IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v21y2004i5p663-680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Government Centralization‐Decentralization Debate in Metropolitan Areas

Author

Listed:
  • David K. Hamilton

Abstract

The extent of centralized or decentralized government has been an issue in America's governing system since the Revolutionary War. The major issues debated at the Constitutional Convention revolved around the amount of authority the national government should possess in relation to the states. The centralization‐decentralization issue is still a matter of contention, but a major focus of the debate has shifted to the metropolitan area. Despite the differences in time and levels of governments, many of the same arguments made during the constitutional debates are similar to the arguments made for and against government reform in metropolitan areas today. The author reconsiders the centralization‐decentralization issues debated at the Constitutional Convention and the ratification fight in the context of the current debate in metropolitan areas. Theoretical support for this exercise is provided by the international relations model. An application of the issues debated and resolved by the colonists to the current debate on the extent of centralized government in metropolitan areas would favor the establishment of metropolitan government.

Suggested Citation

  • David K. Hamilton, 2004. "The Government Centralization‐Decentralization Debate in Metropolitan Areas," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 21(5), pages 663-680, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:21:y:2004:i:5:p:663-680
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00100.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00100.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00100.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:21:y:2004:i:5:p:663-680. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.