Views
5 years ago

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

eform period 38 . Many

eform period 38 . Many scholars have tried to categorize the changing form of government by considering various relevant political institutions. Among them, Frederickson and Johnson (2001), Hansell (1999), and DeSantis and Renner (1994; 2002) are the most dominant scholars in this area. This study is based upon their categories of mayor form of government, especially using the Frederickson and Johnson’s (2001). Type I Type III Type II Unreformed Cities Adopted Cities Reformed Cities Strong Mayor Form In Between Manager Form (Political) (Mixed) (Administrative) Adapted from Frederickson and Johnson (2001) Figure 3. Frederickson’s Political Dimension of Form of Government Frederickson and Johnson (2001) divide the form of government into three types: political city (type I); administrative city (type II); and adopted city (type III). Figure 3 summarizes the political and administrative dimension of reformed and unreformed cities. Type I city has mayoral characteristics of: administrative authority; appointment authority of department head; preparation and submission of budget; elected directly by voters; full time; usually not a member of council; no Chief Administrative Officer (CAO); most importantly veto power. Type II city usually has CAO; mayor not elected directly; usually part time; mayor serves on council; most importantly the administrative and appointment power belong to managers with council’s agreement. Type III city is a type of in-between form of government. The indicators of type I provide two important characteristics to mayor: a centralized authority and highly political status of mayor. Maser (1998) argues that the direct election of mayor, budget authority and department appointment power provide centralized authority and are the rules that can ensure the mayor’s political responsiveness to the citizens. With these rules, veto power is a rule that can address coordination problems with councils. Thus, if a mayor is 38 Stauton, Virginia, is the first local government that institutionalized the position, authority, and responsibility of professional manager. However, the first city that adopts a charter of council manager form of government is Sumter, California in 1912. 45

characterized by all of the indicators (strong mayor), she/he has a better position to organize and drive diffused and broader community interests like pro-environmental policies, politically should be responsive to the growth pressures. One exception of type I city in this study is whether a city has a CAO or not. As Frederickson and Johnson (2001) said, there is less than 20 % of pure type I cities in USA. In Florida, the number is far less than the nationwide statistics (about 6%). Another argument regarding CAO is that even though a city has a CAO, the mayor could political enough. Hansell (1998) argues that when the mayor has all of indicators of type I city, mayor is still strong enough to control executive branch and CAO. So, this is controlled when I categorize the strong mayor type of government. H3-1: Strong mayor form of government will increase the likelihood of proenvironmental amendments to local comprehensive plan. Administrative capacity of land use planning. Increasing demands and requirements of growth management have made the planning capacity of local governments significant (Jeong 2006). Local land use policy change requires complex and technical information to consider various impacts on communities when it is changed. These various impacts create distributional consequences of land use policy making, which increases transaction costs to change a policy (Feiock 1999). These transaction costs can be reduced and overcome by greater administrative capacity. Forester (1993) emphasizes the power of planners by arguing that they choose strategies to conduct what they have to do through informing, negotiating, and mediating conflicts during the planning process. Because they have much information regarding planning issues and they provide information in the decision making process, the information is a source of their powers. Their negotiating and mediating roles provide them the persuasive power, which enables them to induce and guide citizen participation in a way of what they want for the future communities. Using these planning powers, information asymmetries in Miller’s term (1977), planners may reduce the transaction costs in the distributional land use policy making process. While planners have technical information, citizens, planning commissions and other elected official have limited technical 46