Some realities about sprawl and urban decline

Abstract

Many urban analysts believe suburban sprawl has become an important issue because it helps generate two types of problems: growth‐related difficulties like rising traffic congestion, and high concentrations of poor minority households in core‐area neighborhoods. However, a careful regression analysis of measures of both sprawl and urban decline shows no statistically significant relation between these two conditions.

The basic nature of the American urban development process would cause core‐area poverty concentrations even if sprawl were replaced by more compact growth forms. But sprawl does aggravate growth‐related problems. Those problems could be attacked through either alternative overall growth strategies—such as high‐density, tightly bounded growth—or specific anti‐sprawl tactics, such as regional tax‐base sharing and regional coordination of land uses. But no feasible policies are likely either to alleviate traffic congestion much or cause most American regions to abandon sprawl.     

Comment on John T. Metzger's “planned abandonment: The neighborhood life‐cycle theory and national urban policy”

Abstract

I take strong exception to the idea that theories of neighborhood change, in and of themselves, caused the decline of inner cities. Rather, the demographic, social, and economic forces that existed in the postwar years caused some inner‐city neighborhoods to decline. The replacement of working‐class and middle‐income households by households with much lower incomes, on average, was the single biggest cause of neighborhood decline. Metzger ignores this fact as an alternative explanation for why some neighborhoods declined. It is highly implausible that my theories and those of other urban experts had such a strong impact on the public policy, building, and finance communities. Because people were responding to real conditions, it is likely that the same events would have occurred even if my model of neighborhood change had never been developed.     

Motivation Crowding and the Federal Civil Servant: Evidence from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service

ABSTRACT

Pay-for-performance reforms create “high-powered” incentives for civil servants to meet or exceed specified performance objectives as measured by such things as customer satisfaction. Economists and social psychologists have advanced the claim that high-powered incentives for performance may empirically lessen the effect of civil servants' intrinsic motivation toward achieving agency goals (motivation can be “crowded out”). Nonetheless, well-designed pay-for-performance incentives may “crowd in” intrinsic motivation. A number of federal agencies and subagencies have undergone personnel management reforms that raise the specter of this pattern of “motivation crowding.” Does it happen? Is intrinsic motivation crowded in or crowded out? This paper employs item response theory to create measurement models for the estimation a latent trait of intrinsic motivation for employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) using data from the 2002 Federal Human Capital Survey. The IRS, but not the OCC, implemented a paybanding system that imposed high-powered performance incentives on supervisors, but not on non-supervisory personnel. Results suggest that the IRS reward structure crowded in intrinsic motivation at the lowest levels, but that at the highest levels of motivation intrinsic motivation is crowded out, a pattern not seen in the OCC data.     

Four myths in the history of social thought

Four commonly held interpretations of the development of European social thought in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are analysed and criticised, with particular reference to Durkheim's writings. These four myths are: the notion that Durkheim's sociology developed in substantial degree as a response to the ‘problem of order’; the conception that Durkheim's work is to be understood in terms of its origins in ‘conservative’ social thought; the view that Durkheim's writings, together with those of some of his contemporaries, mark a radical break in the transition from ‘social philosophy’ to ‘sociology’; and the idea that the type of intellectual tradition represented by Durkheim, concerned with the ‘problem of order’, can be usefully compared with a divergent tradition concerned with ‘conflict’ and ‘change’. It is argued that while these myths each contain a kernel of truth, this can only be extracted if Durkheim's writings are examined in relation to the historical context in which he developed his sociological concerns.