Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:52:54.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Economic Analysis in Local Government Decision Making—A Public Choice Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

George R. McDowell
George R. McDowell*
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts
Get access

Abstract

Conventional economic theory suggests that economists’ contribution to local government is primarily with respect to the production function type of knowledge. A characterization of local government decision making exposes some limitations on applicability of economic analysis of that kind. Public choice perspectives to local government help to redefine and elaborate the role of economic analysis in instructing local government decision making.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , April 1980 , pp. 67 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Selected References

Arrow, Kenneth. Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1963.Google Scholar
Bish, Robert L. “Public Choice Theory: Research Issues for Nonmetropolitan Community Services Research.” U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Washington, D.C., July 1977.Google Scholar
Bish, Robert L. The Public Economy of Metropolitan Areas. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1971.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Office of Education, HEW, Washington, D.C., 1966.Google Scholar
Deacon, Robert T. “Review of the Literature on the Demand for Public Services.” Committee Print—National Conference on Nonmetropolitan Community Services Research. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Washington, D.C., July 1977.Google Scholar
Fox, William F., Stam, Jerome M., Maureen Godsey, W., and Brown, Susan. Economies of Size in Local Government: An Annotated Bibliography. Rural Development Research Report No. 9, USDA, Washington, D.C., April 1979.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Werner Z. The Economics of State and Local Government. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1970.Google Scholar
McDowell, George R. “An Analytical Framework for Extension Community Development Programming in Local Government.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 60, No. 3, August 1978.Google Scholar
McDowell, George R. Where Preferences Count? A Study of the Effects of Community Size and Characteristics on the Distribution of the Benefits of Schooling. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975.Google Scholar
Mueller, Dennis C. “Public Choice: A Survey,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XIV, No. 2, June 1976.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. “Why Do We Need Multiple Indicators of Public Sector Outputs?–, Committee Print—National Conference on Nonmetropolitan Community Services Research. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Washington, D.C., July 1977.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Vincent. The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. University of Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Samuels, Warren J. “Welfare Economics, Power and Property,” Perspectives of Poverty, ed. Wunderlich, and Gibson, . University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Schmid, A. A. Property, Power and Public Choice—An Inquiry into Law and Economics. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1978.Google Scholar
Wise, Michael L. and Barkley, Paul W. “How Communities Choose: A Study of Selected Twon Councils in Washington State,” Committee Print—National Conference on Nonmetropolitan Community Services Research. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Washington, D.C., July 1977.Google Scholar