A Transactions Costs Model of Metropolitan Governance

Allocation Versus Redistribution in Urban America

David Lynn Lowery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

80 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)49-78
Number of pages30
JournalJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

public choice
transaction costs
redistribution
governance
consolidation
right of ownership
hegemony
fragmentation
agglomeration area
decision making
Cost model
Metropolitan governance
Transaction costs
Redistribution
Public choice
Consolidation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Cite this

@article{cdae745816a24276a48f11e7f95ecd92,
title = "A Transactions Costs Model of Metropolitan Governance: Allocation Versus Redistribution in Urban America",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Lowery, {David Lynn}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024266",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "49--78",
journal = "Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory",
issn = "1053-1858",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

A Transactions Costs Model of Metropolitan Governance : Allocation Versus Redistribution in Urban America. / Lowery, David Lynn.

In: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 10, No. 1, 01.01.2000, p. 49-78.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Transactions Costs Model of Metropolitan Governance

T2 - Allocation Versus Redistribution in Urban America

AU - Lowery, David Lynn

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0002831682&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0002831682&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024266

DO - 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024266

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 49

EP - 78

JO - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

JF - Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

SN - 1053-1858

IS - 1

ER -