The concept of public goods is goods are consumed by households who do not pay for them however they do receive the benefit of the good. Another concept of a public good is one household’s consumption of the good does not reduce the amount which is left over for the consumption of the other households. The cost of extending service to an additional person is zero for public goods and it is impossible to exclude individuals from enjoying.
Some examples of public goods are the Emergency Alert System, street lightening for roads and highways, flood control systems, radio broadcasts, free to air television, air, and national defense. I believe the examples of public goods described above could never be extended a cost to the public for usage. It is literally impossible to bill for the services due to the free rider problem. There is no way to stop a person who would refuse to pay for the services from using and benefiting from the service just as much as a person who would agree to pay.
In addition, it would be unreasonable to expect an individual to contribute when there is no way to stop another person from utilizing the same good for free. Another view would be if a person was required to pay for public goods the goods would have to be produced in ways consumers would recognize the value solely for them. Public goods are known to have greater importance in urban areas and high-density communities.
The role I think public goods should play in cities and urbanized areas are to remain free. The tax dollars individuals pay should contribute to the cost associated with these services. There is no feasible way to monitor who will take advantage of national defense. To have a toll setup on every street and stated a person cannot drive down the street with lights unless a fee is paid. When it comes to public goods the government must continue to absorb any associated fees that may come from the goods.
There is currently a societal trend away from the availability of public goods. Some examples are cable television and satellite radio. I believe people will continue to invent new and improved ways to deliver the public goods many of us take for granted, however do not believe there would ever be a way to eliminate public goods in their entirety. I believe the government encourages new inventions to eliminate public goods to eventually eliminate cost.
Robert Reich wrote about the “secession of the success”, in which he suggest the repercussions of grouping the population into two categories, the wealthy 20% versus the other 80% when it comes to the choices citizens have to exit or have a voice in a community. The wealthy 20% of residents will exit to locations where the elite will reside in which they will commingle with other elites and keep their income in the same community. The remaining 80% of the lower class will live in communities which will depend on public assistance from a financially stress local jurisdiction.
Reich argues the Unites States economy has encountered a structural change which has led to a growing income disparity. Globalization has limited the manufacturing jobs leaving many people unemployed or forced to work low income jobs. The educated and skilled workers continue to have the benefit of an income growth and job security, while those who are less educated saturate the service industry for employment. The abundance of people seeking employment in the service industry has caused slow wage increases and high income inequality amongst the population.
According to Reich, the income gap between the wealthy 20% of the population and the other 80% has increased division amongst resources in which the wealthy is less inclined to share. The wealthy choose to segregate to expensive suburbs or city regions where there are exclusive schools, clubs and recreational activities. The wealthy will even maintain their exclusivity when it comes to charitable contributions. Instead of contributing to the less fortunate, they will contribute money and resource to organizations in which they consume services.
The financial gap amongst the communities has caused local jurisdictions take on great burdens of high demand for public assistance from residents while maintaining low resources. There has been a shift of responsibility from federal level of government to the local level which has forced poor jurisdictions to accommodate the needs of the people with little to no means. The other 80% of the population who do not have a chance to exit their low –income communities must find a way to have a voice through social capital to gain a better quality of life.
Social capital is defined as the ability of individuals to harness the resources they need through the network of friends and relatives. Social capital is dependent on intangible things contained within or transmitted through social relationships which help to determine ones quality of life. Some examples of social capital are trust, information and obligations. The absence of social capital can lead to higher crime rates, poor health, bad neighborhoods and limited civic services.
When civic services are limited it creates a challenging government which brings forth famine and strife. High population turnover and density create an environment where people tend to prey on others who are not in their circle. When people do not form a bond with their neighbors social sanctions are not enforced and people show no empathy amongst each other. Then an individual do not fear the ability to loss social capital such as their reputation in the community or job they are more prone to commit a on individuals whom they have no relationship or association with.
Positive neighborhoods are formed by social capital in well maintained areas. The Crime Prevention through Environmental design approach developed by C Ray Jeffery (1971) suggests the physical design of an area can deter crime by changing the behavior of potential criminals and residents. Neighborhoods with high civic engagement gain mutual trust and stability. Neighbors are encouraged to maximize visibility in their neighborhood by creating a sense of ownership and responsibility. Residents are encouraged to watch and report suspicious behavior.
Accordingly to Robert Putnam (2000) book Bowling Alone, social capital is important for individual and society. Neighborhoods will be safer when friends will watch their neighbors’ homes and vice versa while they are away. The neighborhood is considered to be safer due to neighbors watching out for each other and even the families who do not participate in the arrangements also benefit from the neighbor watch.
In society when social capital is being demonstrated trust is built in communities. As a result, when people are more confident that they deserve your trust it will be easier to transact business with that person. In addition the trust will lead to greater life expectancy due to encountering less stress. Social capital is considered to be an important factor of a vibrant community where people know each other, live in greater safety and live longer and healthier lives.
Putnam implies the benefactor of a good deed is paid in kind by the receiver and general exchange, in which the benefactor may expect to be rewarded but no necessarily by the recipient. This type of reciprocity is critical in establishing trust and in the end everyone benefits. Putnam also describes the difference between “bonding” and “bridging” social capital. Bonding social capital is making firm connections with others who share fundamental identities while bridging social capital is making firmer connections with other whom come from different backgrounds with common goals. Bonding social capital is homogeneous and exclusive and bridging social capital is heterogeneous and inclusive.
Bridging social capital is considered to be more useful among individuals and society however it is also considered more difficult to build. However, bridging social capital is known to broaden prospect and substitute tolerance and empathy. If bridging social capital was not used in conjunction with bonding social capital gangs and ethnic hatred will form in which trust and reciprocity will be limited within the group. The qualities of demonstrating social capital will enable residents to advocate effectively for change in the community and show they have a voice.
Jane Jacobs (1961) book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities critique the then current conventional way of rebuilding cities. She argued the typical renewal project of consolidating small city blocks with mega blocks and mixed-use streets with single-use; large scale developments were not beneficial for cities, destroying vibrant street life. Jacob suggested the public housing projects of the 1950s exemplified everything that was incorrect with contemporary urban development.
According to Jacob, what was important was a physical environment which promoted human contact such as small blocks, mixed use, a clear contrast between public space and private space, and unexpected meetings of neighbors. Jacobs was providing her description of a neighborhood beneficial to building social capital. She expressed the best way to fight crime was to have eyes on the street which would provide fewer opportunities for criminals. She stated the best way to promote “eyes on the street” was for the community to have many reasons for people to be out and about in the mornings and evenings. Jacob’s point of view was not taken serious for many years, however currently her ideas have been taken into consideration and are reflected in many principles of the new urbanism.
New urbanism is considered an approach to urban planning that seeks to regenerate more pulsating civic life through architectural and design elements, such as higher density housing, front porches, and other elements that encourage collaboration along lively streets. It highlights walkable neighborhoods that comprise of a mixture of commercial and residential properties, such as single family homes, apartments, and townhouse. There is a connected network of narrow streets and buildings are close to sidewalks.
These areas provide people with a reason to walk down the street with well-designed public space which promotes the development of social capital. The new urbanism movement promoted physical design of urban and suburban space that focused on reducing dependence on the automobile. The Charter for New Urbanism organized in 1994, stressed individual architectural projects should be continuously linked to their surroundings and that the declaration of graphic urban design codes can improve the economic health and harmonious growth of neighborhoods. Community individuality and the culture of democracy were promoted through the efforts of new urbanism by constructing civic buildings and public meeting places.
By 1995, the New Urbanism movement was powerful the key principle were outlined and describes as the hallmark characteristics of the twenty-first century city included the following. A corner store was to be brought back within walkable distance of most residents. Building lot sizes were to be shrunk and the distance between the street and homes were to be reduced to conserve land and improve landscapes. Streets were to be made skinny to influence drivers to slow down and to enhance street-scape for pedestrians. Open the streets that were closed at one end so individual homes were not separated from each other. Create town centers with plazas, squares and parks and also place new life in old retail malls to ensure the malls would become the center for real neighborhoods. Preserve green space when possible, and plant trees curbside to humanize the city and suburbs.
These are just a few example of New Urbanism many communities considered as they attempted to revitalize themselves into places that were more attractive to new residents and new businesses in the twenty first century.