Explaining the Attitude of Community Influentials Toward Government Consolidation

Rosenbaum, Walter A.; Henderson, Thomas A.

doi:10.1177/107808747300900204

Cited by 13 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this research reinforce the conclusions of Rosenbaum and Henderson (1973), who studied the attitudes of "community influentials" toward merger proposals in Jacksonville and Orlando, Florida. They found that pro-merger community influentials (who were not necessarily members of the consolidation elite) cited efficiency and improved services as the mainreason ATTITUDES OF CONSOLIDATION ELITES 375 for their support; also, these leaders did not point to dissatisfaction with the regime as a reason for their support of the consolidation proposals.…”

Section: Attitudes Of Consolidation Elites 373supporting

confidence: 83%

The Attitudes of Consolidation Elites: An Empirical Assessment of Their Views of City‐county Mergers

Durning¹,

Edwards

1992

Southeastern Political Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Attitudes Of Consolidation Elites 373supporting

confidence: 83%

The Attitudes of Consolidation Elites: An Empirical Assessment of Their Views of City‐county Mergers

Durning¹,

Edwards

1992

Southeastern Political Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Marando (1974) argues that metropolitan reorganization, where accepted, has been influenced more by political conditions than the objective of a metropolitan-wide approach to metropolitan-wide problems. Similarly, Rosenbaum and Henderson (1973) note that the ACIR warns urban reformers not to deal so much with the technical and administrative details of consolidation proposals that they pay no attention to the play of vested interests that might determine the outcome of a consolidation process. In the case of Denizli, there are three points that should be focused on: the relation between national and local politics, the attitudes of political actors about annexation, and the relation between political actors.…”

Section: Attitudes Of Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics of Municipal Consolidation: The Case of Denizli

Yoloğlu

2018

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Municipal consolidation is one of the policies employed to overcome the problems resulting from fragmented political structure in metropolitan regions. Although this policy has technical roots in theory, such as increasing efficiency and effectiveness, it has a political background in practice because boundary changes redefine the distribution of political sources. Consequently, local political actors, in relation with national political actors especially in such countries as Turkey, where there is a strong political connection between national and local political structure due to its unitary system, attempt to shape this redefinition process to maximize their self-interest. The consolidation process, thus, becomes a power struggle between politicians. In addition, local governments are the most obvious performance arena for central governments; therefore, they are indispensable. The primary aim of this study is to show how local political actors attempt to shape this redefinition process to take full advantage of new boundaries. Local political actors attempt to join the winning side, or at least to not to be on the losing side, by taking different positions in the debate. In these matters, losing or winning covers all types of capital, including economic, political, and social. This perception of losing and winning includes not only facts but also expectations. Accordingly, all local actors attempt to redefine or strengthen their positions in the political arena.

show abstract

“…Jack Knight (1992) has proposed that institutions are best conceived of as a by-product of conflict over distributional gains. Conflict over boundaries is often defined by perceptions of differences in the incidence of service benefits, tax burdens, and minority representation created by different boundaries (Grant 1963;Hawkins 1967;Krefetz and Sharaf 1977;Rosenbaum and Henderson 1973). Recent advances in our understanding of the circumstances surrounding policy innovation in local government (Schneider, Teske, and Mintrom 1995) and the ability of citizens to overcome collective action barriers to the reorganization of local governments (Burns 1994) direct our attention to the selective costs and benefits to these actors of pursuing opportunities to change existing boundaries.…”

Section: Collective Versus Selective Boundary Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentives, Entrepreneurs, and Boundary Change

Feiock

Carr

2001

Urban Affairs Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors develop an institutional choice framework to examine and interpret change in local boundaries and provide a single explanation for the use of varied instruments to create new boundaries or expand old ones. Boundary decisions are viewed as the product of actors' seeking particular outcomes within a context of existing governments and established rules governing boundary change. Selective costs and benefits, rather than collective costs and benefits, are most likely to provide incentives for institutional entrepreneurship and collective action. Such a framework is valuable because it integrates the fragmented literatures on local boundaries, provides a linkage between boundary choices and policy outcomes at the local level, and can guide empirical research into the causes and consequences of boundary change. This framework can provide the foundation of a more general model of institutional choice and institutional entrepreneurship.

show abstract

Explaining the Attitude of Community Influentials Toward Government Consolidation

Cited by 13 publications

References 2 publications

The Attitudes of Consolidation Elites: An Empirical Assessment of Their Views of City‐county Mergers

The Attitudes of Consolidation Elites: An Empirical Assessment of Their Views of City‐county Mergers

Politics of Municipal Consolidation: The Case of Denizli

Incentives, Entrepreneurs, and Boundary Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About