Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Political Research Quarterly
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
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carr, J. B.
Right arrow Articles by Feiock, R. C.
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?

Notes

State Annexation ‘Constraints’ and the Frequency of Nunicipal Annexation

Jered B. Carr

Wayne State University

Richard C. Feiock

Florida State University

Municipal annexations of unincorporated areas is frequently the option followed by local governments to expand their boundaries. State rules influence annexations by determining the range of powers available to local governments and by shaping the incentives of local actors to pursue this option. To date, empirical analysis has not provided strong evidence that state rules significantly affect local annexation pattens. The impact of state rules on local boundary expansions is estimated through a Poisson regression of the number of annexations occurring within the 50 states from 1990 through 1999. The results provide strong confirmation that state rules designed to constrain annexation do significantly influence local boundary patterns, although in unexpected ways. Procedural constraints expected to reduce annexation activity are instead shown to stimulate greater numbers of annexations.

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 2, 459-470 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/106591290105400212
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
 Journal of Planning LiteratureHome page
M. M. Edwards
Understanding the Complexities of Annexation
Journal of Planning Literature, November 1, 2008; 23(2): 119 - 135.
[Abstract] [PDF]