Segregation and the Spatial Externalities of Inequality: A Theory of Collateral Cooperation for Public Goods in Cities

A. Xu
{"title":"Segregation and the Spatial Externalities of Inequality: A Theory of Collateral Cooperation for Public Goods in Cities","authors":"A. Xu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3701099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why are some cities much more well-endowed in public goods than others? I argue that the degree of socioeconomic segregation largely explains the formation of preferences for public goods. Socioeconomically integrated (non-segregated) cities have a higher incidence of the negative spatial externalities of inequality (e.g., crime, contamination) that spill over from impoverished localities. Such neighborhood effects, in turn, increase the neighboring middle-class' preferences for certain public goods that address them, while decreasing the perceived relative efficacy of private solutions (e.g., private guards). Thus, socioeconomic integration - through the spatial externalities mechanism - enables preference convergence on the public provision of services in place of private options. In contrast, segregation polarizes the urban electorate along class lines. To test the argument, I propose a novel instrument for segregation that interacts rural-to-urban predicted migration (shift-share instrument) of the poor with the destination locality's \"urban form.\" I combine this quasi-experimental strategy with census area-level measures of class- and race-based segregation and an original face-to-face survey with over 4,000 households across 408 of the 456 census areas in the megacity of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Using embedded mechanism experiments, I show that the spatial externalities mechanism is empirically distinct from alternative mechanisms - racial prejudice, social affinity, contact hypothesis - proposed in the literature.","PeriodicalId":306856,"journal":{"name":"Economic Inequality & the Law eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic Inequality & the Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3701099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Why are some cities much more well-endowed in public goods than others? I argue that the degree of socioeconomic segregation largely explains the formation of preferences for public goods. Socioeconomically integrated (non-segregated) cities have a higher incidence of the negative spatial externalities of inequality (e.g., crime, contamination) that spill over from impoverished localities. Such neighborhood effects, in turn, increase the neighboring middle-class' preferences for certain public goods that address them, while decreasing the perceived relative efficacy of private solutions (e.g., private guards). Thus, socioeconomic integration - through the spatial externalities mechanism - enables preference convergence on the public provision of services in place of private options. In contrast, segregation polarizes the urban electorate along class lines. To test the argument, I propose a novel instrument for segregation that interacts rural-to-urban predicted migration (shift-share instrument) of the poor with the destination locality's "urban form." I combine this quasi-experimental strategy with census area-level measures of class- and race-based segregation and an original face-to-face survey with over 4,000 households across 408 of the 456 census areas in the megacity of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Using embedded mechanism experiments, I show that the spatial externalities mechanism is empirically distinct from alternative mechanisms - racial prejudice, social affinity, contact hypothesis - proposed in the literature.
隔离与不平等的空间外部性:城市公共物品附带合作理论
为什么有些城市的公共产品比其他城市丰富得多?我认为,社会经济隔离的程度在很大程度上解释了对公共产品偏好的形成。社会经济一体化(非隔离)城市从贫困地区溢出的不平等的负面空间外部性(如犯罪、污染)发生率更高。这种邻里效应,反过来,增加了邻近的中产阶级对某些公共产品的偏好,同时降低了私人解决方案(例如,私人警卫)的相对功效。因此,社会经济一体化——通过空间外部性机制——使得公共提供服务的偏好趋同,而不是私人选择。相反,种族隔离使城市选民沿着阶级界线两极分化。为了验证这一论点,我提出了一种新的隔离工具,将贫困人口从农村到城市的预测迁移(转移-份额工具)与目的地的“城市形态”相互作用。我将这种准实验策略与人口普查区层面的阶级和种族隔离措施结合起来,并对巴西大城市圣保罗456个人口普查区中的408个地区的4000多户家庭进行了原始的面对面调查。通过嵌入机制实验,我发现空间外部性机制在经验上不同于文献中提出的其他机制——种族偏见、社会亲和力、接触假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信