IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v27y1997i01p111-155_25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fairy Tale Critiques and Political Science: A Reply to Kenneth Newton

Author

Listed:
  • DOWDING, KEITH
  • JOHN, PETER

Abstract

We are flattered that Ken Newton considers our research to be the only serious attempt to test Tiebout in Britain, but we would like to correct the errors of his fairy tale as well as refute his criticisms.Kenneth Newton, ‘Residential Mobility in London: Rational Choice Fairy Tale, Utopia, or Reality?’ British Journal of Political Science, this issue, pp. 148–51; Peter John, Keith Dowding and Stephen Biggs, ‘Residential Mobility in London: A Micro-Level Test of the Behavioural Foundations of the Tiebout Model’, British Journal of Poltical Science, 25 (1995), 379–97.

Suggested Citation

  • Dowding, Keith & John, Peter, 1997. "Fairy Tale Critiques and Political Science: A Reply to Kenneth Newton," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 111-155, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:27:y:1997:i:01:p:111-155_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123497250052/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Keith Dowding & Peter John, 2008. "The Three Exit, Three Voice and Loyalty Framework: A Test with Survey Data on Local Services," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(2), pages 288-311, June.

    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:cup:bjposi:v:27:y:1997:i:01:p:111-155_25. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    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.