英语论文网

Another growth-related question, which is often misunderstood, is the extent to which growth does or doesn't 'pay.' At first glance, a number of studies seem to imply that as employment and population grow, and new housing is added, the fiscal impacts on local governments may be negative. These studies often suggest that increases in local taxes collected will be exceeded by local expenditures on schools and other services. It is not clear, however, that these studies are correct, because they utilize incomplete accounting methods.

Broadly speaking, communities grow because population grows (from natural increase and migration) and because labor and capital productivity rises over time, and per capita incomes grow. Higher per capita incomes, in turn, increase the demand for better housing, improved infrastructure and other public services, and additional commercial real estate, among other things. Most “fiscal impact studies” done for local governments fail to capture these dynamics adequately, and thus are overly pessimistic about the cost-benefit of growth. It may well be, however, that in the short run, and for particular government entities, growth can be disadvantageous. But there is no evidence that in the long run city fiscal positions are harmed by growth. There is effectively zero correlation between population growth and city surpluses and deficits, taxes per capita, or municipal expenditures per capita.

Is local economic development a 'zero-sum game?' Many economists believe that most local incentives for development simply subsidize location decisions that would be made even without a subsidy, or “at best” move jobs from one location to another. Some recent research suggests that, at least to a limited extent, this may be overstated. If we accept the hysteresis argument, and further posit that the locations that give the largest tax breaks may be those that have the worst economic conditions, it is then possible that economic development incentives will move production toward regions where there are greater external benefits. But possible doesn't mean that it does, or that the effect is very strong. Our quantitative knowledge of the size of these effects is rudimentary at best. And at least with respect to some important subsidies, namely those from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) programs, it is usually the case that the richest localities provide the highest levels of TIF subsidy. [1]

Another important issue about who benefits from growth is the relative position of central cities and suburbs. Cities have been decentralizing for as long as they have existed. American cities have decentralized particularly quickly over the past century and a half, partly because of income growth and improvements in transportation and partly because of localized problems in central cities and localized benefits in some suburbs. Standard models used by urban economists highlight the fact that as citizens' incomes rise, they will tend to move out in search of larger houses on larger lots; and as transportation costs fall, commutes will cost less as one mov本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。