DeShun Mullin

24 April 2014
Urban Economics
Discussion Questions
Page 483

FINAL EXAM


1. A. If in the suburbs of a metropolitan area there are many jurisdictions to choose to live in,
and only one central city, is it any surprise that the characteristics of people who live in the
suburbs are more homogeneous than those who live in the central city are?

The meaning of homogeneous is composed of parts or elements that are all of the same
kind; not heterogeneous: a homogeneous population. Therefore, it is not a surprise in my
viewpoint that the people are more homogeneous who live in the suburbs than those who live in
the central city. According to Bahl, in the united states, 69 percent of the population live in what
the government statistics call metropolitan statistics area 1970, 75 percent in 1980, and 77
percent in 1990.


B. Is homogeneity of citizen in a community bad or good from an economic and political
efficiency standpoint?

In my opinion, homogeneity of citizens in a community can be bad or good from an economic
and political efficiency standpoint. On page 443 chapter thirty-six Debra Meyers discuss the
differences living in any community. In the suburbs, homes are filled with people of all shades
of skin, form all regions of the world longtime citizen, new American and those who are just
visiting. Living in the suburban world is a matter of selection. Of course, the city can be a fun
place to visit or live. There are many places to see and things to do. On the other hand, living in
the city can be a constant struggle so that civility in city living becomes unreachable.

C. What about from an equity standpoint?

In equality is assumption according to homogeneity of variance within each population is equal.


2 A. How does Bahl define a fiscal disparity between two jurisdictions in a metropolitan area?

Bahl defined fiscal disparity based on evidence receive for 1987 date for a sample of 35 large
metropolitan statistical areas. The result showed that the average per capita expenditure disparity
between city and suburb in 1987 was around 1.51. This meant that cities spent excatly $1.51 per
capita for every dollar spent by suburban governments. This disparity was due to much higher
level of non-education expenditures made by central cities.


B. Could this be measured with real-world data?

Yes, this could be measured with real-world data with accurate up-to-date data. The information
given that Bahl used was from 1987. In order in measure real-world data, you must use accurate
data for the present time.

C. What problems would have to be overcome?

In my opinion, the finance situation would have to change, meaning that taxes should be adjusted
within the cities and in the suburbs.

D. How were the result recorded in Bahls Table 1 produced?

Bahl results was produced from the MSAs data in 1987 from pg. 449.

3 A. Even though Bahl makes a strong argument for why state government should
intervene to equalize fiscal disparities in a metropolitan area there has been little activity on the
front. What are the reasons given for why this may be the case?

I think that this is because of how the government should handle the money situation. Federal aid
and State assistance play a big part in these areas. The reasons I say this is because for one;era
since Californias proposition 13 has been a time of slow growth in State government taxes- a
factor often attributed to the antigovernment bias of voters. Also the recessions impact on state
budgets were substantial. Along with the changing mix of population, the dominance of
suburban representation in state legislators became even stronger.

B. Can these reasons be overcome?

Yes these reasons can be overcome. If the government changes the way they spend money .e