The Effects of Neighborhood Democracy on Cooperation: A Laboratory Study

REFERENCES

• Alexander, G. S. (1989). Dilemmas of group autonomy: Residential associations and community. Cornell Law Review, 75, 1–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829–838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Barton, S. E., & Silverman, C. J. (Eds.) (1994). Common interest communities: Private governments and the public interest. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson, B. (1998). Tenants’ dilemma: On collective action in housing. Housing Studies, 13, 99–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson, B. (2001). Solving the tenants’ dilemma: Collective action and norms of co-operation in housing. Housing, Theory and Society, 17, 175–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11, 268–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bochet, O., Page, T., & Putterman, L. (2006). Communication and punishment in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 60, 11–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudreaux, D. J., & Holcombe, R. G. (2002). Contractual governments in theory and practice. In D. T. Beito, P. Gordon, & A. Tabarrok (Eds.), The voluntary city: Choice, community, and civil society (pp. 289–306). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowles, S. (1999). “Social capital” and community governance. Focus, 20(3), 6–10.
   Google Scholar
• Cashin, S. D. (2001). Privatized communities and the “secession of the successful”: Democracy and fairness beyond the gate. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28, 1675–1692.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S. C. Y., & Webster, C. J. (2005). Homeowners associations, collective action and the costs of private governance. Housing Studies, 20, 205–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Community Associations Institute. (2003). Homeowner association-managed communities enjoying increased growth and popularity and attention. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.caionline.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., Simmons, R. T., & Van de Kragt, A. J. C. (1986). Organizing groups for collective action. American Political Science Review, 80, 1171–1185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawes, R. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: Cooperation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(3), 187–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischel, W. A. (2001). The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franzese, P. A. (2000). Common interest communities: Standards of review and review of standards. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 3, 663–698.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, M. (1984). Stimulating community enterprise: A response to fiscal strains in the public sector. Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, Joint Committee Print, S.98–276. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, M. (1989). Seeding grass roots recovery: New catalysts for community associations. In Residential community associations: Private governments in the intergovernmental system (pp. 63–68). Washington, DC: The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, J. W. (1977). Oligopoly and the theory of games. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, J. R. (2006). All together now? An empirical study of the voting behaviors of homeowner association members in St. Louis County. Review of Policy Research, 23, 1199–1217.
   Google Scholar
• Hyatt, W. S. (2000). Condominium and homeowner association practice: Community association law (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute and American Bar Association.
   Google Scholar
• Isaac, R. M., McCue, K. F., & Plott, C. R. (1985). Public goods provision in an experimental environment. Journal of Public Economics, 26, 51–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaac, R. M., & Walker, J. M. (1988). Communication and free-riding behavior: The voluntary contribution mechanism. Economic Inquiry, 26, 585–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagel, J. H., & Roth, A. E. (Eds.) (1995). The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, O., & Walker, M. (1984). The free rider problem: Experimental evidence. Public Choice, 43, 3–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreps, D., & Wilson, R. (1982). Reputation and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27, 253–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, R. E., & Danielsen, K. A. (1997). Gated communities in America: Walling out the world? Housing Policy Debate, 8, 867–899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ledyard, J. O., & Roberts, J. (1974). On the incentive problem with public goods. Discussion Paper 116, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Liebmann, G. W. (1993). Devolution of power to community and block associations. The Urban Lawyer, 25, 335–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Low, S. (2003). Behind the gates: Life security, and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1979). Experiments on the provision of public goods: Resources, interest group size, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1335–1360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1980). Experiments on the provision of public goods: Provision points, stakes, experience, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 926–937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCabe, B. C. (2005). The rules are different here: An institutional comparison of cities and homeowners associations. Administration and Society, 37, 404–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCabe, B. C. (2011). Homeowners associations as private governments: What we know, what we don’t know, and why it matters. Public Administration Review, 71, 531–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCabe, B. C., & Tao, J. (2006). Private governments and private services: Homeowners associations in the city and behind the gate. Review of Policy Research, 23, 1143–1157.
   Google Scholar
• McKenzie, E. (1994). Privatopia: Homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKenzie, E. (2003). Common-interest housing in the communities of tomorrow. Housing Policy Debate, 14, 203–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. H. (2005). Private neighborhoods and the transformation of local government. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, M. (1968). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. New York, NY: Schocken.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Gardner, R. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86, 404–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panelli, R., & Welch, R. (2005). Why community? Reading difference and singularity with community. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1589–1611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Romig, K. (2010). Community and social capital in upper-income neighborhoods: An investigation in metropolitan Phoenix. Urban Geography, 31, 1065–1079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tao, J. L., & McCabe, B. C. (2012). Where a hollow state casts no shadow: Homeowner associations in local governments. The American Review of Public Administration, 42, 678–694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, K. (2001). From neighborhood to nation: The democratic foundations of civil society. Hanover, NH: Tufts University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Winokur, J. L. (1989). The mixed blessings of promissory servitudes: Toward optimizing economic utility, individual liberty, and personal identity. Wisconsin Law Review, 1989, 1–98.
   Google Scholar
• Woodworth, J. R., Gump, W. R., & Forrester, J. R. (2005). Camelot: A role-playing imulation for political decision making. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Yau, Y. (2012). Willingness to participate in collective action: The case of multiowned housing management. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35, 153–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar