Abstract
Competition among core cities or urban centers and suburban and rural areas besets numerous states. The competition often occurs amid a political environment in which suburban and rural areas enjoy a political majority in the state legislature, a majority that directs state investments to their areas. With Ohio as a case study, the issues that have created the urban–suburban–rural trichotomy are reviewed and an analysis of the tax returns, by area, to state investments is presented. The findings illustrate that urban centers produce more tax dollars per dollar of state investment than other areas, implying that state underinvestment in urban areas harms overall state tax revenues.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
