 |
| Mayor Bill de Blasio testifying before the Senate Education Committee Photograph by Mike Groll/AP Photo citylab.com |
Hello Everyone:
The state of inequality in the United States is bad, especially in the major cities. Just how bad is it? Richard Florida reports in his CityLab article "How Do Mayors Think About Inequality?", "The inequality of America's metro areas mirrors that of the some of the most unequal nations unearth: New York's is comparable to Swaziland, Los Angeles is comparable to the Dominican Republic, Chicago's comparable to El Salvador..." Blogger said it was bad. Shockingly, the worst cases are in cities, like San Francisco, that the densest, most affluent, and most liberal thinking, where inequality is the highest.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has made inequality and his city's version of tale of two cities front and center of his administration. However, where do mayors across the United stand on the growing widening gap between rich and poor and what are they doing about it?
 |
| New York City street scene businessinsider.com |
This the question that a recent study of 72 mayors by political scientists Katherine Levine Einstein and David Glick address in Urban Affairs Review. (journals.sagepub.com) Their survey directly asked the mayors "...about the priority they place on addressing inequality, kinds of redistributive policies and program they are using and prefer, and the trade-offs they make with regard to inequality."
The survey measured this by posing a series of questions:
What are your current top two policy priorities? or In the next year, on what two issues do plan to expend the most political capital?
The survey compared the mayors's answers to their public statement and actual initiatives.
Ms. Levine Einstein and Mr. Glick evaluated these answers and policy position in context to "...political partisanship, strong versus weak mayor systems, population size, taxes, government fragmentation, and economic competitiveness on the priority mayors place on the trade-offs they make to address it."
 |
| The proportion of mayors addressing inequality along party lines Einstein and Glick yahoo.com |
Partisanship[ and city some are the biggest predictors of concern about inequality and redistribution
According to one finding, inequality and redistribution are relatively prominent on the mayors's agendas. Approximately one-fifth of the mayors began some sort of redistributive programs to remedy inequality, and about 30 percent of the respondents made any public state about supporting redistribution programs.
Further, about 18 percent said the that socioeconomic inequality was one their top two policy priorities, comparable to the 33 percent who said economic development and the 21 percent who indicated infrastructure.
No surprise here, party affiliation was an important factor. Take a look at the graphic above left. What we see is that 35 percent of Democratic mayors (blue) initiated redistribution programs and about about 50 percent made some statement of support, compared to the 5 percent of Republican mayors (red) in both categories.
 |
| "Marginal effect on mayors' support for redistribution in statements and programs Einstein and Glick citylab.com |
Size is also a factor. Mayors of larger cities were more likely to support and implement redistributive policies. However, there was minimal effect from determinants such as: taxes or economic competition. Mr. Florida writes, "Cities with strong strong mayor systems were less likely to say they supported redistributive policies but were more likely to enact them."
 |
| "Living with Inequality" economist.com |
The next question is "how do mayors handle the trade-offs that come with addressing inequality?" To understand this, Ms. Einstein and Mr. Glick asked the mayors if they agreed or disagreed with this statement:
Cities should try to reduce income inequality, even if doing so comes at the expense of business and/or wealthy residents.
Over half the mayors (about 55 percent) disagreed with the statement. However, a third agreed with the statement.
Katherine Levine Einstein and David Glick underscored the importance of this conclusion-emphasizing how important addressing inequality is to the mayors. They wrote,
...the fact that any mayors, let alone one-third are willing to sacrifice important components of their 'cities' tax bases to ameliorate inequality is striking. (journals.sagepub.com)
Once again, the mayors's responses aligned with party affiliation: 53 percent of Democratic mayors and a mere six percent of Republicans said their were willing to make the trade-offs.
 |
| "Bring on the hipsters" economist.com |
Probing deeper at the types of trade-offs the responding mayors were willing to make in the name of inequality, the survey queried the mayors if they agreed or disagreed with the following question (Richard Florida notes, "here, disagreeing is in line with greater redistribution):
It is good for a neighborhood when it experiences rising property values, even if it means that some residents might have to move out.
In general, 30 percents of the mayors disagreed with the statement, while 40 percent agreed and 30 percent had no opinion. Richard Florida writes, "Interestingly, there was virtually no difference between Democratic and Republican mayors here. This may be because some mayors view rising property values and tax revenues they bring as a 'good thing' and perhaps feel they can use other public policies to address the needs of those who are displaced."
The Trump administration is barely a month old and already a growing number of urbanists maintain that localism and local empowerment are necessary components for address geographic differences and dealing with looming cuts in federal funds to cities and the social safety net. Both Katherine Levine Einstein and David Glick offer useful context to the issue of civic empowerment.
Richard Florida writes, "On the one hand, it lends support to the view the mayors are willing to take on issues like inequality and policies like redistribution, which have long been seen as the purview of the federal government."
He continues, "...on the other hand, it contrasts with the prevailing viewpoint that mayors' strategies are more pragmatic and less partisan than those of national politics." Breaking this down along party lines, "Democratic mayors are far more likely to address inequality and develop redistributive policies and initiatives than their Republican counterparts." We can conclude that when comes to the issue of income inequality and redistribution, what color tie you wear still matters at the local level.
No comments:
Post a Comment