| Independent variables | Partnershipsa | p | D.F. | Chi2 | ||
| Few (1 - 2) | Many (3+) | |||||
| Development policy | Not used | 88% | 12% | 0.001 | 1 | 10.8 N = 28 |
| Used | 27% | 73% |
|
|
| |
| Municipal characteristics | Weak (1 - 5) | 89% | 11% | 0.001 | 1 | 6.9 N = 33 |
| Strong (6 - 10) | 47% | 53% |
|
|
| |
| Municipal head characteristics | Weak | 67% | 33% | 0.42 | 1 | 0.64 N = 33 |
| Strong | 83% | 17% |
|
|
| |
| Municipal size | Small (up to16,000) | 82% | 18% | 0.25 | 1 | 1.3 N = 32 |
| Large (over 16,000) | 62% | 38% |
|
|
| |
| National priority | Gets incentives | 67% | 33% | 0.73 | 1 | 0.12 N = 33 |
| Gets no incentives | 72% | 28% |
|
|
| |
| Geographic location | North | 69% | 31% | 0.69 | 4 | 2.2 N = 33 |
| South | 83% | 17% |
|
|
| |
| Center | 60% | 40% |
|
|
| |
| Jerusalem | 100% | 0% |
|
|
| |
| Judea-Samaria | 50% | 50% |
|
|
| |