Rashid's Blog: A Place for Inquisitive Souls

Do cities increase rich-poor gap? It is seen that there is more equality in cities as world economic forum suggests.

Several explanations for increasing income inequality have been proposed, including skill-biased technological change brought about by computers and modern telecommunications, the expansion of global goods and labour markets, and changes in countries’ skill and age distributions. Yet one pattern has gone largely unnoticed: inequality is especially strong in large cities.

In an age in which virtually all countries in the world are simultaneously experiencing unprecedented urbanization and sharply rising earnings inequality, the question of a link between the two patterns arises naturally. Are big cities merely the locus where income inequality is starkest, or are they host to economic mechanisms that explain (at least partly) that inequality?

Inequality and large cities

Large cities are more unequal than the nations that host them. For example, income inequality in the New York Metro Area (MSA) is considerably higher than the US average and similar to that of Rwanda or Costa Rica. Large cities are also more unequal than smaller towns. Figure 1 plots the relationship between population size and the Gini index of income inequality for a 2007 cross-section of US MSAs (solid line). The relationship is clearly positive. This holds true even when considering that large cities host more educated people on average (dashed line); income inequality cannot be entirely explained by higher educational attainment in large cities.

How can we then explain the size-inequality nexus? Researchers have proposed two main explanations so far, both of which have to do with city composition.

First, large cities may differ systematically in their industrial structure and the functions they perform. Large cities host, for example, more business services and the higher-order functions of finance and research and development (R&D), whereas small and medium-size cities host larger shares of lower-order services and manufacturing. Consequently, larger cities are more skilled. However, industry composition explains only about one-fifth of the observed skill variation across cities (Hendricks 2011). Furthermore, that variation cannot fully account for observed income inequality.

Second, large cities attract a disproportionate fraction of households at the bottom and at the top of the income distribution (Eeckhout et al 2014). Central cities of US MSAs attract, for example, poor households because they offer better access to public transportation (Glaeser et al. 2008). Large cities also attract rich households because they reward their skills more highly than smaller cities – a “superstar effect” in “superstar cities” (Behrens et al. 2014, Gyourko et al. 2013, Rosen 1981).

Superstars and ‘survival of the fittest’

The theory also predicts that increasing globalization among the world’s cities will translate into larger urban income inequality. Just as large cities provide large local markets to reward skills, larger global markets serve the same function. One novel aspect of our analysis is to emphasize the existence of both a direct effect of increasing globalization on inequality (the superstar effect) and an indirect effect that goes through increasing urbanization and the growth of cities. Cities are more valuable in a globalized world, which may serve to explain increasing urbanization. The latter is positively linked to inequality, an aspect that has not been much analysed until now.

Urban winners take all: should we care?

What are the possible implications of our theory for public policy? The first motivation for our research is that cities are the correct spatial scale for looking at inequality. The reason is also sociological: people perceive inequality more strongly when they see it at close range. The spatial proximity of favelas and modern football stadiums in Brazil offers a striking contrast and has been hotly debated.

Second, as argued above, cities are not only where inequality materializes, but they are also hosts to mechanisms that contribute to changes in that inequality. As such, focusing on cities is of primary interest when it comes to designing policies that aim at reducing inequality and its adverse social effects.

Conclusions

Here is the  conclusion with two words of caution. First, nominal income inequality (which is measured) is not equivalent to real income inequality (which is not directly measurable). Insofar as large cities offer a wider range of cheaper goods and services than small cities do, and if this pattern is especially pronounced for the least well off, then actual real urban inequality may be less severe than nominal inequality (Handbury and Weinstein 2011). Actually, Harvard economist Edward Glaeser claims that the large poverty rates of central cities are a testimony of their success, not their failure: they attract poor households by catering better to their needs (Glaeser 2011).

Second, fighting urban inequality does not require aggressive local redistributive policies, for such policies attract the poor and repulse the rich, leading to the bankruptcy of local governments, such as the fiscal crisis that hit New York City in the 1970s. State-wide or nationwide policy coordination is required.

Urban Poverty and rural poverty differs structurally. While urban poverty is mainly because of rich-poor gap and reflects in some specific residential area rural poverty is ingrained in societal structure.

Source(s):

World Economic Forum

Urban Poor, UN and Slums

Social Exclusion

Magnets of Social exclusion

If you’ve ever been to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, it might come as a shock to learn that the Prime Meridian line located there is in the wrong place. In fact, it’s out by about 100 metres. But the question is – was prime Meridian always there? It was shifted in the Royal Observatory itself.

Present Day Prime Meridian

Marker of Old Prime Meridian

Since the late 19th century, the Greenwich Meridian has been the line at which most maps mark 0° longitude, the starting point for measuring geographical coordinates in an east-west direction. But we now know that the line, a physical representation of which is visited by thousands of tourists every year, should more precisely be 0.001472° (or 102.5 m) further east.

How did the Victorian astronomers who created the Meridian get their calculations wrong? It comes down to the fact that the Earth is not a perfect sphere. In order to determine the precise angle at which to position the line as it ran through the Greenwich Observatory, its creators used early instruments that were aimed vertically at what are called “clock-stars” in the night sky. These are the brighter stars, whose positions have been observed over long periods of time and can be used as reference points in the sky.

To find the exact vertical direction (a line pointing at the precise centre of the Earth’s mass) the Observatory’s astronomers first found the exact horizontal direction (at 90° to the vertical) by looking at the surface of a pool of mercury in a basin.

Today, we have the significant advantage of access to the satellite-based Global Positioning System (GPS), which does not rely on the Earth’s varying gravitational force and uses a more accurate method to calculate the centre of the planet’s mass. This has enabled scientists to determine the true vertical direction and in doing so produced a new meridian slightly to the east of the old one. Because the Earth isn’t a perfect sphere, it was impossible to simply move the new line over and maintain an accurate coordinate system.This method, however, assumed that the Earth’s gravitational force that created the horizontal surface on the mercury was both uniform and straight down. But because the Earth is not perfectly round and local gravitational forces vary with terrain, the surface of the mercury at Greenwich was not precisely horizontal relative to the centre of the Earth’s mass. As a result, the vertical line to the stars and therefore the meridian line on the ground were slightly skewed.

Does it matter?

So what are the implications of this apparent inaccuracy, particularly given that it is the location from where every place on Earth is measured and from which all clocks are ultimately set? Fortunately, the answer is none, really.

We must remember that the position of the Prime Meridian is actually rather arbitrary and could theoretically be located anywhere. Its location through Greenwich was agreed at the International Meridian Conference of 1884 because it was the most popular candidate. Before this point, roughly ten other prime meridians were also in use, including ones through various other cities including Paris and Cadiz.

Because all important scientific measurements are today made using GPS and not the original location of the Greenwich Meridian, the impact of the error is actually minimal. Arguably, the main issues are confined to the Royal Observatory itself and how it plans to address the issue at the tourist site. There is certainly an argument for a new marker at the “true” Prime Meridian 102m to the east (although being set in one of London’s heavily regulated Royal Parks might make this somewhat problematic).

And where should we envisage the true Prime Meridian? Certainly, the new location is the more accurate line and the one that will be used in the future. But we shouldn’t forget the groundbreaking work that was conducted by scientists in centuries past with only limited tools. The fact that the two lines are just 100m apart is testament to their hard work and ingenuity and so disregarding the old line would be disrespectful. The old line will remain a historic and scientific curiosity, while the new one will allow for ever more accurate navigation within the Earth’s terrestrial, oceanic and atmospheric system.

Source(s):

The Conversion

Longitude (Book)

History of Astronomy