C. Feiock
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]
|
 |
|
|
|