Jurisdictional Fragmentation and Residential Choice
completely from the question of why households decide to live within a particular jurisdiction. Although we have no satisfactory thleory of urban local government, economists have not been reluctant to propose reforms in existing institutions. Advocates of metropolitan government suggest that decisions must be made at the metropolitan level if externalities are to be internalized and economies of scale realized. Tn contrast, the proponents of decentralization argue that further political fragmentation is required in order to provide greater variety in local public services. The only consensus, if any exists at all, is that present institutions of local government are inefficient. However, nowhere in the literature do we find an explanation of why, in view of this inefficiency, change is so rare. Annexations to the cen-tral city, relatively common at the turn of the century, ceased rather abruptly in most metropolitan areas after 1918. Subdivision of the larger political jurisdictions in our metropolitan areas does not appear at all likely. Thus, it seeins reasonab)le to ask of an adequate theory of metropolitan political economy an answer to the question: why are existing jurisdictional bourndaries so impervious to change? To answer this question we must investigate the impact of local governmental structure not only on allocative efficiency but on the extent of redistribution from rich to poor as well. In a recent study of suburbs in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, Williams, et al. [5] report that, when heavy expenditures were involved, wealthy communities were unwilling to enter into cooperative agreements with less wealthy communities. Only when their wealth was about the same would cities agree to engage in a jointly financed program. Across the United States, proposals for nietro-
- Export
- BibTeX
- Sources
- openalex