County impact fee adoptions as policy innovations: A search for theory

International Journal of Public Administration

Volumn 19, Issue 7, 1996, Pages 1037-1064

  Edwin Benton, J ^a   Daly, John L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937276555     PISSN: 01900692     EISSN: 15324265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01900699608525131     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Walker, Jack L., 1969. The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. American Political Science Review, 63 September: 880–899.
2. Gray, Virginia. 1973. Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study. American Political Science Review, 67 December: 1174–1185. Menzel, Donald C. and Irwin Feller. “Leadership and interaction Patterns in the Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” Western Political Quarterly 30 (December 1977): 528-536; Sigelman, Lee and Roland Smith. “Consumer Legislation in the American States: An Attempt at Explanation.” Social Science Quarterly 61 (June 1980): 58-70; Regens, James L. “State Policy Responses to the Energy Issue.” Social Science Quarterly 61 (March 1980): 44-57; Sigelman, Lee, Philip W. Roeder, and Carol Sigelman. “Social Service Innovation in the American States.” Social Science Quarterly 62 (September 1981): 503-515; Canon, Bradley, C. and Lawrence Baum. “Patterns of Adoption of Tort Law Innovations.” American Political Science Review 75 (December 1981): 975-987; Glick, Henry. “Innovation in State Judicial Administration: Effects on Court Management and Organization.” American Politics Quarterly 9 (January 1981): 49-69; Berry, Frances Stokes and William D. Berry. “State Lottery Adoptions As Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84 (March 1990): 395-413
3. Berry and Berry. note 2
4. Crain, Robert L., 1966. Fluoridation: The Diffusion of an Innovation among Cities. Social Forces, 44 June: 467–476. Bingham, Richard D. “The Diffusion of Innovation Among Local Governments.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 13 (December 1977): 223-232; Danziger, James N. “Computers, Local Governments, and the Litany to EDP.” Public Administration Review 37 (January/February 1977): 28-37; Feller, Irwin, and Donald C. Menzel. “The Adoption of Technological Innovations by Municipalities.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 13 (June 1978): 469-490; Scott, Thomas M. “The Diffusion of Urban Governmental Forms as a Case of Social Learning.” Journal of Politics 30 (December 1980): 1091- 1108
5. Berry and Berry. note 2
6. The State of Florida permits local governments to use a variety of strategies to deal with the challenges posed by rapid growth. The impact fee is the most frequently utilized mechanism by both counties and municipalities. To date, 31 of 67 counties and 102 of 395 municipalities have adopted impact fee ordinances.
7. Walker. note 1
8. Miles, Mike E., Malizia, Emil E., Weiss, Marc A., Berens, Gayle L., and Ginger, Travis. Real Estate Development: Principles and Process, 121Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
9. Miles, Malizia, Weiss, Berens, and Travis. 129 note 8.
10. Sheridan, Peter G., Development Impact Fees in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58517–525. Autumn
11. Kemp, Roger L., 1992. Municipal Building Services: From Cutback to Creativity. Journal of Housing, 49 July/August: 186–192.
12. Kemp. note 11
13. Gyourko, Joseph. 1991. Impact Fees, Exclusionary Zoning, and Density of New Development. Journal of Urban Economics, 30 September: 242–257.
14. Berry and Berry. 396 note 2
15. Downs, George W., 1976. Bureaucracy, Innovation and Public Policy, Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath. For example, see Regens, note 2
16. Grupps, Fred W., and Richards, Alan R., 1975. Variations in Elite Perceptions of American States as Referents for Public Policy- Making. American Political Science Review, 69 September: 850–858. Light, Alfred R. “Intergovernmental Sources of Innovation in State Administration.” American Politics Quarterly 6 (April 1978): 147-165
17. Canon and Baum. note 2; Gray, note 2; Walker, note 1
18. Mohr, Lawrence B., 1969. Determinants of Innovation in Organizations. American Political Science Review, 63 March: 111–126.
19. Berry and Berry. note 2
20. Hansen, Susan B., 1983. The Politics of Taxation, New York: Praeger.
21. Berry and Berry. note 2
22. Benton, J. Edwin, and Menzel, Donald C., 1991. County Service Trends and Practices: The Case of Florida. State and Local Government Review, 23: 69–75. Spring
23. Hansen. note 20
24. Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Matthew D., 1985. Congressional Appropriations and the Electoral Connection. Journal of Politics, 47 February: 59–82.
25. Eyestone, Robert. 1077. Confusion, Diffusion and Innovation. American Political Science Review, 71 June: 441–447.
26. Benton, J. Edwin, and Daly, John L., 1992. The Paradox of Citizen Service Evaluations and Tax Preferences: The Case of Two Small Cities. American Review of Public Administration, 22 December: 271–287. For example, see Beck, Paul Allen, Hal G. Rainey, Keith Nicholls, and Carol Traut. “Citizen Views of Taxes and Services: A Tale of Three Cities.” Social Science Quarterly 68 (June 1987): 223-243
27. Flanigan, William H., and Zingale, Nancy H., 1987. Political Behavior of the American Electorate, 6th, Allyn and Bacon.
28. Morgan, David R., 1979. Managing Urban America, North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury.
29. Berry and Berry. note 2
30. Benton, J. Edwin, and Daly, John L., 1990. Catalog of County Ordinances, Tampa: Center for Public Affairs and Policy Management.
31. The study population is 65 of Florida's 67 counties. Duval County is excluded from consideration since Duval County and the City of Jacksonville were consolidated in 1968. Dade County is omitted from the analysis because of its federated structure of government.
32. These 31 counties were given a score of 160 which indicates that they tied for being the least innovative.
33. Some indicator of the presence or relative strength of the residential and commercial development industry would have been preferable; however, no such data were readily available.
34. An additive index was constructed such that a county that did not have any of the following three features was assigned a score of 0: county administrator, at-large elections for county commissioners, and nonpartisan election of county commissioners. Counties were given one point for having any one of these features with the maximum score being 3. Thus, a “totally” reformed county government received a score of 3, while an “completely” unreformed government was given a score of 0.
35. Benton, J. Edwin. Counties as Service Delivery Agents: Changning Expectations and Roles, Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press. forthcoming