American Planning Association.1989. Two states find a way to keep the peace: How Virginia and California handle annexation disputes. Planning55:16–17.
2.
BassettEllen M.2006. “This land is our land?” An analysis of land-use planning and cooperation under Michigan's Conditional Land Transfer Act. State and Local Government Review38:23–33.
3.
BriffaultRichard. 1996. The local government boundary problem in metropolitan areas. Stanford Law Review48:1115–71.
4.
BriffaultRichard. 2000. Localism and regionalism. Buffalo Law Review48:1–30.
5.
CarrJered B.FeiockRichard C.. 2001. State annexation “constraints” and the frequency of municipal annexation. Political Research Quarterly54:459–70.
6.
CopeRonald S.1997. Annexation agreements—boundary agreements: Walking a fine line into the future—A map of the dangers to the unwary land use traveler. Northern Illinois University Law Review17:377–98.
7.
DyeThomas R.1964. Urban political integration: Conditions associated with annexation in American cities. Midwest Journal of Political Science8:430–46.
8.
FacerRex L.II. 2006. Annexation activity and state law in the United States. Urban Affairs Review41:697–709.
9.
Flaherty & Hood, P.A.2005. Case analysis of annexation issues in greater Minnesota. Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, Minnesota Association of Small Cities, and the League of Minnesota Cities, www.greatermncities.org/Annexation-Study-02105.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2006.
10.
FrugGerald E.1999. City making: Building communities without building walls. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11.
GallowayThomas D.LandisJohn D.. 1986. How cities expand: Does state law make a difference?Growth and Change17:25–45.
12.
LinerGaines H.1990. Annexation rates and institutional constraints. Growth and Change21:80–94.
13.
LinerGaines H.McGregorR. R.. 1996. Institutions and the market for annexable land. Growth and Change27:55–74.
14.
LorenzRichard G.2001. Good fences make bad neighbors. Urban Lawyer33:45–117.
15.
MacManusSusanThomasRobert1979. Expanding the tax base: Does annexation make a difference?Urban Interest1:15–28.
16.
Mitchell-WeaverClydeMillerDavidDealRonaldJr.2000. Multilevel governance and metropolitan regionalism in the USA. Urban Studies37:851–76.
17.
NolonJohn R.1999. Grassroots regionalism through intermunicipal land use compacts. St. John's Law Review73:1011–39.
18.
OrfieldMyron. 2002. American metropolitics: The new suburban reality. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
19.
PalmerJamie L.LindseyGreg2001. Classifying state approaches to annexation. State and Local Government Review33:60–73.
20.
ReynoldsLaurie. 2003. Intergovernmental cooperation, metropolitan equity, and the new regionalism. Washington Law Review78:93–160.
21.
RichmanRoger. 1985. Formal mediation in intergovernmental disputes: Municipal annexation negotiations in Virginia. Public Administration Review45:510–17.
22.
RosenbaumWalter A.KammererGladys M.. 1974. Against long odds: The theory and practice of successful governmental consolidation. Vol. 2. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
RuskDavid. 2003. Cities without suburbs: A census 2000 update. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
25.
SavitchH. V.VogelRonald K.. 2000. Paths to new regionalism. State and Local Government Review32:158–68.
26.
SchneiderMark. 1989. The competitive city: The political economy of suburbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
27.
SengstockFrank S.1960. Annexation: A solution to the metropolitan area problem. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
28.
SteinbauerPaula E.HudsonBetty J.HayesHarry W.FacerRex L.II. 2002. An assessment of municipal annexation in Georgia and the United States: A search for policy guidance. Athens: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia.
29.
TaylorGary D.HarveyLynn R.ShieldsWilliam2004. The Conditional Land Transfer Act: Research, reflections and policy recommendations. Detroit: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.
30.
TieboutCharles M.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64: 416–24.
31.
ThurmaierKurtWoodCurtis2004. Interlocal agreements as an alternative to consolidation. In City-county consolidation and its alternatives: Reshaping the local government landscape, ed.CarrJered B.FeiockRichard C.New YorkM. E. Sharpe, Inc.
