Using recent census data, this research examines municipal incorporations. The research is guided by the Tiebout model and a reorganization framework: it posits that wider income heterogeneity among county areas raises the probability of incorporation for higher-income communities, and incentives for incorporation include revenue and growth control. Empirically, change in unincorporated places is examined to determine how their income heterogeneity influences initiatives for incorporation, through subsamples of revenue and growth control. Main findings are that income heterogeneity raised the probability of incorporation, particularly where municipal per capita revenue is greater, land-use regulation is nonrestrictive, and population growth is rising.
AlesinaAlbertoBaqirRezaHoxbyCaroline. 2004. Political jurisdictions in heterogeneous communities. Journal of Political Economy112:348–96.
2.
AlmJamesBuschmanRobert D.SjoquistDavid L.. 2011. Rethinking local government reliance on the property tax. Regional Science and Urban Economics41:320–31.
3.
AndersonMichelle W.2012. Dissolving cities. Yale Law Journal121:1364–446.
4.
BoustanLeah P.2013. Local public goods and the demand for high-income municipalities. Journal of Urban Economics76:71–82.
5.
BoustanLeah P.FerreiraFernandoWinklerHernanZoltEric M.. 2013. The effect of rising income inequality on taxation and public expenditures: Evidence from U.S. municipalities and school districts, 1970. Review of Economics and Statistics95:1291–302.
6.
BrierlyAllen. 2004. Issues of scale and transaction costs in city-county consolidation. In City-county consolidation and its alternatives: Reshaping the local government landscape, ed. CarrJ.FeiockR., 55–86. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
7.
BriffaultRichard. 1996. The local government boundary problem in metropolitan areas. Stanford Law Review48:1115–71.
8.
BurnsNancy. 1994. The formation of American local governments: Private values in public institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
CarrJered B.2004. Whose game do we play? Local government boundary change and metropolitan governance. In Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation, ed. FeiockR., 212–39. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
10.
CarrJered B.FeiockRichard C.. 2004. City-county consolidation and its alternatives: Reshaping the local government landscape. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
11.
CutlerDavid M.ElmendorfDouglas W.ZeckhauserRichard J.. 1993. Demographic characteristics and the public bundle. Public Finance48:178–98.
12.
DowdingKeithJohnPeterBiggsStephen. 1994. Tiebout: A survey of the empirical literature. Urban Studies31:767–97.
13.
FeiockRichard C.CarrJered B.. 2001. Incentives, entrepreneurs, and boundary change: A collective action framework. Urban Affairs Review36:382–405.
14.
FennellLee A.2006. Exclusion’s attraction: Land use controls in Tieboutian perspective. In The Tiebout model at fifty: Essays in public economics in honor of Wallace Oates, ed. FischelWilliam A., 163–98. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
15.
FischelWilliam A.2001. The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
FischelWilliam A.2004. An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Urban Studies41:317–40.
17.
FleischmannArnold. 1986. The goals and strategies of local boundary changes: Government organization or private gain?Journal of Urban Affairs8:63–76.
18.
FosterKathryn A.1997. The political economy of special-purpose government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
19.
GeoLytics. 2014. Census CD 2000 in 2010 boundaries. East Brunswick, NJ: GeoLytics.
20.
GyourkoJosephSaizAlbertSummersAnita. 2008. A new measure of the local regulatory environment for housing markets: The Wharton residential land use regulatory index. Urban Studies45:693–729.
21.
HendersonJ. Vernon. 1985. The Tiebout model: Bring back the entrepreneurs. Journal of Political Economy93:248–64.
22.
Hogen-EschTom. 2011. Fragmentation, fiscal federalism, and the ghost of Dillon’s rule: Municipal incorporation in Southern California, 1950-2010. California Journal of Politics and Policy3:1–22.
23.
KraneDaleRigosPlatonHillMelvin. 2001. Home rule in America: A fifty-state handbook. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
24.
LazegaRussel M.FletcherCharles R.. 1997. The politics of municipal incorporation in South Florida. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law12:215–51.
25.
Leon-MoretaAgustin. 2015. Municipal incorporation in the United States. Urban Studies52:3160–3180.
26.
MartinDolores T.WagnerRichard E.. 1978. The institutional framework for municipal incorporation: An economic analysis of local agency formation commissions in California. Journal of Law and Economics21:409–25.
27.
MasseyDouglas S.RothwellJonathanDominaThurston. 2009. The changing bases of segregation in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science626:74–90.
28.
MeltzerAllan H.ScottRichard F.. 1981. A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy89:914–27.
29.
MieszkowskiPeterMillsEdwin S.. 1993. The causes of metropolitan suburbanization. Journal of Economic Perspectives7:135–47.
30.
MillerGary J.1981. Cities by contract: The politics of municipal incorporation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
MussoJuliet A.2001. The political economy of city formation in California: Limits to Tiebout sorting. Social Science Quarterly82:139–53.
32.
OstromVincentTieboutCharles M.WarrenRobert. 1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review55:831–42.
33.
ParksRoger B.OakersonRonald J.. 1989. Metropolitan organization and governance: A local public economy approach. Urban Affairs Review25:18–29.
34.
ReardonSean F.BischoffKendra. 2011. Income inequality and income segregation. American Journal of Sociology116:1092–153.
35.
ReardonSean F.FirebaughGlenn. 2002. Measures of multigroup segregation. Sociological Methodology32:33–67.
36.
RiceKathryn T.WaldnerLeora S.SmithRussell M.. 2014. Why new cities form: An examination into municipal incorporation in the United States 1950-2010. Journal of Planning Literature29:140–54.
37.
RossStephenYingerJohn. 1999. Sorting and voting: A review of the literature on urban public finance. In Handbook of regional and urban economics, ed. CheshireP.MillsE., 2001–60. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
38.
SchneiderMark. 1989. The competitive city: The political economy of suburbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
39.
SmithRussell M.2011. City limits? The impact of annexation on the frequency of municipal incorporation in North Carolina. Southeastern Geographer51:422–42.
40.
SmithRussell M.DebbageKeith. 2011. Spatial distributions of newly incorporated municipalities (NIMs) and related socioeconomic characteristics: A national comparison to cohort cities. Urban Geography32:568–88.
41.
TeafordJon. 1979. City and suburb: The political fragmentation of metropolitan America, 1850-1970. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
TieboutCharles. 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64:416–24.
43.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1990–2010. Boundary and annexation survey. Washington, DC: Geography Division.
44.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1987–2007. Census of governments. Washington, DC: Government Organization and Finance Phases.
45.
WaldnerLeoraRiceKathrynSmithRussell M.. 2013. Temporal and spatial dimensions of newly incorporated municipalities in the United States. Geographical Review103:59–79.
46.
WaldnerLeoraSmithRussell M.. 2015. The great defection: How new city clusters form to escape county governance. Public Administration Quarterly39:170–219.
47.
WooldridgeJeffrey M.2010. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
