Navigating the regionalism-public choice divide in regional studies

While city-regions take on increasingly important social and economic roles, analytical perspectives on their political boundaries remain fragmentary. This paper considers the evolving debates over city-region boundaries in the United States, arguing that the two predominant perspectives (regionalism and public choice) each provide partial accounts of political fragmentation in city-regions. Regionalists and public choice theorists frame the urban question differently, leading to mismatched priorities that are ultimately self-defeating for both camps. Surmounting the conceptual impasse regarding regional boundary change will involve compromise and engagement with the communities who live there, and reflect the practical politics of specific city-regions.