Many counties in the U.S. federalist system have morphed from a limited role in service delivery to a workhorse for municipal-style local government. They also facilitate development and sprawl, helping to shape development patterns of the modern fragmented metropolis. Why do counties accommodate development demand that deviates from long-term land-use plans intended to prevent sprawl? Utilizing panel data of county land-use changes in Florida, this study finds evidence that the decisions are shaped by both external competition for growth and internal institutional incentives. Fragmentation fuels more leapfrog development patterns on the urban fringe. Horizontal fragmentation encourages counties to compete for development, whereas vertical fragmentation via special districts facilitates such development through provision of services and reducing pressure for public officeholders to raise taxes. However, these fragmentation effects are also influenced by modernized institutions in counties such as home-rule charters and form of government.
BentonJ. Edwin. 2002. “County Service Delivery: Does Government Structure Matter?”Public Administration Review62 (4): 471–79.
3.
BentonJ. Edwin. 2003. “County Government Structure and County Revenue Policy: What’s the Connection?”State and Local Government Review35 (2): 78–89.
4.
BentonJ. Edwin. 2005. “An Assessment of Research on American Counties.”Public Administration Review65 (4): 462–74.
5.
BentonJ. EdwinMenzelDonald C.1991. “County Service Trends and Practices: The Case of Florida.”State and Local Government Review23 (2): 68–75.
6.
Ben-ZadokEfraim. 2005. “Consistency, Concurrency and Compact Development: Three Faces of Growth Management Implementation in Florida.”Urban Studies42 (12): 2167–90.
7.
BerryWilliam D.FordingRichard C.RingquistEvan J.HansonRussell L.KlarnerCarl E.2010. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the U.S. States: A Re-appraisal.”State Politics & Policy Quarterly10 (2): 117–35.
8.
BerryWilliam D.GolderMattMiltonDaniel. 2012. “Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction.”Journal of Politics74 (3): 653–71.
9.
BickersKenneth N.SalucciLapoSteinRobert M.2006. “Assessing the Micro-Foundations of the Tiebout Model.”Urban Affairs Review42 (1): 57–80.
10.
BrodySamuel D.HighfieldWesley E.2005. “Does Planning Work? Testing the Implementation of Local Environmental Planning in Florida.”Journal of the American Planning Association71 (2): 159–75.
11.
BunchJaclyn. 2014. “Does Local Autonomy Enhance Representation? The Influence of Home Rule on County Expenditures.”State and Local Government Review46 (2): 106-117.
12.
BushwayShawnJohnsonBrian D.SlocumLee Ann. 2007. “Is the Magic Still There? The Use of the Heckman Two-Step Correction for Selection Bias in Criminology.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology23 (2): 151–78.
13.
CarrJered B.2015. “What Have We Learned About the Performance of Council-Manager Government? A Review and Synthesis of the Research.”Public Administration Review75 (5): 673–89.
14.
CarruthersJohn I.2002. “The Impacts of State Growth Management Programmes: A Comparative Analysis.”Urban Studies39 (11): 1959–82.
15.
CarruthersJohn I.UlfarssonGudmundur F.2002. “Fragmentation and Sprawl: Evidence from Interregional Analysis.”Growth and Change33 (3): 312–40.
16.
ChapinTimothy S.2012. “From Growth Controls, to Comprehensive Planning, to Smart Growth: Planning’s Emerging Fourth Wave.”Journal of the American Planning Association78 (1): 5–15.
17.
ChapinTimothy S.CarruthersJohn I.HigginsHarrison T.2007. Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
18.
ChapinTimothy S.ConnerlyCharles E.2007. “Attitudes Towards Growth Management in Florida: Comparing Resident Support in 1985 and 2001.” In Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise. 67–81. Edited by ChapinTimothy S.CarruthersJohn I.HigginsHarrison T.Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
19.
ClingermayerJamesFeiockRichard. 2001. Institutional Constraints and Policy Choice: An Exploration of Local Governance. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
20.
CutsingerJackieGalsterGeorgeWolmanHaroldHansonRoyceTownsDouglas. 2005. “Verifying the Multi-dimensional Nature of Metropolitan Land Use: Advancing the Understanding and Measurement of Sprawl.”Journal of Urban Affairs27 (3): 235–59.
21.
DawsonMary. 1995. “The Best Laid Plans: The Rise and Fall of Growth Management In Florida.”Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law11 (2): 325–74.
22.
DeGroveJohn. 2005. Planning Policy and Politics: Smart Growth and the States. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
23.
DeGroveJohnLawrenceCarolyn. 1977. “County Government Service Delivery.” In Decade for Decisions, 1976-1986, edited by GanschinietzLinda, 33–35. Washington, DC: National Association of Counties.
24.
deHaven-SmithLance. 2000. “Facing Up to the Political Realities of Growth Management.”Florida Planning7 (5): 14–17.
25.
DeSantisVictor S.RennerRari. 1993. “Governing the County: Authority, Structure, and Elections.” In County Governments in an Era of Change, edited by BermanDavid R., 15–28. Westport: Greenwood Press.
26.
DownsAnthony. 1973. Opening Up the Suburbs: An Urban Strategy for America. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
27.
DownsAnthony. 1999. “Some Realities About Sprawl and Urban Decline.”Housing Policy Debate10 (4): 955–74.
28.
FeiockRichard C.SteinackerAnnetteParkHyung-Jun. 2009. “Institutional Collective Action and Joint Ventures for Economic Development.”Public Administration Review69 (2): 256–70.
29.
FeiockRichard C.TavaresAntónio F.2002. “County government institutions and local land use regulation.”Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
30.
FeiockRichard C.TavaresAntónio F.LubellMark. 2008. “Policy Instrument Choices for Growth Management and Land Use Regulation.”The Policy Studies Journal36 (3): 461–80.
31.
GelmanAndrewHillJennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
32.
HeckmanJames J.1976. “The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models.”Annals of Economic and Social Measurement5 (4): 475–92.
33.
HendrickRebeccaJimenezBenedict S.LalKamna. 2011. “Does Local Government Fragmentation Affect Local Spending?”Urban Affairs Review47 (7): 467–510.
34.
HendrickRebeccaShiYu. 2015. “Macro-Level Determinants of Local Government Interaction: How Metropolitan Regions in the United States Compare.”Urban Affairs Review51 (3): 414–38.
35.
Howell-MoroneyMichael. 2008. “The Tiebout Hypothesis 50 Years Later: Lessons and Lingering Challenges for Metropolitan Governance in the 21st Century.”Public Administration Review68 (1): 97–109.
36.
JimenezBenedict S.2016. “Externalities in the Fragmented Metropolis: Local Institutional Choices and the Efficiency-Equity Trade-Off.”American Review of Public Administration46 (3): 314–36.
37.
JimenezBenedict S.HendrickRebecca. 2010. “Is Government Consolidation the Answer?”State and Local Government Review42 (3): 258–70.
38.
KempRoger L.1999. Forms of Local Government: A Handbook on City, County and Regional Options. Jefferson: McFarland.
39.
LubellMarkFeiockRichardRamirezEdgar. 2005. “Political Institutions and Conservation by Local Governments.”Urban Affairs Review40 (6): 706–29.
40.
LubellMarkFeiockRichardde la CruzEdger Ramirez. 2009. “Local Institutions and the Politics of Urban Growth.”American Journal of Political Science53 (3): 649–65.
41.
MarandoVincentThomasRobert. 1977. The Forgotten Governments. Gainesville: The Univ. Press of Florida.
42.
McDonaldBruce D.2015. “Does the Charter Form Improve the Health of Counties?”Public Administration Review75 (4): 609–18.
43.
McDonaldBruce D.GabriniCarl J.2014. “Determinants of Charter County Decisions: An Event History Analysis of Florida Counties.”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory24 (3): 721–39.
44.
NelsonArthur C.DuncanJames B.1995. Growth management principles and practices. Washington, DC: American Planning Association.
45.
OstromElinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
46.
OstromVincentTieboutCharles M.WarrenRobert. 1961. “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.”American Political Science Review55 (4): 831–42.
47.
PendallRolf. 1999. “Do Land Use Controls Cause Sprawl?”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26 (4): 555–71.
48.
SchneiderMark. 1989. “Intermunicipal Competition, Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrats, and the Level of Suburban Competition.”American Journal of Political Science33 (3): 612–28.
49.
SchneiderMarkParkKee Ok. 1989. “Metropolitan Counties as Service Delivery Agents: The Still Forgotten Governments.”Public Administration Review49:345–52.
50.
SteenbergenMarco R.JonesBradford S.2002. “Modeling Multilevel Data Structures.”American Journal of Political Science46 (1): 218–37.
51.
SvaraJames H.2002. “City Council Roles, Performance, and the Form of Government.” In The Future of Local Government Administration, edited by FredericksonH. GeorgeNalbandianJohn, 213–26. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
52.
SvaraJames H.NelsonKimberly L.2008. “Taking Stock of the Council-Manager Form at 100.”Public Management90 (7): 6–14.
53.
SvaraJames H.WattTanya C.JangHee Soun. 2013. “How Are U.S. Cities Doing Sustainability? Who Is Getting on the Sustainability Train, and Why?”Cityscape15 (1): 9–44.
54.
TieboutCharles M.1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.”Journal of Political Economy64 (5): 416–24.
55.
TrounstineJessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods.”American Journal of Political Science. Published electronically October1. doi:10.1111/ajps.12227.
56.
TurnerRobyne. 1990. “New Rules for the Growth Game: The Use of Rational State Standards in Land Use Policy.”Journal of Urban Affairs12 (1): 35–47.
57.
WarnerMildred E.2015. “Municipal Size, Resources, and Efficiency: Theoretical Bases for Shared Services and Consolidation.” In Municipal Shared Services and Consolidation, edited by HendersonAlexander C, 3–16. New York: Routledge.
58.
WheelandCraig M.PalusChristine KelleherWoodCurtis. 2014. “A Century of Municipal Reform in the United States: A Legacy of Success, Adaptation, and the Impulse to Improve.”American Review of Public Administration44 (4): 11S–28S.
