Differences in the provision of recreation services are analyzed in terms of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics which reflect distributive weights, rates of use of services, and costs. Income, race, age, population density, juvenile delinquency rate, and population change are included in multiple regressions to explain service levels. While the study concentrates upon 1968–1969, analysis of earlier periods shows how past changes in neighborhood demographic characteristics have affected the present service distribution. The results indicate that, in contradiction to the pessimistic assertions of several economists, it is feasible to study the distribution of urban government services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrazerH. E. (1959) City Expenditures in the United States. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
CampbellA.SchumanH. (1968) “Racial attitudes in fifteen American cities,” in National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders Supplemental Studies. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office.
3.
CicchettiC. J. (1971) “Some economic issues in planning urban recreational facilities.”Land Economics47 (February): 14–23.
4.
GlueckS.GlueckE. (1952) Delinquents in the Making. New York. Harper & Row.
5.
GoldS. D. (1972) “The distribution of recreation services in Detroit, 1968–69.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan.
6.
HatryH.DunnD. (1971) Measuring the Effectiveness of Local Government Services: Recreation. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
7.
HirschW. Z. (1968) “The supply of urban public services,” in PerloffH. S.WingoL. (eds.) Issues in Urban Economics. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins.
8.
KlausR. (1968) Public Recreation and the Negro. New York: Center for Urban Education.
9.
LansingJ. B. (1967) Living Patterns and Attitudes in the Detroit Region. Detroit: Transportation and Land Use Study.
10.
LowryI. (1968) “Housing,” in PascalA. H. (ed.) Cities in Trouble: An Agenda for Urban Research. Santa Monica, Calif.:RAND Corporation.
11.
MacKR. P.MyersS. (1965) “Outdoor recreation,” in DorfmanR. (ed.) Measuring the Benefits of Government Investments. Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution.
12.
MeadeJ. E. (1956) Trade and Welfare. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford Univ. Press.
13.
MillsE. S. (1969) “The value of urban land,” in PerloffH. S. (ed.) The Quality of the Urban Environment. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins.
14.
MuthR. F. (1961) “The spatial structure of the housing market.”Papers of the Regional Sci. Assn.7: 207–220.
15.
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968) Report. New York: Bantam.
16.
National Recreation and Parks Association (1969) Parks and Recreation in the Urban Crisis. Washington, D.C.
17.
NeenanW. B. (1971) “Distribution and efficiency in benefit-cost analysis.”Canadian J. of Economics6 (May): 216–224.
18.
NesbittJ. A.BrownP. D.MurphyJ. F. [eds.] (1970) Recreation and Leisure Service for the Disadvantaged. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
19.
ShanasE.DunningC. (1942) Recreation and Delinquency. Chicago: Recreation Commission.
20.
ShoupC. S. (1972) Public Expenditures and Taxation. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
ShoupC. S. (1964) “Standards for distributing a free government service: Crime prevention.”Public Finance19: 383–392.
22.
StaleyE. (1968) “An instrument for determining comparative priority of need for neighborhood recreation services in the city of Los Angeles.”Los Angeles:Recreation and Youth Services Planning Council.
23.
SteinerP. O. (1969) Public Expenditure Budgeting. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
24.
Tax Foundation (1967) Tax Burdens and Benefits of Government Expenditures by Income Class. New York.
25.
Trevino-WestendarpR. (1970) “On the distribution of free governmental services: police protection in New York,” Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University.
26.
WeisbrodB. A. (1968) “Income redistribution effects and benefit-cost analysis,” in ChaseS. B. (ed.) Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution.
27.
WeisbrodB. A. (1964) “Collective consumption services of individual consumer goods.”Q. J. of Economics78 (August): 471–477.
