Search

American cities vary considerably in the degree to which they pursue sustainability. What explains this variation? One plausible cause of such differences is that sustainability may be more appealing to high-income cities than to more economically challenged cities. Yet such strict economic determinism seems simplistic and removes politics from an inherently political process. The hypothesis here is that any such relationship between income and commitment to sustainability is conditioned by a city's level of environmental advocacy. The data utilized in this analysis are derived from two large-scale data sources. One is a comprehensive inventory of sustainability programs and policies in 50 large American cities. The other is a set of surveys in those same 50 cities. The multivariate model supports the hypothesis. Controlling for income growth and the predisposition of policymakers to be supportive of sustainability (as well as other alternative explanations), a city's commitment to sustainability is strongly linked to the advocacy of environmental and sustainability groups in the policymaking process. The example of Sustainable Seattle is used to illustrate the linkages that would seem to underlie the statistical analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To what extent do local administrators include business interests in their informal bargaining and negotiation on issues involving economic development and environmental and sustainability policies? In the absence of previous studies, we extend political market theory to decisions involving administrative officials by investigating differences across city agencies in the extent they provide business organizations access to the policy development processes. A multilevel analysis is applied to a unique set of survey responses from 413 local government administrators in 50 of the 54 largest U.S. cities. These design and data innovations provide new insights into local administrators’ willingness to grant access to economic development interests. Within individual cities, we account for differences in agency mission and administrators’ personal positions and experiences. Across cities, we account comparatively for variations in government size, demographic characteristics, ideology, and growth patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]