AndersonWilliam. 1960. Intergovernmental relations in review. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2.
AxelrodRobert M.1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
3.
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.
4.
BrownTrevor L.PotoskiMatthew2003. Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory13:441–68.
5.
BrowneWilliam PaulVerBurgKenneth. 1995. Michigan politics and government: Facing change in a complex state. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
6.
CoeCharles K.1983. Costs and benefits of municipal annexation. State and Local Government Review15: 44–47.
7.
CollierDavidMahoneyJamesSeawrightJason2004. Claiming too much: Warnings about selection bias. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, ed.BradyH. E.CollierD.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
8.
DexterLewis Anthony. 1970. Elite and specialized interviewing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
9.
DilworthRichardsonTrevenenKathryn2004. When cities get married: Constructing urban space through gender, sexuality, and municipal consolidation. Urban Affairs Review40:183–209.
10.
EdwardsMary. 1999. Annexation: A “winner-take-all” process?State and Local Government Review31: 221–31.
11.
FacerRex L.II. 2006. Annexation activity and state law in the United States. Urban Affairs Review41: 697–709.
12.
FeiockRichard C.CarrJered B.. 2001. Incentives, entrepreneurs, and boundary change: A collective action framework. Urban Affairs Review36:382–405.
13.
FredericksonH. George. 1999. The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science & Politics32:701–11.
14.
GeddesBarbara. 1990. How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. Political Analysis2:131–50.
15.
GerringJohn. 2007. The case study method: Principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HarveyLynn R.QuinonesAlexander1996. Summary of conditional land transfer agreements. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
17.
JacobsA. J.2004. Inter-local relations and divergent growth: The Detroit and Tokai auto regions, 1969 to 1996. Journal of Urban Affairs26:479–504.
18.
KingGaryKeohaneRobert O.VerbaSidney1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
KnaapGerritJuelichSteve1992. The fiscal impacts of detachment: Is it better to give than to receive?State and Local Government Review24:28–35.
20.
MahoneyJamesGoertzGary2004. The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review98:653–69.
21.
MarandoVincent L.1968. Inter-local cooperation in a metropolitan area: Detroit. Urban Affairs Quarterly4:185–200.
22.
MillerGary J.1981. Cities by contract: The politics of municipal incorporation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
23.
MorganDavid R.HirlingerMichael W.. 1991. Intergovernmental service contracts: A multivariate explanation. Urban Affairs Quarterly27:128–44.
24.
MorganDavid R.HirlingerMichael W.EnglandRobert E.. 1988. The decision to contract out city services: A further explanation. Western Political Quarterly41:363–72.
25.
OstromElinorGardnerRoyWalkerJames1994. Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
PalmerJamie L.LindseyGreg2001. Classifying state approaches to annexation. State and Local Government Review33:60–73.
27.
PostStephanie S.2004. Metropolitan area governance and institutional collective action. In Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation, ed.FeiockR. C.. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
28.
SengstockFrank S.1960. Annexation, a solution to the metropolitan area problem. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School.
29.
State Boundary Commission.2004. Annexation: Bringing all the pieces together. Lansing: Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs, Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. www.michigan.gov/documents/cis-opla-annex-35822-7.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2008.
30.
StephensG. Ross. 1989. The least glorious, most local, most trivial, homely, provincial, and most ignored form of local government. Urban Affairs Quarterly24:501–12.
31.
TaylorGary D.HarveyLynn R.ShieldsWilliam2004. The Conditional Land Transfer Act: Research, reflections and policy recommendations. Detroit: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.
32.
ThomsonAnn MariePerryJames L.. 2006. Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review66 (special issue): 19–31.
33.
ThurmaierKurtWoodCurtis2002. Interlocal agreements as overlapping social network: Picket-fence regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review62:585–98.
34.
WoodCurtis. 2006. Scope and patterns of metropolitan governance in urban America: Probing the complexities in the Kansas City region. American Review of Public Administration36:337–53.