The apparent hegemony of the public-choice approach to metropolitan governance has been sharply challenged on a number af fronts during the 1990s with a series of new arguments for consolidation emphasizing the role of boundaries in defining interests and property rights so as to structure the distribution of political transactions costs within metropolitan areas. These new arguments have yet to be organized, however, into a coherent critique of the public-choice approach. This article provides such a statement. First, the nature of individual decision making implicit within the new case for metropolitan consolidation is examined. Second, its core institutional propositions on boundaries are discussed. And third, the key outcome hypotheses flowing from the new consolidationist case's assumptions about institutions and individual choice are evaluated in light of the public choice case for jurisdictional fragmentation.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||30|
|Journal||Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory|
|State||Published - Jan 1 2000|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Sociology and Political Science
- Public Administration