Urban Studies Research

Research Article

Economic Development Perspective and City Leadership

Table 4

Economic development perspective and city socioeconomic status.
Nontraditional
Equation 1Equation 2Equation 3Equation 4
Traditional ( 𝛽 ) Quality of life ( 𝛽 ) Regional ( 𝛽 ) Planning ( 𝛽 )
Appointed X SES βˆ’ 2 . 9 5 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ** βˆ’.273 9 . 0 9 𝑒 βˆ’ 7 .070 βˆ’ 1 . 5 1 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 βˆ’.089 βˆ’ 3 . 8 8 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 βˆ’.163
( 1 . 2 3 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 1 . 5 0 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 2 . 0 4 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 2 . 7 7 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 )
Elected X SESβˆ’2.73e-6***βˆ’.639 9 . 9 6 𝑒 βˆ’ 7 .173 βˆ’ 2 . 6 9 𝑒 βˆ’ 7 βˆ’.037 βˆ’ 3 . 5 1 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 βˆ’.352
( 1 . 0 0 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 1 . 2 6 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 1 . 7 5 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 2 . 3 2 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 )
Appointed0.96***.327βˆ’0.54βˆ’.145βˆ’1.15**βˆ’.2371.33*.196
(.32)(0.40)(0.55)(0.73)
Elected0.93***.334βˆ’0.22βˆ’.064βˆ’1.33**βˆ’.2851.89***.292
(.30)(0.38)(0.52)(0.69)
SES 2 . 1 9 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 * .537 3 . 4 1 𝑒 βˆ’ 7 .066 5 . 0 8 𝑒 βˆ’ 7 .074 4 . 8 9 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 * .514
( 1 . 2 7 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 1 . 5 8 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 2 . 2 0 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 2 . 9 2 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 )
Median Family Income 1 . 4 9 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 * .007 1 . 2 6 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 .045 βˆ’ 5 . 2 0 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 βˆ’.123 8 . 3 1 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 .015
( 2 . 2 8 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 2 . 8 2 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 4 . 3 1 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 ) ( 5 . 2 0 𝑒 βˆ’ 6 )
%Collegeβˆ’0.05βˆ’.1800.03.092βˆ’0.05βˆ’.1060.09.145
(0.04)(0.05)(0.06)(0.09)
%Unemployment (Inv.)βˆ’0.27βˆ’.0260.40.0301.86.106βˆ’1.10βˆ’.044
(1.01)(1.27)(1.72)(2.33)
Metro0.44**.150βˆ’0.02βˆ’.0050.03.005βˆ’0.39βˆ’.055
(0.22)(0.28)(0.39)(0.52)
Council-Managerβˆ’0.01βˆ’.001 0.16.027βˆ’0.15βˆ’.0200.08.007
(0.36)(0.43)(0.59)(0.80)
Populationβˆ’1.13e-6βˆ’.099βˆ’6.28e-8βˆ’.004 3.97e-7.0212.63e-6.094
(8.02e-7)(1.01e-6)(1.37e-6)(1.86e-6)
Constant8.19***5.29***5.72***5.71***
(0.53)(0.65)(0.89)(1.19)
N207208206211
Adj. 𝑅 2  .079.093.086.128
Prob > F .004.093.086.079
*** 𝑃 < . 0 1 , ** 𝑃 < . 0 5 , * 𝑃 < . 1 0 ; Standard Errors in Parentheses.
Appointed = Manager + EDC; Elected = Mayor + Council; SES = Median Family Income + %College + %Unemployment (Inv).