Advertisement

Public Choice

, 149:209 | Cite as

Quasimarket failure

  • Peter J. Boettke
  • Christopher J. Coyne
  • Peter T. LeesonEmail author
Article

Abstract

The efficiency of “quasimarkets”—decentralized public goods provision subjected to Tiebout competition—is a staple of public choice conventional wisdom. Yet in the 1990s a countermovement called “neoconsolidationism” began to challenge this wisdom. The neoconsolidationists use the logic of government failure to argue that quasimarkets fail and that jurisdictional consolidation is a superior way to supply public goods and services in metropolitan areas. Public choice scholars have largely ignored the neoconsolidationists’ challenge. This paper brings that challenge to public choice scholars’ attention with the hope of encouraging responses. It also offers some thoughts about the directions such responses might take.

Keywords

Quasimarkets Polycentric Consolidation Tiebout Neoconsolidationism Metropolitan Governance Public goods 

References

  1. Aligica, P., & Boettke, P. J. (2009). Challenging institutional analysis of development: the Bloomington school. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  2. Beito, D. T., Gordon, P., & Tabarrok, A. (Eds.) (2002). The voluntary city: choice, community, and civil society. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  3. Bish, R. (1971). The political economy of metropolitan areas. Chicago: Markham. Google Scholar
  4. Bish, R. (1999). Federalist theory and polycentricity: learning from local governments. In D. P. Racheter & R. E. Wagner (Eds.), Limiting Leviathan (pp. 203–220). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  5. Boettke, P. J. (1993). Why Perestroika failed: the politics and economics of socialist transformation. New York: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M. (1965). An economic theory of clubs. Economica, 32(125), 1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M. (1969). Cost and choice: an inquiry in economic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  8. Buser, W. D. (2011). The impact of public sector decentralization on income levels across high-income OECD countries: an institutional approach. Public Choice [this issue]. Google Scholar
  9. Carr, J. B., & Feiock, R. C. (1999). Metropolitan government and economic development. Urban Affairs Review, 34(3), 476–488. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr, J. B., & Feiock, R. C. (Eds.) (2003). Reshaping the local government landscape: city-county consolidation and its alternatives. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe. Google Scholar
  11. DeHoog, R. H., Lowery, D., & Lyons, W. (1990). Citizen satisfaction and local government: a test of individual, jurisdictional, and city specific explanations. Journal of Politics, 52(3), 807–837. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feld, L. P., & Dede, T. (2004). Fiscal federalism and economic growth: cross-country evidence for OECD countries. Mimeo. Google Scholar
  13. Feld, L. P., Zimmerman, H., & Doering, T. (2003). Federalism, decentralization, and economic growth. Mimeo. Google Scholar
  14. Feld, L. P., Baskaran, T., & Schnellenbach, J. (2008). Fiscal federalism, decentralization and economic growth: a meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 64th Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance. August 22–25, 2008, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Google Scholar
  15. Foldvary, F. (1994). Public goods and private communities: the market provision of social services. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  16. Hill, E. W., Wolman, H. L., & Ford, C. C. III (1995). Can suburbs survive without their cities: examining the suburban dependence hypothesis. Urban Affairs Review, 31(2), 147–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, R. C. (1974). Separate and unequal: governmental inequality in the metropolis. American Political Science Review, 68(4), 1557–1568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holcombe, R. G., & Williams, D. W. (2011). The cartelization of local governments. Public Choice [this issue]. doi: 10.1007/s11127-011-9825-8
  19. Leeson, P. T. (2011). Government, clubs, and constitutions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, forthcoming. Google Scholar
  20. Lowery, D. (1998). Consumer sovereignty and quasi-market failure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 137–172. Google Scholar
  21. Lowery, D. (1999). Answering the public choice challenge: a neoprogressive research challenge. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 12(1), 29–55. Google Scholar
  22. Lowery, D. (2000). A transaction costs model of metropolitan governance: allocation vs. redistribution in urban America. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 49–78. Google Scholar
  23. Lowery, D. (2001). Metropolitan governance structures from a neoprogressive perspective. Swiss Political Science Review, 7(3), 130–136. Google Scholar
  24. Lyons, W. E., & Lowery, D. (1989). Governmental fragmentation versus consolidation: five public choice myths about creating informed, involved, and happy citizens. Public Administration Review, 49(6), 533–543. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGinnis, M. D. (1999). Introduction. In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies (pp. 1–27). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  26. Neiman, M. (1976). Social stratification and government inequality. American Political Science Review, 70(1), 149–180. Google Scholar
  27. Nelson, R. H. (2005). Private neighborhoods and the transformation of local government. Washington: Urban Institute Press. Google Scholar
  28. Nutter, G. W. (1983). Political economy and freedom. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Google Scholar
  29. Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Google Scholar
  30. Oliver, J. E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Ostrom, E. (1972 [1999]). Metropolitan reforms: propositions derived from two traditions. In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies (pp. 139–160). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  32. Ostrom, E. (1983a). A public choice approach to metropolitan institutions: structures, incentives and performance. Social Science Journal, 20(3), 79–96. Google Scholar
  33. Ostrom, E. (1983b). The social stratification-government inequality thesis explored. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 19(1), 91–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ostrom, E., & Parks, R. B. (1999). Neither Gargantua nor the land of lilliputs. In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies (pp. 284–305). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  35. Ostrom, V. (1972 [1999]). Polycentricity (part 1). In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies (pp. 52–74). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  36. Ostrom, V. (1973 [2008]). The intellectual crisis in American public administration. Tuscalosa: University of Alabama Press. Google Scholar
  37. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parks, R. B., & Oakterson, R. J. (1989). Metropolitan organization and governance: a local political economy approach. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25(1), 18–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parks, R. B., & Oakterson, R. J. (2000). Regionalism, localism and metropolitan governance: suggestions from the research program on local public economics. State and Local Government Review, 32(3), 169–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rowley, C. K. (1997). Donald Wittman’s the myth of democratic failure. Public Choice, 92(1–2), 15–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider, M. (1986). Fragmentation and the growth of local government. Public Choice, 48(3), 255–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider, M. (1989). Intermunicipal competition, budget-maximizing bureaucrats, and the level of suburban competition. American Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 612–628. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneider, M., & Teske, P. (1993). The progrowth entrepreneur in local government. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 29(2), 316–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Mintrom, M. (1995). Public entrepreneurs: agents for change in American government. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  45. Stigler, G. J. (1962). The tenable range of functions of local government. In E. Phelps (Ed.), Private wants and public needs. New York: W. W. Norton. Google Scholar
  46. Teske, P., Schneider, M., Mintrom, M., & Best, S. (1993). Establishing the micro foundations of a macro theory: information, movers, and the competitive local market for public goods. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 702–713. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagner, R. E. (2007). Fiscal sociology and the theory of public finance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, W. (1885 [1956]). Congressional government: a study of American politics. New York: Meridan Books. Google Scholar
  50. Wittman, D. (1989). Why democracies produce efficient results. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1395–1424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure: why political institutions are efficient. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Boettke
    • 1
  • Christopher J. Coyne
    • 1
  • Peter T. Leeson
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations