2000
Abstract:
While several reports (e.g. Lebergott, 1993; Moore and Simon, 1999; Cox
and Alm, 1999) document stunning advances in health, longevity and
material well being and while it is no longer disreputable to credit the market
economy, most current discussions of cities and land use see only market
failures. A representative example is a recent magazine article by Katz and
Bradley (1999), ominously named "Divided We Sprawl." It blames most
U.S. social ills on how cities are growing (especially suburbanization) and
supports draconian interventions by politicians and planners to set the world
right. Indeed, a flurry of growth management measures either passed by or
being presented to voters across the land are unabashedly replacing markets
with planning interventions. It is difficult to understand how acknowledged
market successes and renascent statism can coexist side-by-side.
