We are unable to display your institutional affiliation without JavaScript turned on.
Browse Book and Journal Content on Project MUSE

Download PDF

Should Suburbs Help Their Central City?

From: Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs
pp. 45-94 | 10.1353/urb.2002.0007

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Should Suburbs Help Their Central City? Should suburbs help finance their center city’s core public services? This is a long-standing policy question in U.S. urban public finance and an issue of no less importance in other countries. Toronto recently merged its financing and governance with its surrounding suburbs. In configuring its new fiscal system, South Africa opted for a form of metropolitan financing that “twins” wealthy suburbs with less wealthy central cities. What are the arguments for suburb-to-city fiscal assistance, or stronger still, suburb plus city fiscal mergers? Perhaps the most familiar argument is that suburb-to-city assistance corrects for the underprovision of city-produced public goods that benefit suburban residents, such as city subways and buses, airports, and museums.1 When spillovers are significant and suburban residents benefit from city-provided public infrastructure, they should contribute to the financing of such infrastructures. However, efficient financing favors user fees and average cost pricing rather than intergovernmental transfers.2 45 ANDREW F. HAUGHWOUT Federal Reserve Bank of New York ROBERT P. INMAN Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and the National Bureau of Economic Research Numerous colleagues have contributed to this research. Most important, Richard Voith generously shared his city and suburban data with us. We also thank seminar participants at the American Economic Association, Brookings, Colorado, Duke, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the New School, Stanford University, and Wharton. We received very able research assistance from Silvia Ellis, Alison Glusman, and Minsun Park. The results and conclusions summarized in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not reflect official opinions of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve System, or the NBER. 1. The spillovers from education, city police and fire protection, recreation, and trash removal are likely to be small. On education, see Acemoglu and Angrist (1999); on police protection, see Thaler (1978) and Hellman and Naroff (1979). 2. The possible exception to this rule may be financing of city streets where user fees may be difficult to collect. In this case, intergovernmental transfers to fund infrastructure might be appropriate; Small (1992). But even here, parking fees might be a useful “third-best” policy; Arnott, de Palma, and Lindsey (1991). *haughwout 7/18/02 3:01 PM Page 45 A second familiar argument is that city poverty is a metropolitan-wide concern and suburban residents ought to contribute towards meeting the needs of their city’s poor. National programs define a common floor for income support, above which state and local governments can make supplemental contributions. In the presence of redistributive spillover benefits, however, city transfers will be too low relative to the efficient level of redistribution if individuals prefer to redistribute to lower-income households in close geographical proximity.3 While theoretically compelling, this argument lacks a credible mechanism to reveal suburban preferences for redistribution to the inner city poor. To the extent we rely upon the political process to provide a measure of these preferences, current state funding for city poverty may be efficient. Furthermore, if there is a problem, an appropriate fiscal institution— state government—is already in place to correct it. U.S. mayors have recently advanced a third argument for suburb-to-city fiscal assistance. The mayors argue that suburban residents need an economically vibrant central city to support their own real incomes, claiming, “Economies don’t stop at the city’s edge.”4 The mayors cite the now well-documented positive correlation between the average income of city and suburban residents in U.S. metropolitan areas. Their argument moves beyond correlation to causation, however. They maintain that a weak city economy causes a weak suburban economy and one of the central causes of a weak city economy is weak city public finance. A fiscally weak city has high tax rates and low public services that induce mobile firms and households to leave the city, undermining the city’s private economy and thus, the mayors argue, the economy of the region as a whole. Suburb-to-city transfers that strengthen city finances will strengthen the city’s economy, which enhances, in turn, suburban residents’ private incomes. This paper seeks to evaluate the economic...