The Down Side of Sprawl

For John, BLUF:  Race is a very imperfect label for discussing out social problems in the US.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman is not my favorite economist, but in this 28 July article he does raise some interesting questions about how we make the American economic system work to the advantage of all of us.  Professor Krugman's focus is on urban sprawl, which he sees as damaging in Detroit and in Atlanta.  He also sees sprawl, and the lack of transportation for many as a factor in the breakdown in families.  The article implies that this family breakdown (think out of wedlock children and single Mothers) is a result of problems and not a cause.  Further, he notes:

When the researchers looked for factors that correlate with low or high social mobility, they found, perhaps surprisingly, little direct role for race, one obvious candidate.  They did find a significant correlation with the existing level of inequality:  “areas with a smaller middle class had lower rates of upward mobility.”

This makes the point that when we are talking about "race" we need to broaden the discussion immediately, to understand the larger socio-economic issues, otherwise we miss the chance to understand what is happening and to make progress in fixing what is wrong.

Some of the larger issues can be seen here in this two paragraphs from the article:

The apparent inverse relationship between sprawl and social mobility obviously reinforces the case for “smart growth” urban strategies, which try to promote compact centers with access to public transit.  But it also bears on a larger debate about what is happening to American society.  I know I’m not the only person who read the Times article on the new study and immediately thought, “William Julius Wilson.”

A quarter-century ago Mr. Wilson, a distinguished sociologist, famously argued that the postwar movement of employment out of city centers to the suburbs dealt African-American families, concentrated in those city centers, a heavy blow, removing economic opportunity just as the civil rights movement was finally ending explicit discrimination.  And he further argued that social phenomena such as the prevalence of single mothers, often cited as causes of lagging black performance, were actually effects — that is, the family was being undermined by the absence of good jobs.

I do not buy all that Professor Krugman is saying here, but I do think he is opening up an important area for discussion.  I hope he is keeping an open mind.

Regards  — : Cliff