Abstract
This article deals with several problems associated with the use of the public choice approach for analyzing metropolitan structures and policies. After reviewing several important contributions by public choice critics of traditional metropolitan reformism, the article argues that public choice theorists have prematurely offered conclusions concerning optimal political jurisdictions and optimal service levels. Also, it is contended that public choice theorists are not sufficiently explicit and rigorous in examining their own substantial value commitments, though they have been quick to criticize this failing in others.

This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit: