Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation
Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdri...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Richard Arnott [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: The School of Public Policy Publications - University of Calgary, 2018, 9(2016) |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:9 ; year:2016 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ079820654 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ079820654 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230505015233.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230310s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ079820654 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a JF20-2112 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Richard Arnott |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. | ||
| 653 | 0 | |a Political institutions and public administration (General) | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t The School of Public Policy Publications |d University of Calgary, 2018 |g 9(2016) |w (DE-627)1760616451 |x 25608320 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:9 |g year:2016 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 9 |j 2016 | ||
| author_variant |
r a ra |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:25608320:2016----::fiinmtooiarsu |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
JF |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
(DE-627)DOAJ079820654 (DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng JF20-2112 Richard Arnott verfasserin aut Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. Political institutions and public administration (General) In The School of Public Policy Publications University of Calgary, 2018 9(2016) (DE-627)1760616451 25608320 nnns volume:9 year:2016 https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e kostenfrei https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 9 2016 |
| spelling |
(DE-627)DOAJ079820654 (DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng JF20-2112 Richard Arnott verfasserin aut Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. Political institutions and public administration (General) In The School of Public Policy Publications University of Calgary, 2018 9(2016) (DE-627)1760616451 25608320 nnns volume:9 year:2016 https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e kostenfrei https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 9 2016 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
(DE-627)DOAJ079820654 (DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng JF20-2112 Richard Arnott verfasserin aut Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. Political institutions and public administration (General) In The School of Public Policy Publications University of Calgary, 2018 9(2016) (DE-627)1760616451 25608320 nnns volume:9 year:2016 https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e kostenfrei https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 9 2016 |
| allfieldsGer |
(DE-627)DOAJ079820654 (DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng JF20-2112 Richard Arnott verfasserin aut Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. Political institutions and public administration (General) In The School of Public Policy Publications University of Calgary, 2018 9(2016) (DE-627)1760616451 25608320 nnns volume:9 year:2016 https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e kostenfrei https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 9 2016 |
| allfieldsSound |
(DE-627)DOAJ079820654 (DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng JF20-2112 Richard Arnott verfasserin aut Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. Political institutions and public administration (General) In The School of Public Policy Publications University of Calgary, 2018 9(2016) (DE-627)1760616451 25608320 nnns volume:9 year:2016 https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e kostenfrei https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 9 2016 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In The School of Public Policy Publications 9(2016) volume:9 year:2016 |
| sourceStr |
In The School of Public Policy Publications 9(2016) volume:9 year:2016 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Political institutions and public administration (General) |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
The School of Public Policy Publications |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Richard Arnott @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1760616451 |
| id |
DOAJ079820654 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ079820654</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230505015233.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230310s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ079820654</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">JF20-2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Richard Arnott</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Political institutions and public administration (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">The School of Public Policy Publications</subfield><subfield code="d">University of Calgary, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2016)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760616451</subfield><subfield code="x">25608320</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
J - Political Science |
| author |
Richard Arnott |
| spellingShingle |
Richard Arnott misc JF20-2112 misc Political institutions and public administration (General) Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation |
| authorStr |
Richard Arnott |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1760616451 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
JF20-2112 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
25608320 |
| topic_title |
JF20-2112 Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation |
| topic |
misc JF20-2112 misc Political institutions and public administration (General) |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc JF20-2112 misc Political institutions and public administration (General) |
| topic_browse |
misc JF20-2112 misc Political institutions and public administration (General) |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
The School of Public Policy Publications |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1760616451 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
The School of Public Policy Publications |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1760616451 |
| title |
Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ079820654 (DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e |
| title_full |
Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation |
| author_sort |
Richard Arnott |
| journal |
The School of Public Policy Publications |
| journalStr |
The School of Public Policy Publications |
| callnumber-first-code |
J |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Richard Arnott |
| container_volume |
9 |
| class |
JF20-2112 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Richard Arnott |
| title_sort |
efficient metropolitan resource allocation |
| callnumber |
JF20-2112 |
| title_auth |
Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation |
| abstract |
Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. |
| abstractGer |
Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| title_short |
Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585 https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312 https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
1760616451 |
| callnumber-subject |
JF - Public Administration |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| callnumber-a |
JF20-2112 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T00:57:30.759Z |
| _version_ |
1803608025478463488 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ079820654</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230505015233.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230310s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ079820654</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">JF20-2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Richard Arnott</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Efficient Metropolitan Resource Allocation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Over the past 30 years Calgary has doubled in size, from a population of 640,645 in 1985 to 1,230,915 in 2015. During that time the City has had five different mayors, hosted the Winter Olympics, and expanded the C-Train from 25 platforms to 45. Calgary’s Metropolitan Area has grown too, with Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane growing into full-fledged cities, ripe with inter-urban commuters.* And with changes to provincial legislation in the mid-’90s, rural Rocky View County and the Municipal District of Foothills are now real competitors for residential, commercial and industrial development that in the past would have been considered urban. In this metropolitan system, where people live, their household structure, and their place of work informs the services they need to conduct their daily lives, and directly impacts the spatial character of the City and the broader region. In sum, Metropolitan Calgary is increasingly complex. Calgary and the broader metropolitan area will continue to grow, even with the current economic slowdown. Frictions within Calgary, between the various municipalities in the metropolitan area, and the priorities of other local authorities (such as the School Boards and Alberta Health Services) will continue to impact the agendas of local politicians and their ability to answer to the needs of their residents. How resources – whether it is hard infrastructure, affordable housing, classrooms, or hospital beds – are allocated over space and how these resources are funded, directly impacts these relationships. This technical paper provides my perspective as an urban economist on the efficient allocation of resources within a metropolitan system in general, with reference to Calgary where appropriate, and serves as a companion to the previously released “Reflections on Calgary’s Spatial Structure: An Urban Economists Critique of Municipal Planning in Calgary.” It is hoped that the concepts reviewed herein effectively expand upon and supplement the discussion in the former paper. The urban economic perspective adopted in this paper is itself not inconsistent with the public economics perspective but it pays more attention to space, and metropolitan transportation and land use policy, and less to tax policy and intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. I will explore the following sources of inefficiency within a metropolitan system: 1) local public goods, 2) externalities, and 3) economies of scale, starting with a short background on classic market failure and second-best policy.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Political institutions and public administration (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">The School of Public Policy Publications</subfield><subfield code="d">University of Calgary, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2016)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760616451</subfield><subfield code="x">25608320</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/617a83eacb7e4b3882298b644f929a7e</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/42585</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8312</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2560-8320</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4002113 |