Urban Affairs Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lubell, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ramirez, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 40, No. 6, 706-729 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1078087404274137

Political Institutions and Conservation by Local Governments

Mark Lubell

University of California, Davis

Richard C. Feiock

Florida State University

Edgar Ramirez

Florida State University

In this article, the authors develop a political market framework to explain the circumstances under which Florid a counties will supply environmental public goods in the form of conservation amendments to county general plans. The framework emphasizes the role of local legislative and executive institutions as mediators of local policy change. Using count models and interaction terms, the analysis shows how the strength of real estate interests constrains the ability of professional county managers to pursue conservation policies. The findings reinforce the importance of developing theories of urban politics in which local political institutions are not transparent.

Key Words: political institutions • local government • environmental policy • conservation • growth management • policy change


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
S. Lamothe, M. Lamothe, and R. C. Feiock
Examining Local Government Service Delivery Arrangements Over Time
Urban Affairs Review, September 1, 2008; 44(1): 27 - 56.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
M. Craw
Taming the Local Leviathan: Institutional and Economic Constraints on Municipal Budgets
Urban Affairs Review, May 1, 2008; 43(5): 663 - 690.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
M.-G. Jeong and R. C. Feiock
Impact Fees, Growth Management, and Development: A Contractual Approach to Local Policy and Governance
Urban Affairs Review, July 1, 2006; 41(6): 749 - 768.
[Abstract] [PDF]

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