Infrastructure Spending, Policy Benefit Suburbs and not Cities
Harvard economics professor Edward L. Glaeser argues that the United States has a long, pervasive pattern of anti-urban behavior that needs to change.
Glaeser writes, "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.'"
Glaeser goes on to argue that subsidizing homeownership is also anti-urban, benefiting suburban single-family homes over city apartments, and that educational policy has driven families out of inner cities in search of higher quality schools.
Interestingly, Glaeser also says that funding for trains is also anti-urban, because it "decreases the advantage of living close together in cities."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Six Trending Urbanist Themes for the New Year - Dec 31, 2011
- How the Suburbs Killed Our Connectivity, And How to Fix It - Dec 07, 2011
- Does Living in a Poor Neighborhood Harm Your Health? - Nov 19, 2011
- Senate Approves Federal Funding for NJ Rail Tunnel - Nov 15, 2011
- Melbourne Ranked as Most Livable City - Sep 02, 2011


















