Three Sides of the Same Coin? A Bayesian Analysis of Strategic Management, Comprehensive Planning, and Inclusionary Values in Land Use

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: Deslatte, Aaron; Swann, William L.; Feiock, Richard C.
• 署名单位: Northern Illinois University; University of Colorado System; University of Colorado Denver; State University System of Florida; Florida State University
• 刊物名称: JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND THEORY
• ISSN/ISSBN: 1053-1858
• DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muw054
• 发表日期: 2017
• 页码: 415-432
• 关键词: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; organizational performance; growth management; UNITED-STATES; POLITICAL-INSTITUTIONS; public-service; GOVERNMENT; cities; city; CHALLENGES

摘要

Local government managers face fundamental, value conflicts when they engage urban land use issues. Despite the planet's ongoing urbanization, managerial influence on land use policy remains an under-examined arena. Local governments are routinely asked to balance economic, ecological, and social equity concerns when making choices between alternative land use policy tools. Are local government sustainable development efforts more strategic, comprehensive, and inclusive than when led by professional public managers rather than elected mayors? How do the institutional forms of government inhibit or enhance the ability of specific policy demanders to influence the use of these tools under varying economic conditions? We answer these questions by examining the relationship between local government structure and land use policy utilization in different economic environments with a Bayesian analysis of surveys of Florida cities at three time periods. Differences between manager and mayoral executive leadership shape public management strategies, comprehensiveness, and inclusionary motives linked to land use policy tool utilization before and after the housing boom of the mid-2000s. However, management turnover mitigates this effect. Moreover, managerial influence is not evident at the housing bubble's peak, which we argue is an important caveat to the empirical evidence on form of government.