A conceptual framework is proposed to investigate the accountability of business improvement district (BID) in urban governance networks and it is applied in analyses of BID state enabling laws in the United States. The conditions that lead to their emergence and the enhancement of their functions and how BIDs and their accountability issues should be conceptualized are discussed. The multidimensional framework proposed in this study includes political and bureaucratic accountability, transparency, liability, and responsiveness mechanisms. The results of the analyses show that the laws rely primarily on political and bureaucratic control mechanisms and provide some transparency mechanisms. The problems in implementing the bureaucratic and political control mechanisms are elaborated. The implications of the findings for future empirical studies are discussed.
BatchisWayne. 2010. “Business Improvement Districts and the Constitution: The Troubling Necessity of Privatized Government for Urban Revitalization.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly38 (1): 91–130.
2.
BeckerCarol J.GrossmanSeth A.SantosBrenda Dos. 2011.Business Improvement Districts: Census and National Survey. Washington, DC: International Downtown Association.
3.
BennerThorstenReinickeWolfgang H.WitteJan Martin. 2004. “Multisectoral Networks in Global Governance: Towards a Pluralistic System of Accountability.” Government & Opposition39 (2): 191–210.
4.
BriffaultRichard. 1999. “A Government for Our Time? Business Improvement Districts and Urban Governance.” Columbia Law Review99 (2): 365–477.
5.
BriffaultRichard. 2010. “The Business Improvement District Comes of Age.” Drexel Law Review3 (1): 19–33.
FosterKathryn A.1997. The Political Economy of Special-Purpose Government. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
8.
GarnettNicole S.2010. “Governing? Gentrifying? Seceding? Real-Time Answers to Questions About Business Improvement Districts.” Drexel Law Review3 (1): 35–47.
9.
GarodnickDaniel R.2000. “What’s the BID Deal? Can the Grand Central Business Improvement District Serve a Special Limited Purpose?”University of Pennsylvania Law Review148 (5): 1733–70.
10.
GrossmanSeth A.2010. “Reconceptualizing the Public Management and Performance of Business Improvement Districts.” Public Performance & Management Review33 (3): 361–94.
11.
GrossmanSeth A.2012. “The Management and Measurement of Public-Private Partnerships: Toward an Integral and Balanced Approach.” Public Performance & Management Review35 (4): 595–616.
12.
GrossmanSeth A.2016. The Business Improvement District Movement. New York: Routledge.
13.
HahnThomas. 2011. “Self-Organized Governance Networks for Ecosystem Management: Who Is Accountable?”Ecology & Society16 (2): Article 18.
14.
HochleutnerBrian R.2008. “BIDs Fare Well: The Democratic Accountability of Business Improvement Districts.” In Business Improvement Districts: Research, Theory, and Controversies, edited by MorçölGöktugHoytLorleneMeekJack W.ZimmermannUlf, 95–110. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
15.
HoytLorlene. 2008. “From North America to Africa: The BID Model and the Role of Policy Entrepreneurs.” In Business Improvement Districts: Research, Theories, and Controversies, edited by MorçölGöktugHoytLorleneMeekJack W.ZimmermannUlf, 111–38. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
16.
JusticeJonathan B.GoldsmithRobert S.2008. “Private Governments or Public Policy Tools? The Law and Public Policy of New Jersey’s Special Improvement Districts.” In Business Improvement Districts: Research, Theory, and Controversies, edited by MorçölGöktuğHoytLorleneMeekJack W.ZimmermannUlf, 161–95. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
17.
KearnsKevin P.2011. “Accountability in the Nonprofit Sector: Abandoning the One-Size-Fits-All Approach.” In Accountable Governance: Problems and Promises, edited by DubnickMelvin J.FredericksonH. George., 197–210. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
18.
KettlDonald F.2002. The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
19.
KolibaChristopherMeekJack W.ZiaAsim. 2011. Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
20.
KolibaChristopherMillsRussell W.ZiaAsim. 2011. Accountability in Governance Networks: An Assessment of Public, Private, and Nonprofit Emergency Management Practices Following Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review71: 210–220.
21.
KoppellJonathan G. S.2003. The Politics of Quasi-Government: Hybrid Organizations and the Dynamics of Bureaucratic Control. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
22.
KoppellJonathan G. S.2005. “Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of Multiple Accountabilities Disorder.” Public Administration Review65 (1): 94–108.
23.
KuhnLindsayLarsonSarahBourdeauxCarolyn. 2016. “Georgia’s Community Improvement Districts (CIDs).” Andrew Young School Report. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
24.
LauberJoseph G.2003. “Public-Private Partnership in Community Development: Applying Constitutional Standards for Implementing the Missouri Community Improvement District Act.” Journal of the Missouri Bar59 (2): 80-113.
25.
LaveryKevin. 1995. “Privatization by the Back Door: The Rise of Private Government in the USA.” Public Money and Management15 (4): 49-54.
26.
LewisNathaniel M.2010. “Grappling with Governance: The Emergence of Business Improvement Districts in a national capital.” Urban Affairs Review46 (2): 180–217.
27.
MallettWilliam J.1993. “Private Government Formation in the DC Metropolitan Area.” Growth and Change24 (3): 385–416.
28.
MeekJack W.HublerPaul. 2008. “Business Improvement Districts in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: Implications for Local Governance.” In Business Improvement Districts: Research, Theory, and Controversies, edited by MorçölGöktuğHoytLorleneMeekJack W.ZimmermannUlf, 197-220. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
29.
MitchellJerry. 2001. “Business Improvement Districts and the Management of Innovation.” American Review of Public Administration31 (2): 201–17.
30.
MorçölGöktuğ. 2010. “Center City District: A Case of Comprehensive Downtown BIDs.” Drexel Law Review3 (1): 271–86.
31.
MorçölGöktuğGautschDouglas. 2013. “Institutionalization of Business Improvement Districts: A Longitudinal Study of the State Laws in the United States.” Public Administration Quarterly37 (2): 240–79.
32.
MorçölGöktuğPatrickPatricia A.2006. “Business Improvement Districts in Pennsylvania: Implications for Democratic Metropolitan Governance.” International Journal of Public Administration29 (1–3): 137–71.
33.
MorçölGöktuğVasavadaTriparnaKimSohee. 2014. “Business Improvement Districts in Urban Governance: A Longitudinal Case Study.” Administration & Society46 (7): 796–824.
34.
MorçölGöktuğWolfJames F.2010. “Understanding Business Improvement Districts: A New Governance Framework.” Public Administration Review70 (6): 906–13.
35.
MorçölGöktuğZimmermannUlf. 2008a. “Community Improvement Districts in Metropolitan Atlanta.” In Business Improvement Districts: Research, Theory, and Controversies, edited by MorçölGöktugHoytLorleneMeekJack W.ZimmermannUlf, 349–72. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
36.
MorçölGöktuğZimmermannUlf. 2008b. “Metropolitan Governance and Business Improvement Districts.” In Business Improvement Districts: Research, Theory, and Controversies, edited by MorçölGöktugHoytLorleneMeekJack W.ZimmermannUlf, 27–50. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
37.
PackJanet Rothenberg. 1992. “BIDs, DIDs, SIDs, SADs: Private Governments in Urban America.” The Brookings Review10 (4): 18–21.
38.
PhillipsNelsonLawrenceThomas B.HardyCynthia. 2004. “Discourse and Institutions.” The Academy of Management Review29 (4): 635–52.
39.
RhodesRoderickArthurW.1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Pres.
40.
RomzekBarbara S.DubnickMelvin J.1987. “Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy.” Public Administration Review47 (3): 227–38.
41.
RomzekBarbara S.IngrahamPatricia W.2000. Cross Pressures of Accountability: Initiative, Command, and Failure in the Ron Brown Plane Crash. Public Administration Review60: 240-53.
42.
RomzekBarbara S.JohnstonJocelyn M.2005. “State Social Services Contracting: Exploring the Determinants of Effective Contract Accountability.” Public Administration Review65 (4): 436–49.
43.
RomzekBarbara S.LeRouxKellyBlackmarJeannette M.2012. “A Preliminary Theory of Informal Accountability Among Network Organizational Actors.” Public Administration Review72 (3): 442–53.
44.
SillinceJohn A. A.BarkerJames R.2012. “A Tropological Theory of institutionalization.” Organization Studies33 (1): 7–38.
45.
WolfJames F.2008. “‘Business Improvement Districts’ Approaches to Working with Local Governments.” In Business Improvement Districts: Research, Theory, and Controversies, edited by MorçölGöktuğHoytLorleneMeekJack W.ZimmermannUlf, 269–88. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
