PRIORITIES IN URBAN RESEARCH

Abstract

IN THE BUSINESS WORLD, if a product finds a market the seller is not likely to divert his attention from selling to philosophize about what his customers really want. The problem is assumed away; if the product sells, it satisfies real needs. When the economist observes the business world, he is inclined to go along. Not so when he begins to inquire into his own product and his own market. The grants may be pouring in from all directions; he is flooded with consulting assignments from public and private agencies. He has all he can do to keep his head adore water. Yet he goes about with a strong feeling of anxiety about his value to society. This is the kind of introspection we are to engage in. When we canvassed urban planners and related practitioners in our area about their goals we encountered a set of attitudes toward urban problems that we had not anticipated. We found ourselves driven, ult imately , to put this question: does a public outlay in a particular area have to be justified in terms of its likely effects on the competitive position of the area in relation to other areas, or is it sufficient if we can show that the expenditure will reduce the costs, monetary and/or non-monetary, of producers and/or consumers in this area ? There is a lot of confusion on this point, and we as economists, are part ly to blame for it. Two quite unrelated problems have been thrust upon us and we haven ' t taken enough trouble to educate our clients sufficiently on the distinction between them. The confusion can be illustrated by the following quotations from the CED statement, Guiding Metropolitan Growth: First, T h e heart of our problem is the use of land and of other economic resources. particularly public revenue resources, in our metropolitan areas in the most efficient manner . We think this is a fair s ta tement of the urban problem. We see no mandate here for an investigation which leads to recommendations on ways and means of accelerating the aggregate or even the per capita growth of income and employment in particular metropolitan areas at the expense of each other or at the expense of non-metropolitan areas. The competition between urban areas is certainly not a mat ter for national concern and it would appear to be out of scope for the urban economist. Yet the same CED statement, and on the very same page, says the following :