Yglesias Has My Head Spinning…

I just skimmed the Matthew Yglesias posts that are mentioned and, at least at first glance, I don’t see the contradiction. Or perhaps I should say that his statements seem close to my own beliefs and, if he is really trying to say what I mean, I don’t see the contradiction.

FIRST POST

If I understand Yglesias correctly, he is saying (more or less) that he believes that government should not be, generally speaking, in the business of regulating the marketplace with regard to the products and services that it produces.

Scenario A. Therefore, if , for example, developers want to build apartment houses in an area and people are willing to support them economically (by buying the apartments or renting them at a price that makes the developer a profit) then so be it. Same holds true for grocery stores.

Scenario B. But when an economic activity produces generally recognized negative externalities that, for instance, make property values go down (e.g., an abysmal or unhealthy stench, toxic smoke, unbearable noise, etc.) then it is OK for a government to deal with the negative externalities through regulation.

I think the difference between the two types of regulations is that the regulation of apartment house and grocery stores is a regulation of just personal preferences, more or less, (with “bad” apartment houses and grocery stores having no real negative impact on the property values or the health of others), but that the second set of regulations is not just an attempt to impose the personal preferences of some upon others. The second set of regulations is, rather, the regulation of negative externalities that damage the value of other people’s properties (or their health) — no one would like to live next to an unhealthy stench, toxic fumes, or unbearable noise. So the government has to set standards as to what constitutes legally objectionable smells, fumes, noise, etc., and what level of damage is permissable (since they cannot really be totally eliminated).

SECOND POST

In the second post Yglesias is saying that the construction and maintenance of a network of public streets is a government function (as I’ve been saying in a number of recent posts too) and that WHATEVER actions a government happens to take in this sphere (or any other legitimate sphere of government, so it seems to me), it’s actions will have implications for one group of citizens or another.

I think Yglesias’ mistake here is to call this “planning.” In my opinion it isn’t — it’s just government doing its business as government.

As I may have mentioned elsewhere (and as I was trying to say in my recent Randall O’Toole post) I think one of the biggest problems in many (most?) discussions of “planning” is that in the real world the word “planning” has a number of different meanings (as do most words), and people are confusing what might be called one meaning, i.e., “everyday planning” with what might be called “comprehensive urban planning” (which is what they teach in schools of urban planning). Of course “planning” (in the sense of everyday planning) is OK. People have to plan for their retirement, plan for their children’s educations, etc. Companies have to do strategic planning. And government agencies should be “planning” in this sense too (e.g., plan budgets, plan for changing conditions, etc.) But “PLANNING” as taught by urban planners is a whole different animal. It’s where government bureaucrats try to gather all the data they believe is relevant and sufficient and then try to comprehensively shape the future of a city, region and country. To plan in advance to avoid problems in the future. So I think of this kind of planning as being “comprehensive urban planning.”

It seems to me that “comprehenisve urban planning” is analagous to what is / was meant by the term “economic planning” (especially with regard to the Soviet Union and China in the 1950s). When someone makes a household budget, that is not “economic planning”; when a corporation does a strategic plan, that is not “economic planning”; when a government agency prepares a budget, that is not “economic planning”; even when a central bank makes a determination as to the amount of money that a country should have, that is not really “economic planning.” True economic planning is when government bureaucrats actually try to comprehensively plan an economy (e.g., where the resources go, where the factories go, etc.)

So trying to shape a society’s future by investing (directly or indirectly) government funds in favored modes of transportation is, indeed, “comprehesive community planning.” But a government settling a debate as to who should be allowed on public streets (e.g., street cars, buses, autos, etc.) is not really “planning” (although it may ultimately have larger ramifications), it is just plain governing (or ad hoc problem solving).

I do agree with Yglesias for the most part. It’s just that his side jabs seem aimed at libertarians, but he knows O’Toole and the likes are false representations of that ideology. I guess, my real beef is with the O’Tooles of the world that enable Yglesias to point out their inconsistencies, and diminish the credibility of free-market ideas in the eyes of urbanists…

I would ascribe a more benign motivation to Matt’s comments than you do, MU. I think they hint at a modern form of liberalism that has a lot of overlap with libertarianism, actually. The reason they rub you the wrong way is the same reason that two notes with a slight difference in frequency grate a lot more than two with a larger range between them. The way I see it, modern liberals like Matt have become more sensitive to using government intervention to achieve outcomes than traditional 60s and 70s liberals. They would much rather focus on creating the right processes that facilitate goals like environmental protection and economic opportunity. So you have things like cap and trade for emission rights or low income housing tax credits, which create rules that encourage private actors to pursue socially valuable enterprises. This accords with Matt’s take on urban planning, where he seems to favor a government-defined process (establishment and enforcement of property law, provision of public infrastructure, some basic level of zoning that addresses egregious externalities) that allows individual property owners to determine the outcome – the size, shape, and use of the property improvements. Libertarianism, too, is concerned primarily with establishing a process, albeit one that places a higher value on maximizing individual liberty than envisioning a predefined social outcome. As liberalism continues to shift towards expanding freedoms and away from defining outcomes it will converge more, at least in spirit, to libertarianism. Where the difference is irreconcilable is in liberalism’s more expansive concept of freedom. Still, there is probably a lot of room for common ground here.

Thanks Epar,

I agree that progressives and libertarians share much common ground when it comes to urbanism. The outcome that they wish to achieve through policy is close to one we think will emerge (in contrast to today’s land use patterns). But, it’ll be hard to close the gap until the O’Tooles are exposed and progressives and free-market advocates who are left standing realize they have been on the same side all along, for the most part…

I guess that leaves it to us Market Urbanists to flush out the O’Tooles, because only other progressives are going to listen to the progressive criticisms of them…

So, our work is cut out for us.

I certainly see the same kind of tension in Ryan Advent’s writing, and I must admit that I share some of this inconsistency myself, although I am trying to work it out as best as I can. Perhaps smart governance recognizes where the market functions best (producing efficient allocation of resources, spurring innovation, etc.) yet still allows the public to shape the general direction toward which the powers of the market are used. I wouldn’t really call this “big government,” certainly not in the sense of micromanagement, but it’s not traditional libertarianism either. I think Epar put it well: creating the processes to internalize the externalities. And maybe programming into the market as adequately as possible some shared values (such as equal opportunity) with a minimal amount of distortion. And managing truly public goods, but knowing where to draw the line.

Just some thoughts …

I still fail to understand on what basis anyone can claim that the removal of government would result in a mass migration from suburbs to cities.

In a world of:

– Private highways,
– Market-based land use,
– Competing private transit systems without labor unions,
– The elimination of gas taxes, registration fees, etc.
– The elimination of ALL transit subsidies, including capital expenses
– The elimination of government-administered drivers licenses (I would like to insurance companies, or highway companies, issue licenses…)
– The reassignment of liability away from municipalities, transit agencies, highway authorities, etc.
– Etc., etc., etc. (Can you add to this list?)

…how can one predict the consequences?

Perhaps a heretofore undiscovered (and unimagined) land use might emerge that is neither urban, suburban, or rural.

Meanwhile, if people like cities, they should just move to one! I guarantee, if the demand for city living is there, it will be met — as is now being done in several major downtowns. (And that goes especially for James Kunstler, with his obscenity-laced pontifications from Satratoga, NY.)

BTW, why does anyone care about what Mr. Yglesias has to say? He doesn’t seem to offer any expertise or originality in much. I guess he’s cool or something?

Bill,

I don’t think removal of government would result in “mass migration”. Of course, the existing stock of housing and infrastructure would remain intact until obsolete. Even radical policy shift wouldn’t cause living patterns to change overnight – but more efficient and sustainable patterns will emerge over the long term if left to the marketplace.

I cannot predict the consequences exactly, but I feel pretty confident that removal of transportation subsidization and socialization (plus use of eminent domain) would result in most people desiring shorter commutes. At the same time, removal of zoning would allow those who desire to locate closer to find suitable housing. I have a draft post that I’ve been toying with for a few months that shows this using fundamental microeconomic concepts.

Of course, in a free-market, we never know what solutions would emerge given enough time. Perhaps roads would be obsolete and commuting negligible due to innovations created through competition – people would likely spread out further. Or perhaps construction innovations would allow construction costs of high density to be similar to single family homes enabling cities to accommodate much higher densities at affordable prices – patterns will get denser.

We don’t know exactly what the result of certain changes would be, but economics allows us to deduce the likely outcomes….

Bill Nelson wrote:

“I still fail to understand on what basis anyone can claim that the removal of government [controls and subsidies, hidden or not,] would result in a mass migration from suburbs to cities.” [The additional words with the brackets are mine. — BH]

Benjamin Hemric writes:

I doubt that the elimination of government involvement (e.g., zoning rules, and government subsidies, hidden or explicit) would result in a “mass migration” of people from suburbs to cities, however, that’s not my point (although it may be the point of others).

I do think it’s true, however, that some significant number of people who might otherwise be inclined to choose suburban living would decide not to do so if they really had to pay the full cost of what suburban living would be without pro-suburban governmental regulations and subsidies.

Also, I believe that without pro-suburban governmental regulations and subsidies, private capital would flow more freely into both cities and into more densely built-up new suburbs (e.g., New [Sub]Urban developments), and less freely into brand new low-density suburbs.

However, I think one of the most important results of “market urbanism” is one that seems to me to be genererally overlooked in city vs. suburb discussions: the fact that without government regulations (e.g., zoning regulations) and subsidies, today’s suburbs (especially the older one’s) would be highly unlikely to continue to remain suburbs forever, but instead would gradually be likely to “densify” and diversify and ultimately become urban areas themselves. When one looks at cities historically, today’s “city” is quite often yesterday’s suburb (e.g., Greenwich Village, Georgetown, etc.). It seems to me that this would likely be true in the future too — unless the various levels of government step in to prevent such an occurence from happening. (For instance, it seems to me that many suburban zoning regulations essentially freeze out those builders and those buyers who would want to “densify” and diversify suburbs, and thus, ultimately, make them more urban.)