Public Choice and Contemporary Public Administration

Our reading this week is on public choice as an approach to the study of public administration. I read the article three times and it took me a bit to wrap my mind around the general arguments and how this affects urban policy. What I have deduced so far from this particular article is as follows:

I generally feel the main argument is a "one size fits all" approach of public administration as posited by Woodrow Wilson is ineffective in supporting public choice and efficiency. His hierarchical organizational theories are argued against from the perspective of public choice - how the individual decides between options in the realm of public goods and services.

I would agree that overlapping agencies are necessary in many cases to provide sufficient public choice and public supply. The example of overlapping police and law enforcement agencies given in the article is a great example of this.

Being on the conservative side, I might argue against the view of public goods and services in an economic light as put forth in some of this article. It is difficult to compare the two. Also, the maximizing strategy in public service could be argued against as well. Economically I may wish to maximize my outcomes based on self-interest, but socially providing for another group is altruistic and many argue for this even though there is little benefit to themselves - indeed at great cost sometimes.

In regard to our current discussions, much of the choice has been removed from inner city residents. Many choices made by public administrators has had a spillover effect on the less fortunate populations with little recourse to avoid these effects. Pg. 206 and 207 illustrate the "dog-in-the-manger" issue, where benefits are maximized at little cost to yourself - pursuing your own advantage and disregarding the consequences of your actions upon others.

The article specifically mentions perpetuating ghettos on pg. 210. Raising costs on the consumer to induce savings for the producer. This producer efficiency impacts impoverished areas the most, which may have contributed to the impoverishment of ghettos.

I somewhat understand where we are going with this article with Urban Policy. I think the idea here is that having diverse organizations that fit the constituencies they support instead of a large single organization with only one leader will maximize public choice and benefit more of the population.