Week 5 Reading Notes

WEEK 5

Tiebout

Again we have an instance of an author working through a set of formalistic models—with explicit assumptions about human behavior/reality—that might seem very off-putting to you as a reader. I know I had a hard time with this piece. At least it’s short.

When you read it, keep in mind this week's assignment: In this theory whom does city government serve? What issues get considered, and who, if anyone, loses?

I suggest you begin with the conclusion so you can get a handle on what Tiebout is arguing AGAINST. From this section, as well as the introduction [esp 417-8] I think his point is to figure out if and how local governments [i.e. cities] can best meet the needs of their citizenry.

How does he define a public good? (417) What services qualify as a public good (418)?
How does he define a citizen-voter (418)?

Scrutinize the assumptions of his model: keep in mind his theory on citizen behavior:
What does he presume city residents do if they’re unhappy (420)?

What goal does he suggest cities aim to achieve? What does he suggest cities do if they are above/below/at their goal?

Does his analogy of the marketplace (421-2) seem workable to you? Does this model offer a reliable rendering of how
• Cities make taxing and spending decisions?
• People decide where to live?

For those of you who’d like a quick overview of his model, in this case I think wikipedia is a useful source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model


Molotch

First of all pay particular attention to the title of this article. You should do this everytime you read a piece, as a good title is a window into someone’s analysis. In this case I think this is an exemplary title:
The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.

What do we already know from this title? How does Molotch conceive of cities and the role of place in particular?

Right away Molotch cites Wirth, and argues that he omits “a crucial dimension of social structure: power and social class hierarchy” (309).

The next portion of the essay (310-8) describes the “growth machine”: who’s in the machine, who’s out of it? How does Molotch explain how land is used, how political coalitions are formed, how city government works and even what the function of city newspapers or universities is?
• Other questions include who participates in local politics and the role of “boosterism” (314)?
• What’s the importance of land values and speculation (317)?

Molotch next critiques the stated advantages of growth (318-25).
• What problems does growth produce?
• Who benefits from growth, and who pays?
• Why is the stated claim of job creation a lie? First understand Molotch’s argument (320), and then look at the evidence he uses to back up his case.
• Once you get his position, try to understand how he critiques Tiebout (bottom of 319) and Zorbaugh (325-6).

Last, how does he evaluate challenges to growth machines? For those of you familiar with Santa Barbara or other places that have fought growth, what consequences does it have for land, which is Molotch’s main concern?
When you’re done, take a step back and think about how Molotch sees cities’ ability to serve its residents: are cities democratic, can they be?


Oliver, The Rise of a Suburban Demos

Again I’ll give away the first level of reading—comprehension—for you. His main point is that “suburbs are bad for democracy.” Now that we have that out of the way, here are questions and comments to lead you deeper into the text.

After reading his introduction, what are his key research questions (4-5)?
• How does he distinguish his position from other authors who have argued a similar conclusion?
• What transformation does he argue takes place with suburbanization (5-7)? This is crucial to his overall argument.

How does he define a suburb (8-11)? Does this definition work for those of you who grew up in one?

What characteristics does Oliver say can distinguish suburbs from central cities, and each other? (12-15)?
• Why does he choose these, and what tradeoffs do they involve?
• Do you buy his analogy to a physician (14)?

Pay close attention to (15-17) where Oliver addresses both Tiebout and Molotch [partially in footnotes].
• How does he define democracy (18)?
• How does he measure “local civic activity” (19-21)? What does he omit?
• Crucially, how does he argue suburbs affect local participation (22-5)? Attempt a sketch of his model on (24-5).
• What data does he use—does it seem convincing for the argument he previews?

Last, and this argument should remind USP2 vets of Prof. Pezzoli’s emphasis on ‘regional governance,’ what real-world recommendations does Oliver offer based on his study?

Remember Oliver is offering an inherently ecological argument [that there is something particular to the form of suburbs that hurts democracy—what similarities or differences would you draw with Toonies/Wirth/Molotch?