Beyond Exit and Voice: User Participation in the Production of Local Public Goods

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Texas Law Review Pub Date : 2001-11-02 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.288807
L. Fennell
{"title":"Beyond Exit and Voice: User Participation in the Production of Local Public Goods","authors":"L. Fennell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.288807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two goods commonly provided by local governments - education and neighborhood security - have an enormous impact on day-to-day quality of life and generate a great deal of debate. Because legal structures, institutions, and rules determine how these goods will be provided, funded, and consumed, one might expect legal academics to be important participants in the public discourse surrounding these goods. In fact, the legal academy's contribution has been limited because legal scholars have failed to generate a convincing descriptive account of how the quality of these goods is determined and how people make choices about them. Legal scholarship has typically assumed that the quality of local public goods is driven by some combination of market-like consumer behavior (\"exit\") and political activity (\"voice\"). Although the \"exit-voice\" framework is useful, it is incomplete with respect to goods like education and neighborhood security. It overlooks the critical role of user behavior - the acts and omissions of the school's students and the neighborhood's residents - in determining the quality of such goods. If participation is central to quality and users are heterogeneous in their participation, then understanding the formation, membership, and internal behavior of user pools (individual neighborhoods and schools) is crucial for law and policy. For example, an understanding of these dynamics would transform the current debate over education vouchers and shed new light on practices of residential zoning. This paper uses game theory to systematically work through the implications of user participation for education and neighborhood security. I examine two related collective action problems: the first involving an individual's choice of a consumption community or user pool, and the second involving an individual's choice of action within a particular user pool. I then explore how these two games interact with each other and with legal rules to generate real-world outcomes. Finally, I briefly consider two legal mechanisms - education vouchers and residential zoning - through the lens of user participation.","PeriodicalId":47670,"journal":{"name":"Texas Law Review","volume":"80 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2001-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.288807","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Two goods commonly provided by local governments - education and neighborhood security - have an enormous impact on day-to-day quality of life and generate a great deal of debate. Because legal structures, institutions, and rules determine how these goods will be provided, funded, and consumed, one might expect legal academics to be important participants in the public discourse surrounding these goods. In fact, the legal academy's contribution has been limited because legal scholars have failed to generate a convincing descriptive account of how the quality of these goods is determined and how people make choices about them. Legal scholarship has typically assumed that the quality of local public goods is driven by some combination of market-like consumer behavior ("exit") and political activity ("voice"). Although the "exit-voice" framework is useful, it is incomplete with respect to goods like education and neighborhood security. It overlooks the critical role of user behavior - the acts and omissions of the school's students and the neighborhood's residents - in determining the quality of such goods. If participation is central to quality and users are heterogeneous in their participation, then understanding the formation, membership, and internal behavior of user pools (individual neighborhoods and schools) is crucial for law and policy. For example, an understanding of these dynamics would transform the current debate over education vouchers and shed new light on practices of residential zoning. This paper uses game theory to systematically work through the implications of user participation for education and neighborhood security. I examine two related collective action problems: the first involving an individual's choice of a consumption community or user pool, and the second involving an individual's choice of action within a particular user pool. I then explore how these two games interact with each other and with legal rules to generate real-world outcomes. Finally, I briefly consider two legal mechanisms - education vouchers and residential zoning - through the lens of user participation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越退出与话语权:地方公共产品生产中的用户参与
地方政府通常提供的两种服务——教育和社区安全——对人们的日常生活质量有着巨大的影响,并引发了大量的争论。由于法律结构、制度和规则决定了这些商品将如何提供、资助和消费,人们可能会期望法律学者成为围绕这些商品的公共话语的重要参与者。事实上,法律学院的贡献是有限的,因为法律学者未能对这些商品的质量如何确定以及人们如何对它们做出选择提出令人信服的描述性说明。法律学者通常认为,当地公共产品的质量是由类似市场的消费者行为(“退出”)和政治活动(“声音”)的某种组合所驱动的。尽管“退出声音”框架是有用的,但它在教育和邻里安全等方面是不完整的。它忽略了用户行为的关键作用——学校学生和社区居民的作为和不作为——在决定这些商品的质量方面。如果参与是质量的核心,而用户的参与是异质的,那么了解用户池(个别社区和学校)的形成、成员和内部行为对法律和政策至关重要。例如,对这些动态的理解将改变目前关于教育券的争论,并为住宅分区的实践提供新的视角。本文运用博弈论系统地研究了用户参与对教育和社区安全的影响。我研究了两个相关的集体行动问题:第一个问题涉及个人对消费社区或用户池的选择,第二个问题涉及个人在特定用户池内的行动选择。然后,我将探讨这两款游戏如何相互作用,以及法律规则如何产生现实世界的结果。最后,我从用户参与的角度简要地考虑了两种法律机制——教育券和住宅分区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Texas Law Review is a national and international leader in legal scholarship. Texas Law Review is an independent journal, edited and published entirely by students at the University of Texas School of Law. Our seven issues per year contain articles by professors, judges, and practitioners; reviews of important recent books from recognized experts, essays, commentaries; and student written notes. Texas Law Review is currently the ninth most cited legal periodical in federal and state cases in the United States and the thirteenth most cited by legal journals.
期刊最新文献
Guarantor of Last Resort Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions Feminism and the Tournament Tracing Equity: Realizing and Allocating Value in Chapter 11 State Public-Law Litigation in an Age of Polarization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1