Evaluating the effects of direct democracy on public policy: California's urban growth boundaries

American Politics Research

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 310-330

  Gerber, Elisabeth R ^a   Phillips, Justin H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

California; Direct democracy; Direct legislation; Initiatives; Public policy; Urban growth boundaries

Indexed keywords

EID: 14544275037     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04272428     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baldassare, M., & Wilson, G. (1996). Changing sources of suburban support for local growth controls. Urban Studies, 33, 459-471.
2. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting, and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3. Breen, R. (1996). Regression models: Censored, sample selected, or truncated data (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 07- 111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Broder, D. S. (2000). Democracy derailed: Initiative campaigns and the power of money. New York: Harcourt.
5. Cain, B. E., & Miller, K. P. (2001). The populist legacy: Initiatives and the undermining of representative government. In L. J. Sabato, H. R. Ernst, & B. A. Larson (Eds.), Dangerous democracy: The battle over ballot initiatives in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
6. Camobreco, J. F. (1998). Preferences, fiscal policies, and the initiative process. Journal of Politics, 60, 819-829.
7. Clingermayer, J. C., & Feiock, R. C. (1990). The adoption of economic development policies by large cities: A test of economic, interest group, and institutional explanations. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 539-552.
8. Donovan, T., & Neiman, M. (1992). Community social status, suburban growth, and local government restrictions on residential development. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 28, 323-336.
9. Gainsborough, J. F. (2002). Slow growth and urban sprawl: Support for a new regional agenda. Urban Affairs Review, 37, 728-744.
10. Gerber, E. R. (1996a). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 99-128.
11. Gerber, E. R. (1996b). Legislatures, initiatives, and representation: The effects of state legislative institutions on policy. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 263-286.
12. Gerber, E. R. (2001). The logic of reform: Assessing initiative reform strategies. In L. J. Sabato, H. R. Ernst, & B. A. Larson (Eds.), Dangerous democracy: The battle over ballot initiatives in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
13. Gerber, E. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2003). Development propositions, interest group endorsements, and the political geography of growth preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 625-639.
14. Gerber, E. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2004). Direct democracy and land use policy: Exchanging public goods for development rights. Urban Studies, 41, 463-479.
15. Gottdiener, M., & Neiman, M. (1981). Characteristics of support for growth control. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 17, 55-73.
16. Initiative and Referendum Institute. (1999). Initiative and referendum legislation. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://www.iandrinstitute.org/legislation/default.htm
17. Initiative and Referendum Institute. (2004). What is I&R? Retrieved September 1, 2004, from http://www.iandrinstitute.org/Quick%20Fact%20-%20What%20is%20I&R.htm
18. Knapp, G., & Nelson, A. C. (1992). The regulated landscape: Lessons on state land use planning from Oregon. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
19. Lascher, E. L., Jr., Hagen, M. G., & Rochlin, S. A. (1996). Gun behind the door? Ballot initiatives, state policies, and public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 760-775.
20. Lewis, P. G., & Neiman, M. (2002). Cities underpressure: Local growth controls and residential development policy. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
21. Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review, 86, 390-403.
22. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.
23. Lupia, A., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). Direct democracy: New approaches to old questions. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 463-482.
24. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: Evidence from the last 30 years. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 587-623.
26. Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). For the many or the few: How the initiative process changes American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Nelson, A. C. (2002). Comment on Anthony Downs's "Have housing prices risen faster in Portland than elsewhere?" Housing Policy Debate, 13, 33-42.
28. Nelson, A. C., Dawkins, C. J., & Sanchez, T. W. (2004). Urban containment and residential segregation: A preliminary investigation. Urban Studies, 41, 423-439.
29. Phillips, J., & Goodstein, E. (2000). Growth management and housing prices: The case of Portland, Oregon. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18, 334-344.
30. Schrag, P. (1998). Paradise lost: California's experience, America's future. New York: New Press.