Quality of Life Amenities as Contributors to Local Economies: Views of City Managers

Abstract

Is the level of importance attached to quality of life amenities, such as parks and restaurants, influenced by the objectives of the economic development strategy developed by city leaders? This research question drives the analysis presented in this article. We consider municipal leaders’ views of community amenities and how these opinions are influenced by the desire to either create jobs for community residents or generate greater municipal revenue. We evaluate the expectation that the need to generate city revenue will exert the greatest influence on the perceived importance of community amenities. Findings are generated using original survey data from city managers of 133 Texas cities. The results confirm expectations that city managers view quality of life amenities as more efficacious in contributing to revenue generation than job creation. The impact of these findings for the understanding of how city managers promote certain economic development strategies is discussed.

Full text

QUALITY OF LIFE AMENITIES AS CONTRIBUTORS TO
LOCAL ECONOMIES: VIEWS OF CITY MANAGERS
JAMES M. VANDERLEEUW
Lamar University
JASON C. SIDES
Southeast Missouri State University
ABSTRACT: Is the level of importance attached to quality of life amenities, such as parks and
restaurants, influenced by the objectives of the economic development strategy developed by city leaders?
This research question drives the analysis presented in this article. We consider municipal leaders’ views
of community amenities and how these opinions are influenced by the desire to either create jobs for
community residents or generate greater municipal revenue. We evaluate the expectation that the need
to generate city revenue will exert the greatest influence on the perceived importance of community
amenities. Findings are generated using original survey data from city managers of 133 Texas cities.
The results confirm expectations that city managers view quality of life amenities as more efficacious in
contributing to revenue generation than job creation. The impact of these findings for the understanding
of how city managers promote certain economic development strategies is discussed.
Awealth of literature indicates that economic development is a key activity of city leaders in the
United States. Add to this a growing body of urban literature that points to the potential economic
benefits of quality of life amenities and one result is an area of inquiry that concerns how city leaders
view community amenities. Do they view amenities as potential contributors to a local economy?
And if so, are there specific conditions under which amenities are primarily viewed as economic
development tools?
The present study is guided by the following question: Does the importance accorded to quality of
life amenities, such as parks and recreational services, as part of the economic development strategy
by city leaders depend upon specific economic objectives? We examine two objectives fundamental
to economic development: the need to create jobs for city residents, and the need to generate city
revenue. The answers have implications for our understanding of how city leaders make economic
development decisions. How they view the role of amenities in economic development is important
because practitioners are the ones who make the decisions that impact communities. Do city leaders
view amenities as an economic development tool across the board, or do they distinguish between
specific amenities where the importance attached to any given amenity depends upon the specific
economic objective? By addressing these issues, the present study will contribute to the ongoing
discussion about the role of amenities in local economic development.
Direct correspondence to: James M. Vanderleeuw, Department of Political Science, Campus Box 10030, Lamar University,
Beaumont, TX 77710. E-mail: james.vanderleeuw@lamar.edu.
JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Volume 38, Number 5, pages 661–675.
Copyright C
2016 Urban Affairs Association
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0735-2166. DOI: 10.1111/juaf.12277

662 I
IJOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I
IVol. 38/No. 5/2016
COMMUNITY AMENITIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
In recent decades, the potential positive impact of quality of life amenities such as the arts, culture,
entertainment, schools, parks, and recreation on local economies has garnered significant attention
from urban scholars (see, e.g., Clark, Lloyd, Wong, & Jain, 2002; Morgan, 2010; Reichl, 1997;
Strom, 2002; Whitt & Lammers, 1991). Two linked themes provide a conceptual foundation for the
inclusion of amenities in economic development strategy. The first of these posits an organic process
by which a modern public comes to value quality of life amenities. The second argues for the strategic
use of citizen preference for amenities to attract desired industry. These are the postmaterialist and
creative class theses.
In The Silent Revolution (1977), Ronald Inglehart theorized that growing economic prosperity in
Western society after World War II shifted public attention away from economic-centered values
toward values that promote lifestyle and quality of life concerns (also see Camobreco & Barnello,
2003; Carmines & Layman, 1997; Inglehart & Abramson, 1999; Moors, 2003). Although originally
conceptualized with economic prosperity as the driving factor, evidence also indicates a relationship
between post-materialism and education. Duch and Taylor (1993), for example, found that higher
education increased citizen preference for postmaterialist national policy goals. Further, while the
initial focus was on the societal level, the postmaterialist thesis has been applied to the local level.
Studies have documented the influence of cultural issues in local politics (Sharp, 1999). Highly
educated citizens exhibit an attraction for community environments that offer numerous natural as
well as manmade amenities (Carlino & Saiz, 2008). Moreover, the postmaterialist thesis can account
for variation in the types of problems local leaders see as confronting their community (Liu &
Vanderleeuw, 2003).
The result of increased prosperity and educational level is that a modern public wants both
economic growth and quality of life, not a trade-off between the two. Regarding the modern public’s
attachment to quality of life amenities, Dillon and Young (2011) provide evidence that residents in a
community that undergoes a decline in amenities are particularly pessimistic and hostile toward local
leadership. In a similar vein, Lubell, Feiock, and de la Cruz argue that “as growth pressures intensify,
many citizens will begin to demand growth management in order to preserve community resources”
(2009, p. 650). Public preferences can influence economic development efforts via the political and
electoral considerations of city leader. There are decided electoral rewards from economic growth
(see, e.g., Feiock & Kim, 2001; Feiock, Park, Steinacker, & Kim, 2005; Turner, 1999).
Flowing logically from the idea that a modern public values both a high quality of life and
economic prosperity is the creative class thesis. For postmaterialism, economic prosperity yields a
change in values that promote a preference for quality of life amenities. With this new value system
established, the creative class thesis posits that community amenities can be used as a magnet for
preferred populations.
In The Rise of the Creative Class (2002), Richard Florida argued that by directing local eco-
nomic development toward education and research and development, and by providing appropriate
amenities, cities can enlarge their creative class. This highly coveted creative class is comprised of
professionally talented and technologically savvy individuals who are tolerant of social diversity.
The three Ts—talent, tolerance, and technology—will lead to greater economic growth by attract-
ing desired high-tech industry. While not directly supporting the creative class thesis, Lloyd and
Clark’s (2000) discussion of the attractiveness of Chicago to young urban professionals embodied
the type of consumption-oriented amenities that would appeal to Florida’s creative class. According
to Lloyd and Clark, young urban professionals “are excited by opportunities for recreation, like along
Chicago’s refurbished north shore lakefront, with its bicycle paths, beaches, and softball fields; and
by opportunities for up-to-the-minute consumption in hip restaurants, bars, shops and boutiques”
(2000, p. 9).
Clark (2011) argues that culture within cities is evolving to reflect an emerging emphasis on
consumption and amenities. Residents’ enjoyment of these often converges with other community
characteristics to attract successful and gifted individuals. The presence of amenities is anticipated to
promote city culture that is memorable because it is linked to a contextualized “scene” that represents

I
IQuality of Life Amenities as Contributors to Local Economies I
I663
the particular city (Clark, 2007). When this image draws upon the natural and manmade advantages
possessed by the city, residents have an opportunity to access amenities in a meaningful manner that
reflects the city’s character. When this is achieved, the creative class will find such a city an attractive
place to locate.
Numerous cities have engaged in efforts to attract the creative class. For example, Austin markets
the unique lifestyle the city provides central Texas. In the past, city leaders had undertaken efforts
to attract firms in the computer, movie, gaming, and music industries, and more recently the city
has stressed an environment offering attractions such as entertainment performances, cultural events,
and numerous community festivals (TXP, Inc., 2012). Similarly, Milwaukee has hosted efforts to
rebrand the city as a source of cultural life in the upper Midwest (Zimmerman, 2008). City leaders
in Paducah, Kentucky, worked to establish a neighborhood targeting artists; in Roanoke, Virginia,
leaders supported the construction of an art museum (Know & Mayer, 2013). As Clark (2007) notes,
Chicago undertook an effort to quickly inject greater creative life into the city as a way to mitigate
its industrial image. Amenities and lifestyle may attract not only creative individuals, but businesses
as well. In the process of locating their activities, businesses gravitate toward communities rich in
quality of life amenities (Salvensen & Renski, 2003). Amenities such as a high-quality environment,
scenic beauty, and recreational opportunities can be determinants of business decisions to locate
in rural communities (Johnson & Rasker, 1995), and the success of small and start-up businesses
depends upon government investment in quality of life improvements (Edmiston, 2007).
Although our purpose in this article is not to assess the effectiveness of creative class policy, we
note some prominent criticisms because of their relevance to our study. While development policy
that implements creative class ideas can produce positive results, such as an improved physical
environment, benefits may in some cases disproportionately accrue to vested development interest
groups such as politicians, real estate developers, and drivers of downtown development, as seen in
Milwaukee and Baltimore (Ponzini & Rossi, 2010; Zimmerman, 2008). There is also a question about
the association between economic growth and the presence of a creative class—an association that
may not exist apart from human and social capital components (Hoyman & Faricy, 2008). Florida’s
thesis borrows elements from human capital theory, which states that investment in education and
training are essential conditions for a good economy. There is evidence that local leaders have come
to view the education and health of a workforce as fundamental prerequisites for the development of
an economy (Cypher & Dietz, 2007). The creative class, however, is distinct from the human capital
elements of Florida’s overall argument.
This said, basic concepts underlying the creative class thesis have received some support. Decades
ago Romer (1990) argued that innovation was the key to economic success. More recently, Knudsen,
Florida. Stolarick, and Gates (2008) found that the geographic density of creative workers promotes
innovation. Further, Peck (2005), though not a creative class proponent, found that city leaders often
do look to the more creative elements of their city’s population to help stimulate economic growth.
While not prepared to enter into the debate about the effectiveness of creative class–derived policy,
we note that the debate exists because, as discussed above, the creative class thesis has been widely
disseminated and arguably has an allure for city leaders looking to revitalize their economies and
further their careers. Therefore, to the extent that policy based on the creative class thesis may
not produce, or only inconsistently produce, the advertised benefits, it is important to ascertain
how widespread the acceptance by city leaders is of a key thesis element—the public provision of
community amenities as a viable economic development tool. From both the postmaterialist and
creative class theses we derive implications for local decision makers. A clear implication is that
local leaders should place an emphasis on providing quality of life amenities. From a postmaterialist
perspective, amenities are what a modern public demands. From a creative class perspective, amenities
play a crucial strategic role in guiding a local economy in a favorable direction. Local economic
development strategy, accordingly, must involve community quality of life amenities. As Kahsai,
Gebremedhin, and Schaffer (2011) note, quality of life factors motivate individuals to make choices
regarding where they will reside. Therefore, to pursue development without considering the role of
amenities overlooks a crucial facet of how residents make location decisions. From the perspective

664 I
IJOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I
IVol. 38/No. 5/2016
of both theses, community decision makers are driven by the need to provide the modern public, or
some significant portion thereof, the amenities it has come to expect from community life.
AMENITIES, JOBS, AND REVENUE: HYPOTHESIS
That economic growth in the United States falls to local leadership has become increasingly
obvious as government budgets at virtually all levels have been reduced, services scaled back or
eliminated, and public employees laid off as a result of the Great Recession. One does not have to
accept Paul Peterson’s thesis, in City Limits (1981), of economic growth as the single overriding
and unifying challenge for city leaders to recognize that economic considerations constitute a key
function of city decision makers in the United States. A wealth of literature indicates that local
economic development policy has been and continues to be a major activity of city leaders (for a
sampling of this literature, see Kerstein, 1993; Leo, Beavis, Carver, & Turner, 1998; Reese, 2006;
Reese & Sands, 2007; Rigos & Paulson, 1996; Ross & Levine, 2001).
Two fundamental objectives of economic development strategy are the creation of jobs for city
residents and the generation of city revenue. We acknowledge that these are not the only possible
desired outcomes. For example, cities that have adopted linkage policy, such as Boston and Seattle,
demonstrate that economic equity can be a desired outcome, as can economic diversification, whereas
Detroit acts as an infamous warning of the dangers of overreliance on a single industry. Our focus
on job creation and revenue generation is driven by the idea that, whatever else may be desired,
the economic well-being of a community relies on citizens having jobs and on revenue sufficient to
provide services. To this extent, these economic outcomes are fundamental.
To contribute to the literature on how local leaders make decisions regarding economic development
strategy, it is important to understand what it is these leaders consider important when making
decisions. Modeling the choices confronting city leaders when they pursue development opportunities
is complex. Successfully attracting new businesses to one’s city requires coordinated actions across
many communities and levels of government because these decisions impact so many stakeholders.
Complicating these efforts is that many of the tools used to attract business opportunities also have
secondary impacts that spill over to the pursuit of other policy goals. Further, while communities
require jobs and revenue, some communities may actively address one or the other as the more
immediate objective. Leaders of a metropolitan area principal city, for instance, may hold a regional
view and be particularly concerned with job creation, for both city residents as well as for residents
of surrounding communities. Conversely, the residents and leaders of a small bedroom community
may not want job growth because of adverse side-effects of such growth, but may still desire revenue
generation to provide expected services.
We hypothesize that community amenities will be part of an economic development strategy when
revenue is most desired. This is consistent with both the creative class and postmaterialist theses that
posit the provision of community amenities as a pronounced preference of certain populations. The
provision of amenities requires revenue. In addition, there is the likelihood that through an isomorphic
process, scholars transmit to local practitioners the idea that quality of life amenities should be part
of an economic development strategy (for a general discussion of this process, see, e.g., DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983). This transmission of new perspectives can occur through professional meetings and
publications that provide a bridge between scholar and practitioner, as well as via graduate programs.
Perspectives such as the creative class thesis promoted by prominent scholars can be disseminated
and become a field standard for practitioners. Again, amenities require revenue.
DATA AND METHODS
The Setting: Texas
Our study is based on a survey of city managers in Texas. To assist with the generalizability of
findings, it is instructive to speak about the small government, pro-business orientation toward gover-
nance in Texas. The state’s constitution, the Constitution of 1876, is an antigovernment document that

I
IQuality of Life Amenities as Contributors to Local Economies I
I665
restricts governing authority. For example, most top state executive positions, such as comptroller
of public account, land commissioner, and agricultural commissioner, along with the state judiciary,
are decided by popular election. There is also limited gubernatorial power to formulate the state’s
budget, as the budget is drawn up by the Legislative Budget Board. As such, the formal powers of
the governor of Texas are among the weakest among U.S. state governors. Restricted government
authority is accompanied by a business-friendly environment. In 2014, for example, Chief Executive
ranked Texas the top state for business, based on a survey of CEOs. This was the tenth year running
that Texas won this honor.
Municipal government in Texas replicates the state’s system of restricted government authority
and pro-business environment. Mayoral power tends to be limited, and cities that use a mayor-council
system typically employ the weak-mayor variant, with Houston being the one major city to use the
strong mayor system. In keeping with the state’s minimal government and pro-business orientation,
reformed arrangements are widely used. Many cities use a city manager and have a small, four-to-
seven member, part-time council with a part-time mayor. The tendency of cities in Texas to employ
reformed municipal arrangements is compatible with a pro-business orientation in that, historically
in the United States, business leaders have promoted municipal reform in order to encourage, among
other things, cost efficiency.
To place the previous descriptive information into a conceptual framework, we borrow from Reese
and Rosenfeld’s (2008) application of civic culture to local economic development. Our prior research
involves numerous surveys of and extensive interaction with various local officeholders in Texas,
and indicates that communities in Texas represent either a market culture, where decision making
reflects local business interests but does not emphasize planning, or a combination of market culture
and individualistic culture, where decision making is influenced by a particular leader in a relatively
closed network.
To further assist with understanding how cities in Texas compare with cities in other areas, and
to counter stereotyping of Texas as a land of cattle rustlers and oil tycoons, we note that Texas is a
populous, urban state with an ethnically diverse population. According to the 2010 census, 84.7%
of the state’s population resides in urban areas, a figure slightly above the national rate of 80.7%.
Texas encompasses 25 metropolitan areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget and is
home to some of the largest cities in the United States, including Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth,
Houston, and San Antonio. With a population of 26,448,193 (2013 Census estimate), Texas is the
second most populous state, behind California. The state’s varied population is 38.4% Latino, 12.4%
African American, and 4.3% Asian (2013 Census estimates).
City Managers in Texas
Findings are from a 2011 survey of city managers. The survey’s focus was city economic develop-
ment priorities and activities. Surveys were mailed to managers in home-rule cities. Cities in Texas
operate under either a general-rule or a home-rule charter. We surveyed home-rule cities because
this sets a population floor. The constitutional requirement for attaining home-rule status in Texas
is that a city has a population of more than 5,000 (Article XI of the Texas Constitution). Below this
population threshold, cities likely lack resources to influence their economic situation. There were
319 home-rule cities that had a manager in 2011, according to the Texas Municipal League Online
Directory (as of August, 2011). Of these, 133 returned our survey, for a response rate of 47.5%.
The number of cases reported in our statistical results, however, varies slightly due to incomplete
responses on some questions. We chose to survey city managers for two reasons. First, they are
positioned to have knowledge of, if not substantial experience in, their city’s economic development
efforts. Prior investigation indicates that city managers do more than carry out policy formulated
by councils (Blodgett, 1998); they also engage in policy formulation (Selden, Brewer, & Brudney,
1999; Zhang & Feiock, 2009). Institutionally, a policymaking role tends to fall to the city manager
when the council and mayor are part-time, as is the case with council-manager cities in Texas. Our
survey results confirm the presence of a substantial policy role for city managers, particularly in the
area of economic development. Fifty-eight percent of surveyed managers reported spending some to

666 I
IJOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I
IVol. 38/No. 5/2016
most of their time on economic development, and 47% reported that they took the lead on economic
development policy making in their cities.
The second reason we surveyed city managers is that they are in a unique position among city
leaders to bridge the gap between elected and administrative city officials and the public. Managers
reflect the views of city councils because councils serve as the hiring agent. At the same time,
managers have the opportunity to regularly bring to the council’s attention the concerns of other
city administration officials. Further, managers interact with community members. Surveyed city
managers, for example, reported spending 22% of their workweek meeting with citizens on issues
of community concern. Therefore, the views of managers potentially reflect an array of political and
community actors.
At this juncture, it is relevant to note that numerous cities in Texas have established an economic
development corporation (EDC) that uses a portion of local sales tax specifically for economic
development activities. These entities can impact local economic development decisions. However,
city-level EDCs in Texas are neither fully independent of City Hall nor insulated from political
factors. Governing board members are chosen by the city council and council members can sit on the
board. Moreover, it is not uncommon for a city manager to act as the board-selected executive director
(for a full discussion of city EDCs in Texas, see Jarmon, Vanderleeuw, Pennington, & Sowers, 2012).
Again, city managers in Texas are positioned to have knowledge of city economic development.
Model of the Importance of Amenities in Economic Development
Our analysis is based on responses to survey questions that asked about the overall level of
importance of economic development efforts to the city, along with the importance of a series of
economic development considerations and seven of quality of life amenities. To gauge the overall
level of importance of economic development efforts, we first asked the following question: How
important are economic development efforts for your city? For this question, and for the response
items for two further questions (see below), managers were asked to use a scale from 1 to 7.
Three of the response values were labeled: 1 equaled unimportant, 4 equaled neither important nor
unimportant, and 7 equaled important; values 2, 3, 5, and 6 were unlabeled.
To ascertain the importance of specific economic development considerations, we asked the
following question: In order to determine how your city responds to economic development proposals
and/or seeks new development, how important is each of the following considerations? The response
items for this question used in our analysis were (1) generation of additional revenue for your city,
(2) creation of jobs for your city’s residents, (3) impact on the environment, and (4) cost of providing
additional municipal services.
To determine the importance attached to specific community amenities, we asked the following
question: How important to the success of your community’s economic development efforts are
the following? There were seven response items to this question: (1) opportunities for shopping;
(2) cultural aspects such as museums, theaters, and historic sites; (3) opportunities for outdoor
enjoyment, such as bicycle paths or riverfront walk ways; (4) restaurants and clubs; (5) community
aesthetics and amenities such as parks and recreational facilities; (6) modern/updated public schools;
and (7) attracting/keeping younger residents. Collectively, these seven amenities reflect two broad
orientations towards the provision of amenities to facilitate economic development. The first reflects
a consumption orientation attractive to young urban professionals (e.g., shopping opportunities and
restaurants and clubs); the second reflects a family orientation (e.g., modern schools). To validate
this classification and to aid in the allocation of amenity variables to each we ran a factor analysis.
We recognize other approaches to categorizing quality of life amenities exist, such as those involving
residents’ reported levels of community happiness (Ballas, 2013). We conducted a factor analysis to
confirm that the adopted approach in this project was supported by evidence collected among actual
city managers.
Factor analysis supports the consumption-orientation and family-orientation distinction. We inter-
pret the fact that all amenities were positively associated with the first factor as confirmation that our
amenity variables measure quality of life considerations. On the first factor, the values for cultural

I
IQuality of Life Amenities as Contributors to Local Economies I
I667
venues, shopping opportunities, restaurants and clubs, outdoor activities, and community aesthetics
ranged from .748 to .799; the values for younger residents and modern schools were .688 and .508,
respectively. On the second factor, shopping opportunities (−.474), cultural venues (−.257), restau-
rants and clubs (−.368), and outdoor activities (−.097) had a negative value, whereas community
aesthetics (.395), modern schools (.666), and younger residents (.416) had a positive value. We inter-
pret this as confirming our twofold classification. The four amenities with a negative value measure
consumption-oriented activities; the three with a positive value measure family-oriented concerns.
In the following section, we report results of both descriptive and multivariate analyses. The
multivariate analysis was based on ordinal regression, appropriate when estimating models featuring
limited dependent variables, such as those in the present analysis whose potential values range from 1
to 7. We used the SPSS 22 ordinal logit regression procedure (SPSS PLUM). The multivariate analysis
reports results of eight models. In the first model, the importance accorded economic development
serves as the dependent variable. In the remaining models, each quality of life amenity serves as a
distinct dependent variable. Although the consumption-oriented and family-oriented categories help
conceptualize how these amenities may be considered important, for analytic purposes aggregation
into two categories would mask any absence of a statistical association between a given amenity and
a given economic objective.
In addition to the importance city managers gave to revenue generation and to job creation,
our predictor variables of key interest, each model accounts for the potential influence of two
considerations to which city leaders will give attention when they make decisions on economic
development proposals—the cost of providing additional municipal services, and the project’s impact
on the environment. Economic development efforts can produce indirect costs due to the need for
additional city services. Efforts to create nightlife activities, for example, can necessitate increased
police protection. Economic development efforts can also have an adverse environmental impact. An
emphasis on increased retail, for instance, means increased traffic and pollution. The 7-point scale
discussed above was used for these two survey items; the mean for cost was 5.64 (N=132) and for
environmental impact, 5.10 (N=131) (the mean score for the quality of life items is presented in
the following section).
Further, models account for city socioeconomic conditions. As noted, both the creative class
and postmaterialist theses posit citizen education level and/or wealth as drivers of preference for
amenities. In addition, city population size might influence views on amenities. In many larger
cities, downtown areas have become centers for finance, services, and entertainment, and some
have become locations for real estate offices, nonprofits, and educational institutions (Strom, 2002).
Therefore, leaders in large cities may view their city as the regional provider of plentiful shopping
and cultural opportunities. Leaders of suburban communities also may have distinct development
preferences. Suburban dwellers often look for enhanced community amenities. For example, due to
suburbanites’ desires for retail and entertainment facilities there has been an increase in efforts to
attract entertainment amenities (Kunstler, 1998) along with movement of retailing to the suburbs
(Teaford, 2006).
To measure city socioeconomic conditions, models include 2010 census figures for city population,
city education level (percent of the population aged 25 and above with a bachelor’s degree), percent
civilian unemployment, and suburban status. Seventy-four surveyed managers were from census-
designated suburbs, coded 1 if suburb and 0 if non-suburb. Population ranged from 5,053 to 1,166,063
(mean =51,780, SD =136,063), civilian unemployment ranges from 1.5% to 15.4% (mean =7.3%,
SD =2.5%), percentage with a bachelor’s degree ranged from 3.4% to 77.4% (mean =24.0%,
SD =14.5%), and per capita income ranged from $8,709 to $76,351 (mean =$24,778, SD =
$10,876). Surveyed managers worked in cities socioeconomically reflective of the 319 home-rule
cities with a manager in 2011. The mean for all such cities was 52,108 for population, 7.5% for
unemployment, 22.9% for bachelor’s degree, and $23,913 for per capita income.
We checked for multicollinearity among model predictor variables and found no cause for concern.
All tolerance values were at or above .620; all variance inflation factor values were at or below 1.613.

668 I
IJOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I
IVol. 38/No. 5/2016
FINDINGS
Economic Development, Amenities, and Economic Objectives
Mean scores for the economic development items show the importance of economic development
and variation in importance among quality of life amenities. The score of 6.53 (N=118) for
the importance of economic development efforts indicates that city managers consider such efforts
important to their cities. The scores for revenue generation, 6.23 (N=132), and job creation, 6.21
(N=132) signify that these economic outcomes are also considered to be important when a city
responds to an economic development proposal. Mean scores for the seven quality of life amenities
indicate some variability about what is considered important. The need for modern and updated
public schools is considered the most important to economic development success (6.09, N=133),
followed by community aesthetics (5.89, N=133), shopping opportunities (5.65, N=133), younger
residents (5.59, N=133), restaurants and clubs (5.45, N=132), outdoor activities (5.30, N=133),
and cultural aspects (4.57, N=132).
Table 1 displays results of the multivariate analysis. As reported in Equation 1, the likelihood
that economic development is considered important to the city increases as the importance given
to revenue generation and job creation increases. This supports the idea that city managers view
economic development in terms of city revenue and jobs. As reported in Equations 2 through 8,
amenities are viewed as generating city revenue more than as creating jobs. Five of the seven
amenities, the four consumption-oriented dependent variables and one family-oriented dependent
variable, are positively and reliably associated with revenue. The likelihood that restaurants and clubs,
shopping opportunities, cultural venues, outdoor activities, and retaining younger residents will be
considered important increases as the importance of generating city revenue increases (Equations
2 through 6). The sole amenity associated with job creation is restaurants and clubs (Equation 2).
Neither schools nor community aesthetics are reliably associated with revenue or jobs (Equations 7
and 8).
Several control variables influence managers’ views on amenities. As citizen education level
increases, the importance given community aesthetics, restaurants and clubs, and outdoor activities
also increases. As the importance given to the cost of additional municipal services increases, so
does the importance accorded each of the three family-oriented amenities. Finally, managers in more
populous cities and in non-suburban cities (principal cities and non-metropolitan communities) give
more importance to cultural venues.
We also tested models with per capita income. Because this economic measure was highly cor-
related with percent bachelor’s degree (r=.819), we ran models that replaced education level with
per capita income. There were only marginal differences between models, and both yielded the same
substantive results. Given the model with education included a measure of economic conditions
(percent unemployment), and given the importance of education to the creative class thesis, we opted
to report the model with percent bachelor’s degree.
Impact of Revenue on the Importance Given Community Amenities
Revenue, rather than jobs, showed up as the most consistent predictor of the importance given to
community amenities. Consequently, we focus the following discussion upon how revenue influences
city managers’ views of amenities. For each of the five coefficients reported in Table 1 where the
impact of revenue on an amenity was statistically significant at .05 or better, we computed the
proportional odds ratio by exponentiating the coefficient. For example, the coefficient for restaurants
and clubs, .901, exponentiated, yields a coefficient of 2.46. The proportional odds ratio is the optimal
way to interpret the logistic regression coefficient of revenue, that is, to estimate the influence this
exerts upon the importance given each quality of life amenity (Peng, So, Stage, & St. John, 2002).
Four of these five statistically significant amenities are consumption-oriented amenities, and the
two that are arguably the most geared toward consumption—restaurants and clubs, and shopping
opportunities—are linked most with the perceived importance of revenue. The link between revenue

I
IQuality of Life Amenities as Contributors to Local Economies I
I669
TABLE 1
Models for Importance of Economic Development and Community Amenities
Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3 Equation 4
Economic Development Restaurants and Clubs Shopping Opportunities Cultural Venues
Importance of:
Estimate Wald’s X2Estimate Wald’s X2Estimate Wald’s X2Estimate Wald’s X2
Threshold
Dep =1 — — — 0.177 0.012
(1.625)
Dep =2 4.342∗3.843 4.383∗∗ 7.064 2.639 2.648 2.273 2.245
(2.215) (1.649) (1.621) (1.517)
Dep =3 5.068∗5.797 5.390∗∗ 11.238 3.594∗5.259 3.051∗4.014
(2.105) (1.608) (1.567) (1.523)
Dep =4 6.116∗∗ 8.900 6.901∗∗ 17.955 5.003∗∗ 10.183 4.218∗∗ 7.448
(2.050) (1.629) (1.568) (1.546)
Dep =5 7.217∗∗ 12.286 8.379∗∗ 26.401 6.485∗∗ 16.224 6.056∗∗ 14.551
(2.059) (1.701) (1.610) (1.588)
Dep =6 8.796∗∗ 17.183 10.783∗36.914 8.073∗∗ 23.629 8.296∗∗ 25.000
(2.122) (1.775) (1.661) (1.659)
Predictors
Revenue .491∗5.467 .901∗∗ 21.530 .720∗∗ 15.031 .148∗5.499
(.210) (.194) (.188) (.178)
Jobs .678∗∗ 7.195 .433∗5.710 .312 2.768 .190 1.064
(.253) (.190) (.187) (.185)
Population −3.21e-6 1.698 −8.68e-7 .220 6.64e-7 .130 4.08e-6∗4.414
(2.46e-6) (1.85e-6) (1.89e-6) (1.94e-6)
%Bachelors’ degree .046∗4.216 .034∗5.631 .024 2.817 .006 .199
(.022) (.014) (.014) (.014)
%Unemployed .068 .556 .034 .218 .045 .391 −.014 .037
(.091) (.072) (.071) (.071)
Suburb .355 .486 .315 .681 .625 2.705 −.823∗4.621
(.509) (.382) (.380) (.383)
CostServs .271 1.356 −.147 .694 −.180 1.042 .012 .004
(.233) (.177) (.177) (.176)
EnvImpact −.127 .327 .040 .066 .051 .110 .209 1.804
(.223) (.156) (.155) (.155)
Test
−2 Log likelihood 186.794 340.457 355.894 329.995
Model chi square 26.071∗∗ 43.952∗∗ 33.461∗∗ 25.908∗∗
Pseudo R2 .201/.240 .287/.303 .227/.239 .182/.189
N116 130 131 130
(Continued)

670 I
IJOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I
IVol. 38/No. 5/2016
TABLE 1
Continued
Equation 5 Equation 6 Equation 7 Equation 8
Outdoor Activities Younger Residents Modern Schools Community Aesthetics
Importance of:
Estimate Wald’s X2Estimate Wald’s X2Estimate Wald’s X2Estimate Wald’s X2
Threshold
Dep =1————
Dep =2 1.481 .902 — −1.645 .813 —
(1.559) (1.824)
Dep =3 1.999 1.687 .854 .284 — 1.415 .692
(1.539 (1.603) (1.702)
Dep =4 3.557∗5.345 2.747 3.140 .543 .119 3.139∗3.875
(1.538) (1.551) (1.572) (1.594)
Dep =5 5.365∗∗ 11.550 4.760∗∗ 8.918 2.197 1.957 5.052∗∗ 9.815
(1.578) (1.594) (1.563) (1.612)
Dep =6 6.945∗∗ 18.544 6.658∗∗ 16.560 3.880∗5.959 6.959∗∗ 17.449
(1.617) (1.636) (1.589) (1.666)
Predictors
Revenue .523∗∗ 8.297 .380∗4.354 .228 1.609 .197 1.205
(.182) (.182) (.180) (.180)
Jobs .038 .041 .212 1.264 .171 .806 .293 2.334
(.185) (.189) (.191) (.192)
Population −8.00e-7 .190 1.46e-6 .615 −1.14e-6 .371 −7.60e-7 .165
(1.83e-6) (1.90e-6) (1.87e-6) (1.87e-6)
%Bachelors’ degree .029∗4.557 −.011 .611 .022 2.308 .035∗5.554
(.014) (.014) (.014) (.015)
%Unemployed .024 .112 −.119 2.686 −.046 .405 −.021 .080
(.071) (.073) (.073) (.073)
Suburb −.593 2.449 −.244 .409 −.366 .892 .486 1.584
(.379) (.382) (.387) (.386)
CostServs .190 1.306 .487∗∗ 7.253 .411∗5.119 .465∗6.512
(.174) (.181) (.182) (.182)
EnvImpact −.014 .008 −.043 .075 −.258 2.507 −.124 .606
(.154) (.157) (.163) (.160)
Test
−2 Log likelihood 369.809 328.133 308.148 313.658
Model chi square 21.903∗∗ 27.324∗∗ 13.093 25.447∗∗
Pseudo R2 .155/.163 .190/.203 .096/.105 .178/.192
N131 131 131 131
∗∗Significant at the .01 level; ∗Significant at the .05 level; standard error in parentheses.
Note: Pseudo R2is Cox & Snell R2/ Nagelkerke R2. Dependent variable values are skewed toward higher values; the lowest value on most dependent variables is 2; for younger residents and community
aesthetics, the lowest is 3; there is no reported value 3 for modern schools.

I
IQuality of Life Amenities as Contributors to Local Economies I
I671
and restaurants and clubs is the most pronounced. For every one unit increase in the level of
importance given to revenue, the odds of a city manager reporting restaurants and clubs as important
to the success of their community’s economic development efforts are 2.46 times greater, when all
variables in the model are held constant. The relationship between revenue and shopping opportunities
is also comparatively strong, with an odds ratio of 2.07. Regarding outdoor opportunities and the
presence of younger residents, revenue exerts somewhat less influence, with odds ratios of 1.69 and
1.46, respectively. The link between revenue and cultural venues is least pronounced. For every unit
increase in the importance accorded revenue, the odds of reporting cultural venues as important are
1.16 times greater, with all variables in the model held constant.
Community Amenities and Revenue Generation as the Objective: The Context
We investigated whether the importance city managers accorded quality of life amenities depended
more upon the need to generate city revenue or upon the need to create jobs for city residents.
City managers in Texas view community amenities as contributing to city revenue more than to
job creation. This distinction that managers make between the expected economic contributions
of amenities is independent of city size, the level of unemployment, resident education level, and
suburban status. What then distinguishes cities where revenue is the more important objective? Two
questions from the survey, future economic development plans and the biggest problem facing the
city, provide insight into what distinguishes cities where revenue is most important.
City managers were asked the following question about their city’s upcoming development ef-
forts: If your city is planning a new economic development effort, what type is this? The response
items were industrial development, tourism, commercial development, and downtown revitalization.
Respondents could report more than one item. Thirty-eight city managers reported that revenue was
more important than jobs (i.e., gave a higher score to the importance of revenue generation) and
37 reported that jobs were more important than revenue. When revenue was most important, the
overwhelming majority of cities planned for commercial development (68%). By contrast, when
jobs were most important, no one type of planned development dominated; industrial development
(30%), tourism (30%), and commercial development (35%) were each planned in about one-third of
cities.
City managers were also asked an open-ended question about the biggest problem facing his or her
city: In your opinion, what is the biggest problem facing your city today? A bad economy (24%), the
need for economic growth and development (24%), declining revenue (22%), and a declining tax base
(11%) were the most frequent responses when revenue was more important. When job creation was
more important, the two responses that topped the list were a bad economy (32%) and deteriorated
infrastructure (18%). Declining revenue made up only 3%, and the need for development made up
only 6% of responses.
Multivariate results showed that community quality of life amenities increased in importance as
the importance given to generating city revenue grew. A comparison of managers who rated one
economic objective higher than the other suggests a specific context. Generating city revenue was
viewed as most important when the city planned commercial development and when the city was
experiencing a declining tax and revenue base. We infer that in this specific context the community’s
need for growth and development heightened recognition of the relevance of amenities in economic
development.
Some additional findings provide further insight into the context in which revenue is most preferred.
We computed a variable that subtracted the score on the importance of job creation from the score on
revenue generation (mean =0.02; SD =1.4, range =−4–4) and compared cases with a score of 3 or 4
(revenue-oriented managers) against those with a score of −3or−4 (jobs-oriented managers). There
were nine revenue-oriented managers (from Canyon, Colleyville, Forney, Heath, Jersey Village,
Lucas, North Richland Hills, Santa Fe, and Watauga), and eight jobs-oriented managers (from
Abilene, Dayton, Kermit, Kilgore, Kingsville, Lubbock, Monahans, and Mount Pleasant).
Consistent with our hypothesis, revenue-oriented managers worked in cities where a higher per-
centage of residents held a bachelor’s degree (37.9% vs. 17.0%) and with a higher per capita income

672 I
IJOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I
IVol. 38/No. 5/2016
($37,585 vs. $18,553) compared to jobs-oriented managers. The former, however, had experienced
some comparatively adverse changes over the previous decade. Between 2000 and 2010, percent un-
employment increased more for the cities of revenue-oriented managers (5.0 vs. 3.8 percentage point
increase), as did the percent of individuals in poverty (1.6 vs. a 0.5 percentage point increase). The
cities of revenue-oriented managers also experienced a more dramatic population increase (42.1%
vs. 8.6%).
We speculate that fiscal stress among the cities of revenue-oriented managers was in some measure
due to rapid population growth with an accompanying rise in unemployment and poverty. Rather
than prioritize jobs, however, a highly educated and wealthy population propelled managers in these
cities to focus on revenue-generating strategies. This focus was in the context of a growing educated
population. Growth in the percentage of the population with a bachelor’s degree among cities of
revenue-oriented managers from 2000 to 2010 outpaced that among cities of jobs-oriented oriented
managers (4.5 vs. 0.1 percentage point decrease). Compatible with our hypothesis, managers in these
cities with a highly educated and wealthy population may have perceived little option but to seek
revenue to continue the provision of amenities to a citizenry that had come to expect a high quality
of life. There may be political ramifications for not providing amenities. While managers are not
elected, they are responsible to an elected council. There may be acceptance of the general parameters
of the creative class thesis—that the provision of amenities attracts businesses that will employ an
educated work force.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study addressed whether quality of life amenities such as cultural venues, shopping opportu-
nities, and restaurants and clubs are viewed as contributing to a specific economic objective, either
city revenue generation or job creation for city residents. We surveyed managers in Texas cities
with a population above 5,000. Their responses were combined with census-derived socioeconomic
data. Findings support our hypothesis. City managers distinguish between the expected economic
contributions of amenities. Independent of city socioeconomic characteristics, amenities are viewed
as revenue enhancers more than as job creators. Not only does the economic objective matter; so does
the type of amenity in question. City managers view consumption-oriented amenities, such as shop-
ping opportunities, as better able to yield revenue compared to more family-oriented amenities, such
as modern schools. All four consumption-oriented amenities were associated with the importance of
enhancing city revenue, but only one of the three family-oriented amenities was.
Unlike consumption-oriented amenities, the importance given family-oriented amenities depended
upon the importance accorded the cost of providing additional municipal services. Though more
research needs to be done on this point, perhaps attracting families with children is viewed as a
longer term solution to increased service cost brought about by development. Interestingly, modern
schools along with community aesthetics were considered important to a city’s economic development
success, yet neither was reliably associated with either economic objective we tested. We speculate
that city managers perceived these particular amenities as attending to an economic development
objective not tested in our study. Imberman, Naretta, and O’Rourke (2015) argue that school quality
can often serve community residents as a heuristic indicating the quality of neighborhood in which
the school is located. This suggests that family-oriented amenities may be perceived as having a real
though less direct impact compared with amenities such as shopping opportunities or restaurants
and clubs. Family-oriented amenities may be viewed as more “foundational” in that they provide
grounding for future development.
Findings have implications for those who advocate that practitioners accord greater consideration to
the provision of community amenities. Rather than use across-the-board categories, we should expect
targeted use of community amenities in economic development efforts. This said, amenities such as
shopping and outdoor activities are widely recognized by an important city actor, the city manager,
among a socioeconomically diverse group of cities in the state of Texas. This is relevant to our
understanding of economic development decision making because it indicates a broad appreciation
for the potential economic contributions of amenities. This is particularly compelling when we

I
IQuality of Life Amenities as Contributors to Local Economies I
I673
consider that Texas is a decidedly pro-business state where one might expect a strong preference for
traditional supply-side strategies—such as tax abatements, land clearance, or the use of public money
to provide infrastructure for private development,that focus on attracting business by reducing the
cost of doing business rather than by amenities.
In conclusion, our findings contribute to the literature on community economic development
decision making by adding to our understanding of how city leaders perceive amenities. Drawing
from the postmaterialist and creative class theses, along with this study’s findings, how city leaders
view the economic role of quality of life amenities depends upon a series of related factors: what
citizens expect from government, the socioeconomic characteristics of these citizens, the type of
population that development is meant to attract, and the specific economic objectives of city leaders.
There are several factors the reader should consider when assessing this study. First, the survey
was conducted during the height of the Great Recession. Unusually adverse economic conditions
may have influenced the perceived economic need and biased responses from what they might
have been in more typical economic conditions. Second, while surveyed managers reflected a broad
socioeconomic spectrum of cities, as noted earlier, cities in Texas exist in a specific cultural context,
and this may limit to some extent the ability to generalize to all regions. Third, although managers
interact with an array of institutional actors, they are nevertheless one among many. Any given
manager may not fully reflect the perceptions of other city leaders. Finally, we do not claim to have
considered all potential influences on the perceived importance of community amenities. The unique
culture or political ideology characterizing a particular city may play a substantial role in whether
amenities are viewed as important. This deserves future investigation. With these potential limitations
in mind, we believe this study’s findings shed important light on conditions under which city leaders
will include the provision of quality of life amenities as part of economic development strategy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments and suggestions of Morgan
Sides.
REFERENCES
Ballas, D. (2013). What makes a “happy city”? Cities,32, S39–S50.
Blodgett, T. (1998). City government that works: The history of council-manager government in Texas. Austin: Texas
City Management Association.
Camobreco, J., & Barnello, M. (2003). Postmaterialism and post-industrialism: Cultural influences on female repre-
sentation in state legislatures. State Politics and Policy Quarterly,3(2), 117–138.
Carlino, G., & Saiz, A. (2008). Beautiful city: Leisure amenities and urban growth. Social Science Research Network.
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=12
Carmines, E., & Layman, G. (1997). Issue evolution in postwar American politics: Old certainties and fresh tensions.
In B. E. Shafer (Ed.), Present discontents: American politics in the very late twentieth century (pp. 89–134).
London, UK: Chatham House.
Clark, T. (2007). Making culture into magic: How can it bring tourists and residents? International Review of Public
Administration,12(1), 13–25.
Clark, T. (2011). Introduction: Taking entertainment seriously. In T. Clark (Ed.), The city as entertainment machine.
New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Clark, T., Lloyd, R., Wong, K., & Jain, P. (2002). Amenities drive urban growth. Journal of Urban Affairs,24, 493–515.
Cypher, J., & Dietz, J. (2007). The process of economic development. London, UK: Routledge.
Dillon, M., & Young, J. (2011). Community strength and economic challenge: Civic attitudes and com-
munity involvement in rural America. Carsey Institute Issue Brief No. 29 (May). Retrieved from
http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB-Dillon-Civic-Attitudes.pdf
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational fields. American Sociological Review,48, 147–160.
Duch, R., & Taylor, M. (1993). Postmaterialism and economic condition. American Journal of Political Science,37,
747–779.
Edmiston, K. (2007). The role of small and large business in economic development. Kansas City, MO: Federal Reserve
Bank of Kansas City. Retrieved from http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/2a07edmi.pdf

674 I
IJOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I
IVol. 38/No. 5/2016
Feiock, R., & Kim, J.-H. (2001). Form of government, administrative organization, and local economic development
policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,11(1), 29–50.
Feiock, R., Park, H.-J., Steinacker, A., & Kim, J.-H. (2005, June). Institutional collective action and economic
development joint ventures. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Public Management Research
Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Hoyman, M., & Faricy, C. (2008). It takes a village: A test of the creative class, social capital, and human capital
theories. Urban Affairs Review,44, 311–332.
Imberman, S., Naretta, M., & O’Rourke, M. (2015). Capitalization of charter schools into residential property values.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R., & Abramson, P. (1999). Measuring postmaterialism. American Political Science Review,93, 665–677.
Jarmon, C., Vanderleeuw, J., Pennington, M., & Sowers, T. (2012). The role of economic development corporations
in city economic development. Economic Development Quarterly,26(2), 124–137.
Johnson, J., & Rasker, R. (1995). The role of economic and quality of life values in rural business location. Journal of
Rural Studies,11, 405–416.
Kahsai, M., Gebremedhin, T., & Schaffer, P. (2011). A spatial analysis of amenity and regional growth in the northeast
region. Urban and Regional Development Studies,23(1), 77–93.
Kerstein, R. (1993). Suburban growth politics in Hillsborough County: Growth management and political regimes.
Social Science Quarterly,74, 614–630.
Know, P., & Meyer, H. (2013). Small town sustainability: Economic, social, and environmental innovation. Berlin,
Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Knudsen, B., Florida, R., Stolarick, K., & Gates, G. (2008). Density and creativity in U.S. regions. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers,98, 461–478.
Kunstler, J. (1998). Home from nowhere. New York, NY: Touchstone Press.
Leo, C., Beavis, M., Carver, A., & Turner, R. (1998). Is urban sprawl back on the political agenda? Local growth
control, regional growth management, and politics. Urban Affairs Review,34, 179–212.
Liu, B., & Vanderleeuw, J. (2003). Growth imperative, postmaterialism and local decision-makers. Journal of Political
Science,31, 173–196.
Lloyd, R., & Clark, T. (2000, August). The city as an entertainment machine. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC.
Lubell, M., Feiock, R. & de la Cruz, E. (2009). Local institutions and the politics of urban growth. American Journal
of Political Science,53, 649–665.
Moors, G. (2003). The two faces of (post) materialism: A decomposition approach. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research,15, 396–412.
Morgan, J. (2010). Governance, policy innovation, and local economic development in North Carolina. Policy Studies
Journal,38, 679–702.
Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,29, 740–770.
Peng, C., So, T., Stage, F., & St. John, E. (2002). The use and interpretation of logistic regression in higher education
journals: 1988–1999. Research in Higher Education,43, 259–293.
Peterson, P. (1981). City limits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ponzini, D., & Rossi, U. (2010). Becoming a creative city: The entrepreneurial mayor, network politics and the promise
of an urban renaissance. Urban Studies,47, 1037–1057.
Reese, L. (2006). Do we really need another typology? Clusters of local economic development strategies. Economic
Development Quarterly,20, 368–376.
Reese, L., & Rosenfeld, R. (2008). Introduction: Comparative civic culture. Journal of Urban Affairs,30, 355–374.
Reese, L., & Sands, G. (2007). Making the least of our differences? Trends in Canadian and U.S. local economic
development, 1990–2005. Canadian Public Administration,50(1), 79–99.
Reichl, A. (1997). Historic preservation and progrowth politics in U.S. cities. Urban Affairs Review,32, 513–535.
Rigos, P., & Paulson, D. (1996). Urban development, policy failure, and regime change in a manager-council city: The
case of St. Petersburg, Florida. Urban Affairs Review,32, 244–263.
Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy,98, S71–S102.
Ross, B., & Levine, M. (2001). Urban politics: Power in metropolitan America. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Salvensen, D., & Renski, H. (2003). The importance of quality of life in the decisions of new economy firms. Retrieved
from https://www.curs.unc.edu/files/2013/04/neweconomyreport.pdf.

I
IQuality of Life Amenities as Contributors to Local Economies I
I675
Selden, S., Brewer, G., & Brudney, J. (1999). The role of city managers: Are they principals, agents, or both? American
Review of Public Administration,29(2), 124–148.
Sharp, E. (Ed.). (1999). Culture wars and local politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Strom, E. (2002). Converting pork into porcelain: Cultural institutions and downtown development. Urban Affairs
Review,38, 3–1.
Teaford, J. (2007). The American suburb: The basics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Turner, R. (1999). Entrepreneurial neighborhood initiatives: Political capital in community development. Economic
Development Quarterly,13, 15–22.
TXP, Inc. (2012). The economic impact of the creative sector in Austin—2012 update.Austin,Texas:TXP,Inc.
Whitt, A., & Lammers, J. (1991). The art of growth: Ties between development organizations and the performing arts.
Urban Affairs Quarterly,26, 376–393.
Zhang, Y., & Feiock, R. (2009). City managers’ policy leadership in council manager cities. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory,20, 461–476.
Zimmerman, J. (2008). From brew town to cool town: Neoliberalism and the creative city development strategy in
Milwaukee. Cities,25, 230–242.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
James M. Vanderleeuw is a Professor of Political Science at Lamar University where he holds the
Jack Brooks Chair in Government and Public Service and directs the Lamar University Center for
Public Policy Studies. His research interests include local economic development, city management,
urban electoral behavior, and minority politics. He is coauthor (with Baodong Liu) of Race Rules:
Electoral Politics in New Orleans, 1965–2006 (2007) and has published in journals such as Economic
Development Quarterly,Journal of Women, Politics and Policy,Public Administration Quarterly,
PS: Political Science & Politics, and Social Science Quarterly.
Jason C. Sides is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Southeast Missouri State Univer-
sity where he teaches courses on administrative theory and fiscal administration, among others. His
research interests include public organizations, local political institutions, and economic develop-
ment. He has published in American Politics Research,Political Analysis,Information Polity,Public
Administration Quarterly, and SAGE Open.