Smart Growth Policy Choice: A Resource Dependency and Local Governance Explanation

Smart growth is a planning and land use policy objective that generally focuses on where development should occur and how best to protect natural resources. What explains the adoption of smart growth policy by local government? This study focuses on a cooperative intergovernmental program that seeks to enhance local government abilities to work toward achieving state goals on sustainability. Extant research suggests that local interest group preferences shape policy decisions. However, much of the evidence on the influence of local interest groups on smart growth policy is presented within the coercive intergovernmental context. This article argues that resource dependency influences local decisions in pursuing a smart growth agenda when state incentives are provided. The findings suggest that fiscal capacity and the characteristics of local governing institutions are significant predictors in the decision to take part in an intergovernmental program. Business and neighborhood interest groups have a significant effect on policy adoption, as do local characteristics depending on the smart growth functional area.

[1]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[2]  R. Haeuber.  Sprawl tales: Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative and the evolution of growth management , 1999, Urban Ecosystems.

[3]  Celeste Allen Novak Aia and Leed and Ap.  Indefensible Space: The Architecture of the National Insecurity State , 2009 .

[4]  Daniel J. Fiorino.  Environmental Policy As Learning: A New View of an Old Landscape , 2001 .

[5]  R. Santerre,et al.  THE DETERMINANTS OF RESTRICTIVE RESIDENTIAL ZONING: SOME EMPIRICAL FINDINGS* , 1994 .

[6]  Growth Management Policy and County Government: Correlates of Policy Adoption across the United States , 2000 .

[7]  Maria Manta Conroy,et al.  Moving the Middle Ahead , 2006 .

[8]  P. Berke,et al.  Coercive and Cooperative Intergovernmental Mandates: A Comparative Analysis of Florida and New Zealand Environmental Plans , 1997 .

[9]  R. Feiock.  Politics, Institutions and Local Land-use Regulation , 2004 .

[10]  William E. Loges,et al.  Neighborhood Governance Reform and Networks of Community Power in Los Angeles , 2006 .

[11]  K. Case,et al.  Property tax limits, local fiscal behavior, and property values: evidence from Massachusetts under Proposition , 2001 .

[12]  Devashree Saha.  Factors Influencing Local Government Sustainability Efforts , 2009 .

[13]  T. Koontz,et al.  We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts of Collaborative Stakeholder Participation on Land Use Policy , 2005 .

[14]  Todd Donovan,et al.  Community Social Status, Suburban Growth, and Local Government Restrictions on Residential Development , 1992 .

[15]  Joseph Galaskiewicz,et al.  The Structure of Community Organizational Networks , 1979 .

[16]  R. Zeckhauser,et al.  Restraining the Leviathan: Property Tax Limitation in Massachusetts , 1999 .

[17]  P. May,et al.  Coercive versus cooperative policies: Comparing intergovernmental mandate performance , 1996 .

[18]  Wesley E. Highfield,et al.  Measuring the Adoption of Local Sprawl , 2006 .

[19]  Ming-xi Yin,et al.  The Impacts of State Growth Management Programs on Urban Sprawl in the 1990S , 2007 .

[20]  R. Feiock.  A Quasi-Market Framework for Development Competition , 2002 .

[21]  Arend Lijphart.  Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1996 , 1997, American Political Science Review.

[22]  K. Bradbury.  Can local governments give citizens what they want? Referendum outcomes in Massachusetts , 1991 .

[23]  Raymond J. Burby,et al.  Environmental management and governance : intergovernmental approaches to hazards and sustainability , 1996 .

[24]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Resource Dependence and in Terorganiza Tional Relations , 1976 .

[25]  Susan L Handy,et al.  City Adoption of Environmentally Sustainable Policies in California's Central Valley , 2009 .

[26]  P. Klok,et al.  Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework , 2001 .

[27]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS : EVIDENCE FROM VOTING PATTERNS ON CALIFORNIA INITIATIVES * , 2008 .

[28]  Dorothy M. Daley,et al.  Working with the State: Exploring Interagency Collaboration within a Federalist System , 2010 .

[29]  S. Clarke,et al.  MOVING TOWARD ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES: OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS1 , 1989 .

[30]  Counties and land-use regionalism: Models of growth governance , 1994 .

[31]  Charles E. Connerly,et al.  Attitudes Towards Growth Management in Florida: Comparing Resident Support in 1985 and 2001 , 2004 .

[32]  Private benefits and public costs: Policies to address suburban sprawl , 1999 .

[33]  R. Paterson,et al.  Local Government Efforts to Promote the “Three Es” of Sustainable Development , 2008 .

[34]  J. Innes.  Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal , 1996 .

[35]  D. Bengston,et al.  Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States , 2004 .

[36]  R. Anglin.  Diminishing Utility , 1990 .

[37]  Edgar E. Ramírez de la Cruz,et al.  Local Political Institutions and Smart Growth An Empirical Study of the Politics of Compact Development , 2009 .

[38]  R. Bingham,et al.  A Test of Political Bias in Scholars' Preference for Measuring Fiscal Strain , 1990 .

[39]  K. Ihlanfeldt.  The effect of land use regulation on housing and land prices , 2007 .

[40]  Michael Howell-Moroney.  What Are the Determinants of Open‐Space Ballot Measures? An Extension of the Research* , 2004 .

[41]  Mary Margaret Edwards,et al.  Evaluating Smart Growth , 2007 .

[42]  K. Provan,et al.  Interorganizational cooperation and decision making autonomy in a consortium multihospital system. , 1984, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[43]  Samuel R. Staley.  Ballot-Box Zoning, Transaction Costs, and Urban Growth , 2001 .

[44]  Elisabeth R. Gerber,et al.  Direct Democracy and Land Use Policy: Exchanging Public Goods for Development Rights , 2004 .

[45]  Elisabeth M. Hamin.  Legislating Growth Management: Power, Politics, and Planning , 2003 .

[46]  M. Lubell,et al.  Political Institutions and Conservation by Local Governments , 2005 .

[47]  A. Downs.  Smart Growth: Why We Discuss It More than We Do It , 2005 .

[48]  David N. Figlio,et al.  Land use regulation and new construction , 2000 .

[49]  C. Smith.  Institutional Determinants of Collaboration: An Empirical Study of County Open-Space Protection , 2007 .

[50]  REGULATORY POLICY DESIGN: COOPERATIVE VERSUS DETERRENT MANDATES , 1992 .

[51]  P. Berke,et al.  Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? , 2000 .

[52]  Kimberly L. Nelson,et al.  Adaptation of Models Versus Variations in Form: Classifying Structures of City Government , 2010 .

[53]  C. Oliver.  Determinants of Interorganizational Relationships: Integration and Future Directions , 1990 .

[54]  Kent Portney,et al.  Urban Advocacy Groups, City Governance, and the Pursuit of Sustainability in American Cities , 2009 .

[55]  António F. Tavares,et al.  Policy Instrument Choices for Growth Management and Land Use Regulation , 2008 .

[56]  J. Poterba,et al.  The Effect of Property-Tax Limits on Wages and Employment in the Local Public Sector , 1995 .

[57]  Stephen M. Wheeler,et al.  Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability , 2000 .

[58]  Philip Berke,et al.  What Makes a Good Sustainable Development Plan? An Analysis of Factors That Influence Principles of Sustainable Development , 2004 .

[59]  T. McGuire,et al.  The effect of property tax limitation measures on local government fiscal behavior , 1997 .

[60]  The Politics of Competitive Regionalism in Greater Boston , 2009 .

[61]  Linxin Ye,et al.  What Is “Smart Growth?”—Really? , 2005 .

[62]  D. Hamilton,et al.  Exploring the Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of the Governing of Metropolitan Regions , 2004 .

[63]  David N. Figlio,et al.  SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF A 1990S-ERA PROPERTY TAX LIMIT: PANEL EVIDENCE ON OREGON'S MEASURE 5 , 1998, National Tax Journal.

[64]  Casey Ichniowski,et al.  A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX REVOLT, 1976-1986 , 1991, National Tax Journal.

[65]  J. Mcdonald,et al.  Determinants of Suburban Development Controls: A Fischel Expedition , 2004 .

[66]  Lenahan L. O'Connell,et al.  The Impact of Local Supporters on Smart Growth Policy Adoption , 2009 .

[67]  Scott D. Campbell,et al.  Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable , 1996 .

[68]  John Forester,et al.  Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations , 2006 .

[69]  Howard L. Frant,et al.  High-Powered and Low-Powered Incentives in the Public Sector , 1996 .

[70]  Rolf Joseph Pendall,et al.  Do Land-Use Controls Cause Sprawl? , 1999 .

[71]  Elisabeth M. Hamin,et al.  Implementing Growth Management , 2006 .