Citizen preferences and paying for police

Journal of Urban Affairs

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 419-435

  Donahue, Amy K ^a   Miller, Joanne M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMOGRAPHIC TREND; FINANCIAL PROVISION; POLICE FORCE; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SERVICE PROVISION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CONNECTICUT; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 26044435117     PISSN: 07352166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00244.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Armstrong, J. S., Denniston, W. B., & Gordon, M. M. (1975). The use of the decomposition principle in making judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 257-263.
2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Bennack, F. A., Jr. (1983). The American public, the media, and the judicial system. New York: Hearst Corporation.
4. Bennett, R. M., & Tranter, R. B. (1998). The dilemma concerning choice of contingent valuation willingness-to-pay elicitation format. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(2), 253-257.
5. Bergstrom, T. C., & Goodman, R. P. (1973). Private demand for public goods. American Economic Review, 63, 280-296.
6. Blackwell, R., Miniard, P., & Engel, J. (2001). Consumer behavior. Fort Worth: Harcourt College.
7. Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G. C., Liljas, B., & O'Connor, R. M. (1998). Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal, 65, 169-178.
8. Borcherding, T., & Deacon, R. (1972). The demand for services of non-federal governments. American Economic Review, 62, 891-901.
9. Brudney, J., & England, R. (1983). Toward a definition of the co-production concept. Public Administration Review, 43, 59-65.
10. Dautrich, K., & Yalof, D. (2002). The first amendment and the media in the court of public opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Diamond, P. A., & Hausman J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 45-64.
12. Donahue, A. K. and Miller, J. M. (2005). Experience, attitudes, and willingness to pay for public safety. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, West Hartford.
13. Feenberg, D., & Mills, E. S. (1980). Measuring the benefits of water pollution abatement. New York: Academic Press.
14. Freeman, A. M., III. (1979). The benefits of environmental improvement: Theory and practice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Gilliam, F. D., & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 560-73.
16. Gramlich, E. M. (1977). Intergovernmental grants: A review of the empirical literature. In W. Oates (Ed.), The political economy of fiscal federalism (pp. 219-239). Lexington: Lexington Books.
17. Hanemann, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 19-43.
18. Hans, V. P., & Dee, J. L. (1991). Media coverage of law: It's impact on juries and the public. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 136-149.
19. Inman, R. P. (1979). The fiscal performance of local governments: An interpretive review. In P. Mieszkowski & M. Strazheim (Eds.), Current issues in urban economics (pp. 270-321). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
20. Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Pary, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
21. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.
22. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causation. New York: Wiley.
23. Koven, S. G. (1992). Coproduction of law enforcement services: benefits and implications. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 27, 457-470.
24. MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144-158.
25. MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41-62.
26. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27. Moy, P., Pfau, M., & Kahlor, L. (1999). Media use and public confidence in democratic institutions. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(2), 137-158.
28. Ross, S., & Yinger, J. (1998). Sorting and voting: A review of the literature on urban public finance. In P. Cheshire & E. S. Mills (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (pp. 2001-2060). New York, NY: North-Holland.
29. Sharp, E. (1980). Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: The co-production concept. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 14, 105-118.
30. Simonsen, W., & Robbins, M. (2000). Citizen participation in resource allocation. Boulder: Westview Press.
31. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Sobel, M. E. (1990). Effect analysis and causation in linear structural equation models. Psychometrika, 55(3), 495-515.
33. Whitehead, J. C. (1995). Willingness to pay for quality improvements: Comparative statistics and interpretation of contingent valuation results. Land Economics, 71(2), 207-215.