IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v50y2013i14p2959-2975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reluctant Cities, Colonias and Municipal Underbounding in the US: Can Cities Be Convinced to Annex Poor Enclaves?

Author

Listed:
  • Vinit Mukhija
  • David R. Mason

Abstract

Scholars typically study affluent neighbourhoods resisting annexation by poorer adjacent cities. This paper focuses on the mirror image of this problem: municipal underbounding—the unwillingness of cities to annex poor neighbouring areas. In the paper, such local governments are called reluctant cities and it is suggested that urban studies scholars need to reach a better understanding of the practice. Here, a seemingly counter-intuitive case from California is documented where adjacent cities were convinced to annex poor neighbourhoods, designated as colonias. It is suggested that there may be opportunities for local co-operation leading to annexation. The important role of federal infrastructure funding is noted and the need for deeper involvement of residents of annexed neighbourhoods in decision-making is emphasised. Although race was not an issue in this case study, it is likely to be an important concern in annexations and the literature’s call for regional approaches and institutional reforms is supported.

Suggested Citation

  • Vinit Mukhija & David R. Mason, 2013. "Reluctant Cities, Colonias and Municipal Underbounding in the US: Can Cities Be Convinced to Annex Poor Enclaves?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(14), pages 2959-2975, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:50:y:2013:i:14:p:2959-2975
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098013482503
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098013482503
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098013482503?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vinit Mukhija & Paavo Monkkonen, 2006. "Federal colonias policy in California: Too broad and too narrow," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 755-780, January.
    2. James Johnson & Allan Parnell & Ann Joyner & Carolyn Christman & Ben Marsh, 2004. "Racial apartheid in a small North Carolina town," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 89-107, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fitjar, Rune Dahl, 2019. "2019/01 Merging city and suburban governments: A public choice perspective on the Norwegian local government reform," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2019/1, University of Stavanger.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Russell M. Smith & Whitney B. Afonso, 2016. "Fiscal Impact of Annexation Methodology on Municipal Finances in North Carolina," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 664-681, December.
    2. Noah J Durst, 2019. "Informal and ubiquitous: Colonias, premature subdivisions and other unplanned suburbs on America’s urban fringe," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(4), pages 722-740, March.
    3. Noah J Durst & Peter M Ward, 2014. "Measuring self-help home improvements in Texas colonias: A ten year ‘snapshot’ study," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(10), pages 2143-2159, August.
    4. Gomez-Vidal, Cristina & Gomez, Anu Manchikanti, 2021. "Invisible and unequal: Unincorporated community status as a structural determinant of health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:50:y:2013:i:14:p:2959-2975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.