Abstract
The author evaluates how selective housing traits, local government expenditures, and school district qualities influence household mobility in the suburban four-county Cleveland metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The efficacy of the Tiebout thesis is to some extent substantiated in Geauga, Lake, and Medina Counties. Low government expenditures and amenity-aesthetic improvements in small-size municipalities offer strong enticements for the in-migration of high median-income households. In contrast, in Cuyahoga County, the size of a municipality best determines household mobility and residential location. Because mobility and public services provision are not strongly associated in large-size municipalities, the Tiebout thesis inadequately explains household location decisions, and one must look elsewhere for an understanding of suburban housing mobility.
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.
