Government fragmentation and suburban services: The equality of consumer choice

The predominant reform tradition of centralizing suburban government to deal with problems of inequality in the distribution of local services has been attacked recently by a new school of thought often labelled New Political Economists. This school believes that the existing structure of local government can maximize citizen choice by allowing citizens to shop around between the level and mix of public goods and services offered by alternate communities. The term polycentricity has been coined to describe this situation. Critics of polycentricity believe that the resulting quasi-market would be unfair to low and moderate income suburbanites. This paper examines the actual extent of choice in service levels available to different income groups located in the suburban ring of six metropolitan areas. The extent of inequality in choice between different income groups is measured and the implications of these findings for the conflict between polycentric and centralizing reformers is discussed.The research reported in this paper was funded by the National Science Foundation, Grant Number SOC7705600