Edward L. Glaeser

Why the anti-urban bias?

Professor of economics at Harvard University and director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. , Mar 24, 10.

Tagged with education, infrastructure, urbanism, federal funding, livablity

THE BILLIONS of dollars being spent on infrastructure across the nation provide an opportunity to plan for a better America, but politics-as-usual favors sprawl over city. This anti-urban bias of national policies must end.

Over the past 60 years, cities have been hit by a painful policy trifecta: subsidization of highways, subsidization of homeownership, and a school system that creates strong incentives for many parents to leave city borders. Nathaniel Baum-Snow, an economist at Brown University, has documented that each new federally-funded “highway passing through a central city reduces its population by about 18 percent.’’

Subsidizing transportation decreases the advantage of living close together in cities, which should make every urbanite worry about the Senate’s fondness for using highway spending to fight recession. The current Senate jobs bill calls for a more than $30 billion increase for transportation over the next two years.

It is a mistake to think that spending on trains balances the scales. Cities will always benefit far less than exurbs from transportation because dense areas already have good means of getting around, like walking. Urban advocates would do better to either reduce highway subsidies or to balance that spending with more funding for urban schools.

Political leaders have long championed homeownership, but subsidizing homeownership is also anti-urban. Sixty-two percent of Boston homes are rented; 78 percent of Wellesley homes are owner-occupied. Cities are defined by apartments, and more than 85 percent of homes in multi-unit structures are rented. Suburbs are known for their single-family detached houses, and more than 85 percent of such homes are owner-occupied. Subsidizing homeownership, through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the home mortgage interest deduction, lures people out of cities.

For many suburbanites, schools loom larger than fast commutes or subsidized mortgages. America’s local school system creates large incentives for education-oriented parents to move to homogeneous enclaves outside of city limits. Cities would benefit if the school system moved leftward, toward a more uniform national system like France, or rightward toward state-level vouchers that break the link between where you live and where your children go to school. School reforms that enable city schools to work more like a private market can harness the urban edge in innovation and competition that works so well in other industries, like restaurants.

The forces of history have created a moment where the right leadership could make America less anti-urban. The housing crisis, a renewed interest in infrastructure, fear of global warming, and the education reform movement could help bring about fairer policies for cities.

Full story: Why the anti-urban bias?
Source: Boston Globe, March 5, 2010

More Commentary