Christopher
Active Member
- Aug 7, 2009
- 569
- 75
- 28
This is a follow up to a thread recently about the 10 poorest cities in the nation and the fact they had all been controlled by Democrats for decades. Here is credible evidence showing a big reason why they are the poorest cities.
Two years ago I was reading about the problems with Michigans economy (Detroit in particular) and I came across some research from Harvard that demonstrated how two Democratic mayors ran on the platform of helping the poor and all they really did was increase their electoral base to give them advantage in re-elections. The result of increasing their base of support is obvious: the number of poor increased. Which was not a good thing for Detroit, but good for the Democratic mayors apparently.
Research was completed by two Harvard economics professors in 2003 about what they call The Curley Effect, named after a 4-time mayor of Boston. I am by no means an economics expert; however, their analysis made a lot of sense with regards to reasons why Detroit and other cities that have been controlled by Democrats for decades are facing such economic troubles. Link to research paper: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/files/curley_effect.pdf
Here is a summary of the research paper, quoted from the abstract (bold, italic underline added):
The basic findings are that over-taxing a certain group/population that is considered the base of ones opponent is one way in which some politicians remove that group from the competition and Detroit, like Boston, has experienced the negative effect resulting from this. Another quote from the introduction of the paper:
This part of the paper is very telling about Youngs legacy of over 20 years as mayor of Detroit (bold emphasis added):
Two years ago I was reading about the problems with Michigans economy (Detroit in particular) and I came across some research from Harvard that demonstrated how two Democratic mayors ran on the platform of helping the poor and all they really did was increase their electoral base to give them advantage in re-elections. The result of increasing their base of support is obvious: the number of poor increased. Which was not a good thing for Detroit, but good for the Democratic mayors apparently.
Research was completed by two Harvard economics professors in 2003 about what they call The Curley Effect, named after a 4-time mayor of Boston. I am by no means an economics expert; however, their analysis made a lot of sense with regards to reasons why Detroit and other cities that have been controlled by Democrats for decades are facing such economic troubles. Link to research paper: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/files/curley_effect.pdf
Here is a summary of the research paper, quoted from the abstract (bold, italic underline added):
James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston, used wasteful redistribution to his poor Irish constituents and incendiary rhetoric to encourage richer citizens to emigrate from Boston, thereby shaping the electorate in his favor. Boston as a consequence stagnated, but Curley kept winning elections. We present a model of using redistributive politics to shape the electorate, and show that this model yields a number of predictions opposite from the more standard frameworks of political competition of Tiebout (1956) and Olson (1993), yet consistent with empirical evidence.
The basic findings are that over-taxing a certain group/population that is considered the base of ones opponent is one way in which some politicians remove that group from the competition and Detroit, like Boston, has experienced the negative effect resulting from this. Another quote from the introduction of the paper:
We call this strategy increasing the relative size of ones political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies the Curley effect. But it is hardly unique to Curley. Other American mayors, but also politicians around the world, pursued policies that encouraged emigration of their political enemies, raising poverty but gaining political advantage. In his 24 years as mayor, Detroits Coleman Young drove white residents and businesses out of the city. Under Young, Detroit has become not merely an American city that happens to have a black majority, but a black metropolis, the first major Third World city in the United States. The trappings are all there showcase projects, blackfisted symbols, an external enemy, and the cult of personality (Chafets 1990, p. 177). Zimbabwes President Robert Mugabe abused the white farmers after his countrys independence, openly encouraging their emigration even at a huge cost to the economy.
This part of the paper is very telling about Youngs legacy of over 20 years as mayor of Detroit (bold emphasis added):
Youngs racial favoritism can be seen in his tax policy and his distribution of city services. A 1982 referendum tripled the commuter tax from .5 percent to 1.5 percent, and raised the residents income tax rate from 2 to 3 percent. This tax, which had no impact on Youngs poorer black supporters, strengthened the incentive for the better off to leave Detroit. City governments rarely pass income taxes, presumably because of the adverse migration effects. Young eagerly sought to tax his richer constituents to fund redistribution, arguably to drive them out.
Young initiated large building projects that put his supporters on the payroll. He lobbied for federally supported public housingan absurdity in a city with huge amounts of housing selling for less than new construction costs (Glaeser and Gyourko, 2002) to keep his supporters, as opposed to whites, as city residents. At the same time, Young cut back on the basic services that white Detroiters valued, such as police and fire. In 1976, he cut the police force by 20 percent, which along with his other attacks on the police department, perpetrated lawlessness in Detroit. Trash collection declined by 50 percent during Youngs early years.
Did Young hurt Detroit? Did he hurt the black residents of Detroit? There is no question that Detroit was in much worse shape when Young left office than when he first entered it. Its population fell from 1.51 million in 1970 to 1.03 million in 1990, a 32 percent decline. The unemployment rate as a percentage of civilian labor force rose from 10.3% in 1969 to 20.6% in 1990. The percentage of households living below the poverty line rose from 18.6% to 29.8%. Nearly all the victims of this unemployment and poverty were Youngs black supporters. Over Youngs twenty years, surely in part due to his policies, Detroit became an overwhelmingly black city mired in poverty and social problems. While some of black Detroit was worse off before Young, it is hard to believe that a less confrontational mayor would not have helped his constituency more.