본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재후보

An Empirical Study of Adopting Development Impact Feesin U.S. Metropolitan Cities

박치형
서울연구원 (The Seoul Institute)|2009.03|서울도시연구 (Seoul Studies)|제10권 제1호|pp. 121-141|DOI 10.23129/seouls.10.1.200903.121

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

지방재정정책도시성장관리urban growth managementdevelopment impact fees개발영향부담금local financial policy
주제분류국제/지역개발

초록

This research examines what characteristics of cities affect impact fee decisions by local governments within metropolitan regions using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. More and more cities are adopting different types of impact fees for financing public facilities and infrastructure with their cities’ growth upon which to base their decisions. To explore what overall characteristics of cities of U.S. metropolitan regions affect the adoption of impact fees, a research design is developed that randomly select 276 cities out of 827 cities having population exceeding 25,000 in the 97 Metropolitan Statistical Areas having populations exceeding 500,000 from the total 361 Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Empirical evidence should indicate that impact fee adoption relates to forms of local government, geo-demographic characteristics, local financial and unemployed conditions. Binary logistic regression is employed to provide information for local governments to seek or create their own fiscal policies to finance public facilities and infrastructure. The forms of local government are not statistically significant to the adoption of impact fees; however, the geo-demography of cities and local financial and unemployed conditions are important to explain impact fee adoptions. These findings have inspired additional research to examine the relationship between local economic growth and the adoption of impact fees.

Abstract

This research examines what characteristics of cities affect impact fee decisions by local governments within metropolitan regions using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. More and more cities are adopting different types of impact fees for financing public facilities and infrastructure with their cities’ growth upon which to base their decisions. To explore what overall characteristics of cities of U.S. metropolitan regions affect the adoption of impact fees, a research design is developed that randomly select 276 cities out of 827 cities having population exceeding 25,000 in the 97 Metropolitan Statistical Areas having populations exceeding 500,000 from the total 361 Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Empirical evidence should indicate that impact fee adoption relates to forms of local government, geo-demographic characteristics, local financial and unemployed conditions. Binary logistic regression is employed to provide information for local governments to seek or create their own fiscal policies to finance public facilities and infrastructure. The forms of local government are not statistically significant to the adoption of impact fees; however, the geo-demography of cities and local financial and unemployed conditions are important to explain impact fee adoptions. These findings have inspired additional research to examine the relationship between local economic growth and the adoption of impact fees.

참고문헌 (58)

  1. 이영성, "사회간접자본 확충을 위한 지방정부의 재정수단선택과 지역경제 효율성에 관한 실증연구", 국토계획, 39(4), pp.105~118 (2004), 대한국토·도시계획학회
  2. 이영성, "기반시설부담금 제도가 주택공급과 주택가격에 미치는 장기적인 영향에 관한 연구- 미국의 개발영향부담금(Development Impact Fee)을 사례로-", 국토계획, 40(5), pp.59~73 (2005), 대한국토·도시계획학회
  3. 이영성, "기반시설 확충을 위한 부담금의 문제점과 개선방향에 관한 연구", 부동산학보, (31), pp.265~279 (2007), 한국부동산학회
  4. Anas, A, "The costs and benefits of fragmented governance and the new regionalists policies", Planning and Markets, 2(1), pp.1~14 (1999)
  5. Barnett, J, "The Fractured Metropolis: Improving the New City, Restoring the Old City, Reshaping the Region" (1995), Harper Collins
  6. Banoventz, J. M, "City Managers: Will they reject policy leadership?", Public Productivity and Management Review, 18(4), pp.313~324 (1994)
  7. Berry, F. S, "Innovation and diffusion models in policy research in Theories of the policy process", pp.169~200 (1999), Westview Press
  8. Blair, J, "Local Economic Development: Analysis and Practice" (1995), SAGE Publications, Inc
  9. Blewett, R. A, "A public choice and efficiency argument for development impact fees, Development Impact Fees in Development Impact Fees: Policy rationale, practice, theory, and issues", pp.281~289 (1988), Planners Press
  10. Boyne, G, "Public Choice theory and local government: A comparative analysis of the UK and the USA" (1998), St. Martin's
  11. Briffault, R, "Localism and Regionalism", Buffalo Law Review, 48(1), pp.1~36 (2000)
  12. Brueckner, J. K, "Infrastructure financing and urban development", Journal of Public Economics, 66(3), pp.383~407 (1997)
  13. Burchell, R. W, "Sprawl Costs" (2005), IslandPress
  14. Development impact fees: A primer, department of agricultural, environmental, and development economics, "Carrion, C", Ohio State University, ~, pp.Working Paper-AEDE-WP-0022-01 (2004)
  15. Ciscel, D, "The economics of urban sprawl: Inefficiency as a core feature of metropolitan growth", Journal of Economic Issues, 35(2), pp.405~413 (2001)
  16. DeSantis, V. S, "County government in Model government charters: A city, county, and regional, state, and federal handbook", pp.53~68 (2003), McFarland and Company, Inc.
  17. Dresch, M, "Who Pays for Development Fees and Exactions?" (1997), Public Policy Institute of California
  18. Evans, J. S, "Evaluating the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness of development impact fees", 박사, pp.2000
  19. Fahy, C, "The choice of local government structure in Massachusetts:A Historical Public Choice Perspective", Social Science Quarterly, 79(2), pp.433~444 (1998)
  20. Feiock, Richard C, "County Government Institutions and Local Land Use Regulation" (2002), Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
  21. Frant, H, "High-power and low-power incentives in the public sector", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(3), pp.365~381 (1996)
  22. Frank, J, "Patterns of impact fee use in Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues", pp.3~21 (1988), American Planning Association
  23. Galardi, D, "Development Fee Trends and Tucson Case Study" (2003), Galardi Consulting, LLC.
  24. Texas development impact fees, Real Estate Center Technical Report, "Gilliland, C. E", Texas A and M University, ~ (1992)
  25. Hildreth, W. B, "Financial management: A balancing act for local government chief financial officers", Public Administration Quarterly, 20(3), pp.320~333 (1996)
  26. Heine, K, "Policy advice as an investment problem", Kyklos, 57(3), pp.303~326 (2004)
  27. Ihlanfeldt, K. R, "An empirical investigation of the effects of impact fees on housing and land markets", Regional Science and Urban Economic, 34(6), pp.639~661 (2004)
  28. Jones, B. D, "Governing Urban America: A Policy Focus" (1983), Little, Brown and Company
  29. Jeong, M, "Local land use choice: An empirical investigation of development impact fees in Florida", 박사, pp.2004
  30. Jeong, M, "Impact fees,growth management,and development:A contractual approach to local policy and governance", Urban Affairs Review, 41(6), pp.749~768 (2006)
  31. Jones, B. D, "Governing Urban America: A Policy Focus" (1983), Little, Brown and Company
  32. Kolo, J, "Practical issues in adopting local impact fees", State and Local Governmnet Review, 25(3), pp.197~206 (1993)
  33. Ladd,H.F, "Fiscal impacts of local population growth:a conceptual and empirical analysis", Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24(6), pp.661~686 (1994)
  34. Leithe. L, "Impact Fee Programs: A survey of design and administrative issues" (1990), Government Finance Research Center of the Government Finance Officers Association
  35. Levy, J. M, "Contemporary Urban Planning" (2006), Pearson Prentice Hall
  36. Listokin, R, "Impact fees: A fairshare framework in Financing Growth: Who Benefits? Who Pays? And How Much?" (1990), Government Finance Officers Association
  37. Margulis,H.L, "Household mobility,housing traits,public goods,and school qualities in Clevenland's Metropolitan Statistical Area", Urban Affairs Review, 36(5), pp.461~477 (2001)
  38. Morgan, D. R, "Managing Urban America, Fifth Edition" (1999), Chatham House Publishers
  39. Mullen, C., "2005 National Impact Fee Survey" (2005), Duncan Associates
  40. Paying for Property: Impact fees and Job Growth, "Nelson, A", The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, ~ (2003)
  41. The Calculation of Proportionate-Share Impact Fees, "Nicholas, J", American Planning Association, ~, pp.PAS Report No. 408 (1988)
  42. Nicholas, J, "Practitioner’'s Guide to Development Impact Fees" (1991), American Planning Association
  43. Nicholas, J, "Determining the appropriate impact fees using the rational nexus test", Journal of the American Planning Association, 54(1), pp.54~66 (1988)
  44. Ostrom,V, "Public choice theory:a new approach to institutional economics", American Journal of Agricultural Economic, 57(5), pp.844~850 (1975)
  45. Pagano,M.A, "Municipal capital spending during the ‘boom’", Public Budgeting and Finance, 22(2), pp.1~20 (2002)
  46. Park, Chi-Hyoung, "Planning for growth in cities and metropolitan region: An empirical study of impact fees and choice", 박사, pp.2008
  47. Frostbelt Public Policies and Market Forces in Metropolitan Development, "Sunbelt", pp.2005, Pack, J. R
  48. Parks, R, "Comparative metropolitan organization: Service production and governance structure in St. Louis and Allegheny County", Publius, 23(1), pp.19~39 (1993)
  49. Peiser, B. R, "Professional Real Estate Development" (1992), ULI
  50. Pinch, P, "Public sector restructuring and regional development", Regional Studies, 34(3), pp.267~275 (2000)
  51. Rosenberg, N, "Development Impact Fees:Is Limited Cost Internalization Actually Smart Growth", Boston College Environmental Affair Law Review, 30(64), pp.641~688 (2002)
  52. Svara,J.H, "The shifting boundary between elected officials and city managers in large council-manager cities", Public Administration Review, 59(1), pp.44~53 (1999)
  53. Simmonds,K, "Impact Fees:A Method of Paying for Growth in Florida", International Journal of Public Sector Management, 6(3), pp.3~16 (1993)
  54. Taylor, L, "The Race to Build: Infrastructure Competition among Communities", Economic Development Quarterl, 5(1), pp.60~63 (1991)
  55. Tiebout,C, "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures", Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), pp.416~424 (1956)
  56. U.S. Census Bureau, "Population Profile of the United States: 2000", ~ (2000)
  57. Warner, M, "Applying market solutions to public services:An assessment of efficiency,equity,and voice", Urban Affairs Review, 38(1), pp.70~89 (2002)
  58. Yinger,J, "The incidence of development impact fees and special assessment", Natioal Tax Journal, 51(1), pp.23~41 (1998)

관련 논문AI추천

Socioeconomic Factors and Development Impact Fees이정호한국공공관리학회 · 한국공공관리학보2018 · 제32권 제3호미국 메트로폴리탄 도시의 주택특성이 개발영향부담금 정책채택에 미치는 영향박치형(재) 한국지방행정연구원 · 지방행정연구2008 · 제22권 제4호Theoretical Reflections on New Urban Development, Financing Urban Public Facilities, and Impact Fees류연택한국도시지리학회 · 한국도시지리학회지2015 · 제18권 제3호Determinants for Local Development Impact Fees: Creating a new hypothesis based on Tiebout theory이정호국가정책연구소 · 국가정책연구2018 · 제32권 제3호Theoretical Reflections on the Calculation of Development Impact Fees류연택한국경제지리학회 · 한국경제지리학회지2023 · 제26권 제1호Factor Affecting The Adoption of Tax Incentive Programs Related to Economic Development : The Case of Florida Counties박상철, 윤태섭, 이건형(재) 한국지방행정연구원 · 지방행정연구2012 · 제26권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)

오피스 투자 행태의 시공간적 특성에 관한 연구 - 투자 결정요인과 자본수익률을 중심으로 -이상경pp. 47-59구조방정식을 이용한 서울시 권역별 주상복합아파트 실거래가영향요인 및 인과구조 분석김태호, 정형철, 오병호pp. 61-74풍수의 물흐름에 따른 주택가격의 결정 - 한강의 궁수 및 반궁수 입지를 중심으로-천인호pp. 75-87주요국의 부동산가격 급등현상과 정책대응 비교 연구 - 영국, 호주, 미국, 일본, 중국, 한국을 사례로 -김홍주, 지규현, 손정원, 김진우, 박준pp. 89-103택지개발사업지구 입주인구의 내부유입률 추정 연구김태균, 최대식pp. 105-119
원문 보기