Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
310
311
3 For accounts of how "boosterism" worked in this manner,see Wade (1969) and
Harris (1976).
312
313
314
11Papers can expand into other industries,such as book publishingand wood har-
vesting.The point is that, compared with most other industries,they cannot easily
replicate themselves across geographical boundaries through chains, branch plants,
and franchises.
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
Rate,
Unemployment
Area
Metropolitan Rate of Growth 1960
17It is also true that this evidence is based on federal data, accumulated through
the work of socially and geographicallydisparate persons who had purposes at hand
differentfrom mine. This importantreservationcan only be dealt with by noting
that the findingswere consistentwith the author's theoreticalexpectations,ratherthan
antecedentsof them. At a minimum,the resultsthrow the burden of proof on those
who would argue the opposite hypothesis.
322
Unemployment
Rate,
Metropolitan
Area RateofGrowth 1970
1. Las Vegas, Nev. ......................... 115.2 5.2*
2. Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. .. 101.8 5.4*
3. Oxnard-Ventura,Calif. .................... 89.0 5.9*
4. Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood,Fla . ............ 85.7 3.4
5. San Jose, Calif. .......................... 65.8 5.8*
6. Colorado Springs, Colo .b.................. 64.2 5.5*
7. Santa Barbara, Calif. ..................... 56.4 6.4*
8. W. Palm Beach, Fla . ..................... 52.9 3.0
9. Nashua, N.H . ............................ 47.8 2.8
10. Huntsville,Ala.46.6 4.4
11. Columbia, Mo .45.8 2.4
12. Phoenix, Ariz.45.8 3.9
13. Danbury, Conn.44.3 4.2
14. Fayetteville,Ark.42.9 5.2*
15. Reno, Nev.42.9 6.2*
16. San Bernadino-Riverside-Ontario, Calif . 41.2 5.9*
17. Houston, Tex.40.0 3.0
18. Austin, Tex .39.3 3.1
19. Dallas, Tex.39.0 3.0
20. Santa Rosa, Calif.39.0 7.3*
21. Tallahassee, Fla. 38.8 3.0
22. Washington,D.C . 37.8 2.7
23. Atlanta, Ga. 36.7 3.0
24. Ann Arbor,Mich.35.8 5.0*
25. Miami, Fla .35.6 3.7
Total U.S . ................................... 16.6 4.3
323
324
Rate of Average
Growth, Annual Unemployment
SMSA 1960-66 Change Rate, 1966
SOURCES.-For averageannual changeand rate of growth,U.S. Bureau of the Census 1969, table 2;
forunemployment rate, 1966, State of California1970, table C-10.
325
326
327
328
REFERENCES
Adrian, Charles R., and 0. P. Williams. 1963. Four Cities: A Study in Comparative
Policy Making. Philadelphia: Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Agelasto, Michael A., II, and Patricia R. Perry. Undated. "The No Growth Contro-
versy." Exchange Bibliographyno. 519. Mimeographed.Box 229, Monticello, Ill.:
Council of Planning Libraries.
Agger,Robert,Daniel Goldrich,and Bert E. Swanson. 1964. The Rulers and the Ruled:
Political Power and Impotence in AmericanCommunities.New York: Wiley.
Alonso, William. 1964. "Location Theory." Pp. 79-81 in Regional Development and
Planning,edited by John Friedman and William Alonso. Cambridge,Mass.: M.I.T.
Press.
Ann Arbor City Planning Department. 1972. The Ann Arbor Growth Study. Ann
Arbor,Mich.: City Planning Department.
Appelbaum, Richard. 1976. "City Size and Urban Life: A PreliminaryInquiry into
Some Consequences of Growth in American Cities." Urban AffairsQuarterly.
Appelbaum, Richard, JenniferBigelow, Henry Kramer, Harvey Molotch, and Paul
Relis. 1974. Santa Barbara: The Impacts of Growth: A Report of the Santa
329
330
331
332