Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Theories of Urban Politics

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 Similar articles in 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 Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jeong, M.-G.
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?

Local Choices for Development Impact Fees

Moon-Gi Jeong

The University of Texas-San Antonio, moongi.jeong{at}utsa.edu

This article investigates the patterns and determinants of local impact-fee adoptions. The theoretical framework combines political market approaches based in interest-group theories of property rights and diffusion theories of innovation. Event history analysis is employed to estimate impact-fee adoptions in 66 Florida counties from 1977 to 2001. The empirical results demonstrate clear spatial and temporal patterns, showing that counties experiencing rapid growth actively adopted impact fees. The findings also provide several lessons. First, the development community has a significant influence on the adoption or nonadoption of impact fees. Second, intergovernmental constraints (or incentives) affect local choice. Third, counties are more likely to adopt impact fees as more neighboring counties have adopted them. Fourth, administrative capacity is a critical resource that influences impact fee adoptions. Fifth, the results confirm that rapid growth promotes impact fee adoptions.

Key Words: impact fees • political institutions • policy innovation • local government • intergovernmental relations • growth management

Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, 338-357 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1078087405282178
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
 Public Finance ReviewHome page
C. Jung, C.-Y. Roh, and Y. Kang
Longitudinal Effects of Impact Fees and Special Assessments on the Level of Capital Spending, Taxes, and Long-Term Debt in American Cities
Public Finance Review, September 1, 2009; 37(5): 613 - 636.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The American Review of Public AdministrationHome page
M. E. Howell-Moroney
A Mixed Method Look at State Growth Management Policy
The American Review of Public Administration, September 1, 2008; 38(3): 339 - 361.
[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]