Two completely separate literatures have analysed government involvement in consumption; the collective consumption stream in urban studies and neo-classical economics' account of public goods. Both traditions have significantly converged in recent years, especially in recognizing a differentiated spectrum of provision in place of previous dichotomous categories. Collective consumption theories have poorly explained consumption process trends, but captured many of the key social and political causes of change. Public goods theories have underpinned public policy shifts, and thus been congruent with the direction of change, but poorly explained the social and political dynamics involved. An integrated theory bridging both approaches should better explain the relative autonomy of consumption processes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dowding et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: