I wonder whether a similar logic applies to 'localism' and land use policy, as follows
- Strong local governments which are also very responsive to the local electorate are more likely to be NIMBYist;
- If you want to combine democratic institutions and liberal land use policy you probably need relatively weak local government, with wider interests represented by elected regional or national tiers promoting growth over local resistance;
- And if you want strong local government combined with liberal land use policy then a somewhat undemocratic 'local growth machine' is perhaps the best way to get it.
Or if you prefer the graphic version: