This article explores the impact of 15 separate provisions of state annexation laws on seven different measures of annexation activity. This analysis uses annexation data from 42 states between 1990 and 1998. The analysis finds that there are different patterns of annexation activity for laws designed to constrain annexation, as compared with laws designed to facilitate annexation. Laws designed to facilitate annexation are likely to be associated with high levels of annexation activity. On the other hand, laws designed to constrain annexation are not very likely to have lower levels of activity.
American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO). 1958. Information report no. 114: Annexation studies (September). Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials.
2.
Blalock, Hubert M., Jr.1979. Social statistics. revised 2d ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
Bollens, John C.1949. Elements of successful annexations. Public Management (April): 98-102.
4.
Carr, Jered B., and Richard C. Feiock. 2001. State annexation “constraints” and the frequency of municipal annexation. Political Research Quarterly54 (2): 459-470.
5.
Diefenbacher, Jennifer G. S., and W. Edwin Sumner. 1992. Georgia annexation guide. Atlanta: Georgia Municipal Association.
6.
Dye, Thomas R.1964. Urban political integration: Conditions associated with annexation in American cities. Midwest Journal of Political Science8:430-466.
7.
Feiock, Richard C., and Jered B. Carr. 1996. The consequences of state incentives and constraints for municipal annexation. Paper presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the American Society for Public Administration.
8.
Galloway, Thomas D., and John D. Landis. 1986. How cities expand: Does state law make a difference?Growth and Change17 (4): 25-45.
9.
Herzik, Eric B.1984. Projecting the fiscal impact of municipal annexation. Municipal Management7 (fall): 47-53.
10.
Liner, Gaines H.1990. Annexation rates and institutional constraints. Growth and Change21 (fall): 80-94.
11.
Liner, Gaines H.1993. Institutional constraints and annexation activity in the US in the 1970s. Urban Studies30 (8): 1371-1380.
12.
Liner, Gaines H., and Rob Roy McGregor. 1996. Institutions and the market for annexable land. Growth and Change27 (winter): 55-74.
13.
Miller, Joel. 1997. Boundary changes, 1990-1995. The Municipal Yearbook 1997 (pp. 35-39). Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
14.
Reynolds, Laurie. 1992. Rethinking municipal annexation powers. The Urban Lawyer24 (2): 247-303.
15.
Sengstock, Frank S.1960. Annexation: A solution to the metropolitan area problem. Ann Arbor: Michigan Legal Publications.
16.
Steinbauer, Paula, Betty J. Hudson, Harry W. Hayes, and Rex L. Facer II. 2002. An assessment of municipal annexation in Georgia and the United States: A search for policy guidance. Athens: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia.
17.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). 1993. State laws governing local government structure and administration. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
18.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1999. Boundary and annexation survey 1990-1998 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Geography Division.
19.
Wheeler, Gloria. 1994. Basic applied statistics for public management. Unpublished manuscript. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
20.
Wheeler, Raymond H.1965. Annexation law and annexation success. Land Economics41:354-360.
