Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:22:43.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Privatization of Public Services in American Cities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2015

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the United States, significant variation regarding the quality of public goods exists across local governments. In this article, I seek to explain these patterns. I argue that economically and racially homogenous communities are collectively willing to invest more resources in public goods relative to diverse communities. I provide evidence in support of this claim by analyzing the relationship between race and income diversity and the share of community security and education that is provided by private entities. I find that as racial diversity and income inequality increase, the share of private security guards and white children enrolled in private school is higher.

Type
Special Section: Public and Private Provision of Urban Public Goods
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association, 2015 

In the United States the provision of many public goods is handled at local levels of government. Variation within and across cities regarding the adequacy of public goodsFootnote 1 is a consequence of local control over development, revenues, and service provision. As a result, only some residents live in safe communities with well-maintained roads, sewers that never overflow, and public parks with swing sets and restrooms. Many others live in places that suffer from low-quality schools, drainage problems, poorly equipped police and fire forces, and overcrowded municipal jails. What explains these patterns? It is unlikely that some communities want to have high crime rates and poor-quality schools. I argue that economically and racially homogenous communities are collectively willing to invest more resources in public goods relative to diverse communities. I provide evidence in support of this claim by showing that heterogeneous communities witness a greater share of public goods provided through the private market in the realms of security and education. The privatization of traditionally public goods means that absent these choices, expenditures on public services would likely be higher in diverse communities.

A number of scholars have provided significant evidence that diversity along racial and ethnic lines can dampen support for public goods (Alesina and Spolaore Reference Alesina and Spolaore1997; Alesina et al. Reference Alesina, Baqir and Easterly1999; Cutler et al. Reference Cutler, Elmendorf and Zeckhauser1993; Easterly and Levine Reference Easterly and Levine1997; Glaser Reference Glaser2002; Goldin and Katz Reference Goldin and Katz1999; Habyarimana et al. Reference Habyarimana, Humphreys, Posner and Weinstein2007, Reference Habyarimana, Humphreys, Posner and Weinstein2009; Hopkins Reference Hopkins2009; Miguel Reference Miguel2004; Poterba Reference Poterba1997; Putnam Reference Putnam2007). Diversity may depress public goods investment for a number of different (and overlapping) reasons including an inability to sanction noncontributors (Habyarimana et al. Reference Habyarimana, Humphreys, Posner and Weinstein2009), divergent preferences regarding the targets of spending (Benabou Reference Benabou1996; Lieberman and McClendon Reference Lieberman and McClendon2013), and opposition to expenditures perceived to benefit other groups (Becker Reference Becker1957; Glaser Reference Glaser2002; Sears and Citrin Reference Sears and Citrin1985; Tedin et al. Reference Tedin, Matland and Weiher2001). Conflict over spending preferences and/or an unwillingness to engage in spending on other groups means that public goods in diverse communities may be underprovided. As a result, I argue, when a private option exists, diverse communities should see a higher degree of privatization of public goods.

I provide evidence in support of this claim by analyzing the relationship between race and income diversity and the share of community security and education that is provided by private entities. Security and education concerns are central to local political debates. Homeowners are the dominant force in local politics, and their collective preferences, driven by the protection of home values, play an important role in determining the inputs and outputs of local government including taxation, zoning, and service decisions (Fischel Reference Fischel2001). Crime and school performance are capitalized in housing prices (Black Reference Black1999; Taylor Reference Taylor1995) and, as a result, play a large role in local contestation. Additionally both education and crime are generally racialized issue areas, particularly for whites (Bobo Reference Bobo1983; Hurwitz and Pefley Reference Hurwitz and Peffley1997, 2005; Mendelberg Reference Mendelberg2001; Tuch and Hughes Reference Tuch and Hughes1996). This means that white, home-owning residents are especially likely to be sensitive to diversity with respect to these issue areas. I find that as racial diversity and income inequality increase, the share of private security guards and white children enrolled in private school is higher. In the remainder of the article, I review the relevant literature, describe the data used for my analysis, present the empirical results, and offer a concluding discussion.

Relevant Literature

In a variety of different settings, scholars have shown that diversity (particularly along ethnic lines) can be associated with policy conflict (Powell Reference Powell1982), slow economic growth (Alesina et al. Reference Alesina, Devleeschauwer, Easterly, Kurlat and Wacziarg2003; Easterly and Levine Reference Easterly and Levine1997), poor public policies (Montalvo and Reynal-Querol Reference Montalvo and Reynal-Querol2005; Posner Reference Posner2004), and reduced investment in public goods (Alesina et al. Reference Alesina, Baqir and Easterly1999; Hopkins Reference Hopkins2009; Poterba Reference Poterba1997; Vigdor Reference Vigdor2004). Additionally, a large literature on public opinion and political behavior reveals that negative perceptions of racial and ethnic minorities and the poor and are strongly predictive of their views toward government spending (Applebaum Reference Applebaum2001; Federico Reference Federico2005; Federico and Luks Reference Federico and Luks2005; Gilens Reference Gilens2009; Luttmer Reference Luttmer2001; Sears and Citrin Reference Sears and Citrin1985). However, other scholars have provided evidence that diverse and unequal cities spend as much money or even more on many public services including policing, fire protection, health, hospitals, and education (Boustan et al. Reference Boustan, Ferreira, Winkler and Zolt2012; Corcoran and Evans Reference Corcoran and Evans2010; Glennerster et al. Reference Glennerster, Miguel and Rothenberg2013). Research in this tradition has provided evidence that public policies (Miguel Reference Miguel2004) and strategic politicians (Rugh and Trounstine Reference Rugh and Trounstine2011) can overcome the depressive effects of diversity on public spending. However, higher expenditures may not correspond to equivalent quality of public goods. One of the problems scholars face in this literature is determining what the ideal amount of spending would be for any given community. Simply analyzing total dollars (or even proportions of budgets) spent on different categories may not give us an accurate picture of the degree to which the community's demands for public goods are being met. I take an alternative approach by setting aside public spending and focusing on services for which a private option exists.

If diverse communities struggle to provide adequate levels of public goods, then, regardless of the amount of money that is spent, we ought to expect some residents to be unhappy with the provision. Dowding and John (Reference Dowding and John2008) argue that private options are more likely to be adopted when residents, dissatisfied with public provision, have been unable to affect change in the public realm. Brooks (Reference Brooks2008) shows that business improvement districts (which might be considered a strategy somewhere between fully public and fully private provision) allow a subset of voters to increase investment in public goods when they are dissatisfied with public policy. The problem is cyclical; some residents in diverse communities shift resources from public goods to private alternatives, leading to suboptimal public goods provision, which may then lead other residents to select the private option. As a result, when private options exist, we should expect to see a higher rate of privatization in diverse communities. Security and education are two services that can be met in either the public or the private realm.

My predictions build on a literature investigating the relationship between diversity and private provision of public goods in the realm of education. Conlon and Kimenyi (Reference Conlon and Kimenyi1991) and Fairlie and Resch (Reference Fairlie and Resch2002) analyze individual-level data and provide evidence that private school enrollments are higher when public schools have large proportions of nonwhite (particularly black) students. Similarly, Betts and Fairlie (Reference Betts and Fairlie2003) show that in response to increased immigration, native-born American families are more likely to send their children to private high school. Smith and Meier (Reference Smith and Meier1995) and Wrinkle et al. (Reference Wrinkle, Stewart and Polinard1999) find that a desire for religious instruction and racially segregated schools motivates private enrollment in Florida and Texas. These findings lay the foundation for my argument that an increase in diversity will increase private provision of public goods relative to public provision.Footnote 2 The results presented in this article build on these earlier findings by expanding the analysis to the entire United States, providing evidence of an aggregate effect, and incorporating findings on education into a larger theory of private provision.

An important alternative argument is that poor governmental performance generates the impetus for privatization and vice versa (poor private provision leads to public funding). A number of scholars argue that failures of the private market led to the development of municipal public goods provision such as policing (Dart Reference Dart1981; Enion Reference Enion2009), schooling (Goldin and Katz Reference Goldin and Katz1999), and water supply (Cutler and Miller Reference Cutler and Miller2005). For example, Kaufman (Reference Kaufman1999) provides a historical analysis revealing that public police forces were frequently adopted by city councils when weak property rights limited the city's ability to promote urban development and economic growth. Predicting the opposite effect, Berman (Reference Berman2005) develops a formal model of voluntary provision of public goods using religious organizations. He finds that in the absence of government provision of public goods, individuals will naturally band together to provide public goods “through mutual insurance,” like clans, sects, and tribes (ibid.: 2). Similarly, Enion (Reference Enion2009) argues that private security forces arose in the nineteenth century acting on behalf of corporations and slave owners to exact punishment and control that the state was unwilling to provide directly. Dart (Reference Dart1981) suggests that private security forces expanded in the wake of severe, exogenous constraints on local fund-raising ability (e.g., Proposition 13). Chubb and Moe (Reference Chubb and Moe1990) argue that private schooling is a response to the failures of the public education system. For the purposes of this analysis, it could be the case that limited government expenditures on policing or high crime rates could increase the prevalence of private security and poor performance of public schools increase private school enrollments.Footnote 3 In order to account for this alternative, I control for measures of performance in my analysis in the following text.

Data

In order to analyze the relationship between diversity and inequality and private provision of public goods, I assembled a data set drawing on a variety of different government data sources. First, I collected data from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing and the 2005–2007 American Community Survey (ACS) regarding the occupational breakdown of the population in all US incorporated places (e.g., cities, towns, and villages) with more than 20,000 residents.Footnote 4 I focused on the broad category entitled “protective service.” Each year the US Census reports the total number of residents employed as “fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers including supervisors” and “other protective service workers including supervisors” (US Census Bureau 2005–2007: table B24010). The former comprises my measure of public security officers and the latter my measure of private security officers.Footnote 5 A list of occupations included in each category can be found in the appendix. This process yielded a count of the number of individuals employed in private and public security jobs in each city at two points in time. I have complete data for 446 cities.

To study privatization of education I gathered the total number of children enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade in public and private school from the Census of Population and Housing. I focus on the enrollment of white, non-Hispanic/Latino children because I expect sensitivity to diversity to be driven by the white community. Unfortunately, the census only makes enrollment by race available in one year—2000, so the analysis is limited to a single point in time. This analysis includes the same cases as included in the security analysis.Footnote 6

To the occupation and school enrollment data I merged community demographic data from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing and the ACS including information on the racial makeup of the city, the income distribution, and a variety of demographic control variables that are described in the following text. I collected data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program regarding the total number of crimes reported to police in 2000 and 2007 and data from the National Center on Education Statistics regarding the proportion of twelfth graders completing high school in the 1999–2000 school year at the county level. Summary statistics are included in the appendix.

Analysis

The dependent variable in my analysis of community security is a measure of the proportion of total security officers who are employed by private entities (percent private security) in 2000 and 2007. The denominator of this variable is the sum of private and public security officers in the city. My two main independent variables are measures of diversity and inequality. For the former, I use the proportion of the population that identifies as nonwhite (including Latino, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and other).Footnote 7 To measure inequality I use the ratio of mean to the median income in the city.Footnote 8 The ratio of mean to median income ranges from 1.1 to 2.2. A value of 1 indicates that the median and mean incomes are equal and a value of 2 indicates that the mean income is twice that of the median.

To account for the possibility that communities turn to privatization because of government failures I include the city's crime rate. To capture the prospect that cities with poor employment markets have a lower share of private security officers, I include the proportion of the population that is unemployed. To account for the ability of community members to afford public and private security, I include the city's median home value. Finally, I control for the natural log of total population.Footnote 9 Because I have measures of diversity and the share of security that is privately provided at two points in time, I add fixed effects for city. This means that the model accounts for all static city-level variables that could predict preferences for private security. In order to provide evidence of a cross-sectional effect as well, I also show the results of a regression using only the 2007 data with state fixed effects included.

In the analysis of privatization of education my dependent variable is the proportion of white children attending school between kindergarten and twelfth grade enrolled in private school (percent private school). As in the security model my primary independent variables are measures of the nonwhite population and inequality. I control for median home value, percent unemployed, the natural log of the total population, and racial and income segregation. I also add a measure of the proportion of the population that is under 18 to account for the correlation between age, race, and income and the possibility that families with young children are attracted to places that invest in education. Finally, as a measure of the quality of public education, I include the county-level high school graduation rate for all public schools.Footnote 10 As explained in the preceding text the dependent variable in this model is only available for a single year, so adding fixed effects for city is not possible. Instead, the model includes state fixed effects.

The top panel of table 1 shows the regression of private security on diversity and the bottom panel shows the regression of private education.

TABLE 1. Effect of diversity and inequality on private provision of public goods

*p < .10. **p < .05.

The results are clear—when cities have larger minority populations and a more skewed income distribution, the share of total security handled by private entities is larger and the proportion of white children attending private school is higher. The results are shown graphically in figures 1a–d.

FIGURE 1. Effect of diversity and inequality on private provision of public goods

Cities that gained racial and ethnic minority residents relative to whites between 2000 and 2007 saw growth in private security guards relative to police officers. For example, during this time period a city in which nonwhite residents increased from 10 percent of the population to 15 percent of the population would have seen about a 3.5 percent increase in private security (from 28.7 percent to 32.2 percent). When cities are about 40 percent minority, a majority of security forces become privatized. The same patterns occur as cities become more unequal (as they generally did over this time period). A change in the ratio of mean to median income from 1.25 to 1.30 (the average for the data set) was associated with about a 1.3 percentage point increase in private security, from 47 percent to 48.3 percent. Once the mean income is 1.3 times the median income in a community, a majority of security officers work in the private realm. An analysis of change in the number of security guards and police officers per capita reveals change in both measures. That is, between 2000 and 2007, on average cities gained security guards and lost police officers.

The results are similar for private schooling. In a city that is 95 percent white, approximately 10.6 percent of white children attend private school. With all other demographics equal, in a city that is comprised of 20 percent racial and ethnic minorities, the share of white children attending private school rises to more than 14 percent. When whites comprise only 10 percent of the population, one in every three white children attend private school. Similarly, in a city where the mean and median income are identical, about 12 percent of white children attend private school, but when the mean income is double the median, more than 30 percent of white children attend private school.

In table 2, I replace the measure of percent nonwhite with measures of the size of each nonwhite group for both private security and education. Scholars have shown that white attitudes toward Latinos and Asians tend to be less hostile and more variable relative to attitudes toward blacks (Dixon Reference Dixon2006; Hood and Morris Reference Hood and Irwin1997). As a result, privatization may be more related to some groups than others.

TABLE 2. Effect of diversity and inequality on private provision of public goods, separate racial measures

Note: City fixed effects included in security model and state fixed effects included in education model.

*p < .10. **p < .05.

Table 2 indicates some support for this prediction. The size of the black and Latino populations are positively related to security privatization, but Asian American residents do not engender the same type of response. White children are most likely to attend private school in communities with large black populations, but the size of Latino and Asian populations also appear to increase privatization. Adding a control for the language ability of the youth population (the proportion of people aged 5 through 17 with limited English proficiency) reveals that the aversion to Latino and Asian populations is largely driven by an avoidance of children who do not speak English. Collectively these results reveal that as minority populations increase, and as inequality rises, private guards make up a larger share of total security forces and a larger percentage of white children attend private school.

It is important to note that across all of the models, the measures of government performance (crime rates and high school graduation rates) do not meet conventional levels of statistical significance. This suggests that sending children to private school and hiring private security guards has little to do with objective conditions. In alternate tests I find that adding controls for the proportion of the city budget spent on policing and education are also insignificant. These findings are consistent with results in the existing literature. For example, Smith and Meier (Reference Smith and Meier1995) and Wrinkle et al. (Reference Wrinkle, Stewart and Polinard1999) find that public school performance is either unrelated or positively related to private school enrollment. This lends further credence to the argument that it is diversity in and of itself, rather than government inefficiencies or failings, that leads to privatization.

Of course, it is possible that minority residents move to cities with more private security positions available and places with more white children enrolled in private school. If this were the case, the causal story would be reversed; privatization would be driving demographic changes—not the other way around. While I believe this to be an unlikely explanation for the results presented in the preceding text, these data cannot rule out this possibility without an exogenous change to racial and income diversity. Nor can they reveal who is hiring the private security forces. If minority and poor residents hire most of the private security guards, then we would also expect to see a positive relationship between the minority population and the share of security that is privately employed.Footnote 11 Again, this seems an unlikely explanation for the patterns displayed, but additional data would be needed to test this hypothesis.

Conclusion

In sum, the data presented offer solid evidence in support of my argument. As the demographic and economic makeup of cities varies, so does the share of security personnel employed by private entities and the share of white children attending private school. When cities have more diversity and more inequality, a larger proportion of their security and education needs are met by the private sector. It appears that residents with resources choose to enhance their bundle of public goods by supplementing provision with private options when they are faced with diversity.

As Clarissa Hayward (Reference Hayward and Dilworth2009) explains, “The privileged can—and they often do—retreat to relatively homogenous [communities]. . . . They can pool their tax monies, and they can use these to provide schooling and other public services, which they can make available to residents only” (149). As a result, those with power and wealth make decisions that profoundly affect residents without access to similar resources while preventing the resource poor from participating in the decision-making process. These results challenge the conclusions drawn in recent research showing that diverse communities (with respect to both income and race/ethnicity) do not see lower expenditures on public goods in the aggregate. Boustan et al. (Reference Boustan, Ferreira, Winkler and Zolt2012) provide evidence that rising inequality and increased racial/ethnic fractionalization lead to higher government expenditures on a range of outcomes including policing and education (see also Corcoran and Evans Reference Corcoran and Evans2010; Hopkins Reference Hopkins2011). These scholars argue that their findings offer support for median voter models (Meltzer and Richard Reference Meltzer and Richard1981; Romer Reference Romer1975) that predict increased government spending in the face of rising inequality because the cost of public goods is subsidized for individuals with incomes below the community mean. It may well be the case that diverse communities see larger expenditures on public goods; but the substitution of private options for public spending indicates that public budgets would be even larger without these alternatives. This may result in increasing stratification over time as a disadvantage in access to safe communities and quality schools may compound disadvantages in other domains. Thus, residential and political patterns built on past predispositions and stereotypes may continue to shape future interests, actions, and ultimately inequalities.

Appendix

Census Occupation Coding Protective Service

Public

370: First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Correctional Officers

371: First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Police and Detectives

372: First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Firefighting and Prevention

Workers

374: Firefighters

375: Fire Inspectors

380: Bailiffs, Correctional Officers, and Jailers

382: Detectives and Criminal Investigators

383: Fish and Game Wardens

384: Parking Enforcement Workers

385: Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers

386: Transit and Railroad Police

Private

373: Supervisors, Protective Service Workers, All Other

390: Animal Control Workers

391: Private Detectives and Investigators

392: Security Guards and Gaming Surveillance Officers

394: Crossing Guards

395: Lifeguards and Other Protective Service Workers

Summary Statistics

Footnotes

1. Consistent with its use in the political science literature, by public good, I mean goods and services that are broadly accessible and intended to be welfare enhancing over the long term. Most of the policies provided by local governments meet these loose standards even while many are actually privately consumed (e.g., education), subject to congestion effects (e.g., roads), and excludable (e.g., water utilities funded by fees).

2. While private education is largely considered a perfect substitute for public education (e.g., Epple and Romano Reference Epple and Romano1996a, Reference Epple and Romano1996b), private security may not be perfectly substitutable for policing. Private security is primarily concerned with the protection of private property while police are public servants who enforce criminal law (Joh Reference Joh2004). States grant special legal powers to the police that are not granted to private security, but at the same time police behavior is more heavily regulated by the courts (ibid.). Yet, both types of officers seek to maintain order and spend a significant amount of time deterring crime and assisting individuals (Dart Reference Dart1981). Even public police officers do not spend the majority of their work time handling major crime (ibid.). Cheung (Reference Cheung2007) finds that an increase in the number of gated communities (private governments) encourages cities to decrease spending on policing. He concludes that private security serves as a substitute for public police to some extent. For these reasons, it seems reasonable to think of hiring private security as a substitute for expanding the community's police force.

3. Empirically the problem is, of course, that both of these could equally be caused by (rather than causes of) investments in private security and education.

4. These are the only two years of US Census data that distinguish between public and private security positions. For instance, in 2011, the occupational categories in protective service are “fire fighting and prevention, and other protective service workers” and “law enforcement workers” (US Census Bureau 2009–2011: table C24010). Unfortunately, the 2007 ACS data are only reported for larger cities (more than 20,000 residents). So my analysis is restricted to these cases.

5. An analysis using Bureau of Labor Statistics data with more precise occupational coding as well as data over time yielded similar results, but were only available at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level. These analyses are available from the author. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, greater than 50 percent of workers employed in firefighting, fire prevention, and law enforcement are employed by public entities.

6. Missing data on high school graduation rates reduces the number of observations slightly. Omitting this variable does not change the results.

7. Results are nearly identical when the percent nonwhite is replaced with a Herfindahl Index of diversity (1-Σpi 2, where p is the proportion of the population belonging to the racial/ethnic group i). I present the results using the percent nonwhite for theoretical reasons. My argument suggests that the abandonment of the public sector in favor of the private sector is driven by the white population. Thus, the relevant measure of diversity is the proportion of the population not belonging to the group “white.” A Herfindahl Index is unable to distinguish between a city that is 70 percent white and 30 percent nonwhite and one that is 70 percent nonwhite and 30 percent white. These two cities are equally diverse, but obviously very different demographically. Results using the Herfindahl Index are available from the author.

8. This measure is inspired by Meltzer and Richard's (Reference Meltzer and Richard1981, Reference Meltzer and Richard1983) formal model of the relationship between inequality and income redistribution funded by a proportional income tax. Meltzer and Richard show that growth in the mean income relative to the median lowers the cost of redistribution for the median voter, who then votes to redistribute income. See Corcoran and Evans (Reference Corcoran and Evans2010) for an analysis of this operationalization.

9. In alternate models I include controls for racial and income segregation using the isolation index for white and poor individuals. The conclusions do not change with these additions, although the effects of diversity and inequality are reduced. I do not present these results because the measures are highly collinear cross-sectionally with the percent nonwhite, and the coefficients on both segregation measures are insignificant in a model with all measures.

10. Controlling for the proportion of the population that adheres to different religions (e.g., Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Protestantism, and Judaism) has no effect on the main effects reported.

11. Data regarding who hires private security guards are not available. As a crude substitute, I tested including controls for the number of retail establishments and retail workers in each city. The coefficients on these measures were tiny and insignificant and had no effect on the variables of interest.

References

Alesina, Alberto, and Spolaore, E. (1997) “On the number and size of nations.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4): 1027–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Baqir, Reza, and Easterly, William (1999) “Public goods and ethnic divisions.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (4): 1243–84.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Devleeschauwer, Arnaud, Easterly, William, Kurlat, Sergio, and Wacziarg, Romain (2003) “Fractionalization.” Journal of Economic Growth 8 (2): 155–94.Google Scholar
Applebaum, Lauren (2001) “The influence of perceived deservingness on policy decisions regarding aid to the poor.” Political Psychology 22 (3): 419–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary (1957) The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benabou, Roland (1996) “Heterogeneity, stratification, and growth: Macroeconomic implications of community structure and school finance.” American Economic Review 86 (3): 584609.Google Scholar
Berman, Eli (2005) “Hamas, Taliban, and the Jewish Underground: An economist's view of radical religious militias.” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 10004.Google Scholar
Betts, Julian, and Fairlie, Robert (2003) “Does immigration induce ‘native flight’ from public schools into private schools?Journal of Public Economics 87 (5–6): 9871012.Google Scholar
Black, Sandra (1999) “Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (2): 577–99.Google Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence (1983) “Whites’ opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (6):1196–210.Google Scholar
Boustan, Leah Platt, Ferreira, Fernando, Winkler, Hernan, and Zolt, Eric (2012) “The effect of rising income inequality on taxation and public expenditures: Evidence from US municipalities and school districts, 1970–2000.” Review of Economics and Statistics Research 95 (4): 1291–302.Google Scholar
Brooks, Leah (2008) “Volunteering to be taxed: Business improvement districts and extra-governmental provision of public safety.” Journal of Public Economics 92 (1–2): 388406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Ron (2007) “The interaction between public and private governments: An empirical analysis.” Journal of Urban Economics 63 (3): 885901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubb, John, and Moe, Terry (1990) Politics, Markets and America's Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Conlon, John, and Kimenyi, Mwangi (1991) “Attitudes towards race and poverty in the demand for private education: the case of Mississippi.” Review of Black Political Economy 20 (2): 522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corcoran, Sean, and Evans, William (2010) “Income inequality, the median voter, and the support for public education.” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16097.Google Scholar
Cutler, David, and Miller, Grant (2005) “Water, water everywhere: Municipal finance and water supply in American cities.” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 11096.Google Scholar
Cutler, David M., Elmendorf, Douglas W., and Zeckhauser, Richard J. (1993) “Demographic characteristics and the public bundle.” Public Finance/Finances Publiques 48 (S1): 178–98.Google Scholar
Dart, Ronald (1981) “Public and private police linkages: An alternative to traditional public policing in an era of scarce economic resources.” PhD diss., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Dixon, Jeffrey (2006) “The Ties that Bind and Those That Don’t: Toward Reconciling Group Threat and Contact Theories of Prejudice.” Social Forces 84 (4): 2179–204.Google Scholar
Dowding, Keith, and John, Peter (2008) “The three exit, three voice, and loyalty framework: A test with survey data on local services.” Political Studies 56 (2): 288311.Google Scholar
Easterly, William, and Levine, R. (1997) “Africa's growth tragedy: Politics and ethnic divisions.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4): 1203–50.Google Scholar
Enion, Rhead (2009) “Constitutional limits on private policing and the state's allocation of force.” Duke Law Journal 59 (3): 519–53.Google Scholar
Epple, Dennis, and Romano, Richard (1996a) “Ends against the middle: Determining public service provision when there are private alternatives.” Journal of Public Economics 62 (3): 297325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epple, Dennis, and Romano, Richard (1996b) “Public provision of private goods.” The Journal of Political Economy 104 (1): 5781.Google Scholar
Fairlie, Robert, and Resch, Alexandra (2002) “Is there ‘white flight’ into private schools? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey.” Review of Economics and Statistics 84 (1): 2133.Google Scholar
Federico, Christopher (2005) “Racial perceptions and evaluative responses to welfare: Does education attenuate race-of-target effects?Political Psychology 26 (5): 683–97.Google Scholar
Federico, Christopher, and Luks, Samantha (2005) “The political psychology of race.” Political Psychology 26 (5): 661–66.Google Scholar
Fischel, William (2001) The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin (2009) “Preference gaps and inequality in representation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (2): 335–41.Google Scholar
Glaser, James M. (2002) “White voters, black schools: Structuring racial choices with a checklist ballot.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 3546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennerster, Rachel, Miguel, Edward, and Rothenberg, Alexander (2013) “Collective Action in Diverse Sierra Leone Communities.” The Economic Journal 123 (568): 285316.Google Scholar
Goldin, Claudia, and Katz, Lawrence (1999) “Human capital and social capital: The rise of secondary schooling in America, 1910–1940.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29 (4): 683723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habyarimana, James, Humphreys, Macartan, Posner, Daniel, and Weinstein, Jeremy (2007) “Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision?American Political Science Review 101 (4): 709–25.Google Scholar
Habyarimana, James, Humphreys, Macartan, Posner, Daniel, and Weinstein, Jeremy (2009) Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hayward, Clarissa (2009) “Urban space and American political development: Identity, interest, action,” in Dilworth, Richardson (ed.) The City in American Political Development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hood, M. V. III, and Irwin, L. Morris (1997) “Amigo o Enemigo? Context, Attitudes, and Anglo Public Opinion toward Immigration.” Social Science Quarterly 78 (2): 309–23.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Daniel (2009) “The diversity discount: When increasing ethnic and racial diversity prevents tax increases.” Journal of Politics 71 (1): 160–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Daniel (2011) “The limited local impacts of ethnic and racial diversity.” American Politics Research 39 (2): 344–79.Google Scholar
Hurwitz, Jon, and Peffley, Mark (1997) “Public perceptions of race and crime: The role of racial stereotypes.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (2): 375401.Google Scholar
Joh, Elizabeth (2004) “The paradox of private policing.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95 (1): 49132.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Jason (1999) “Urban development, municipal politics, and the impact of the communications revolution on 19th century American cities.” PhD diss., Department of Sociology, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Evan, and McClendon, Gwyneth (2013) “The ethnicity-policy preference link in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (5): 574602.Google Scholar
Luttmer, Erzo (2001) “Group loyalty and the taste for redistribution.” Journal of Political Economy 109 (3): 500–28.Google Scholar
Meltzer, Allan, and Richard, Scott (1981) “A rational theory of the size of government.” Journal of Political Economy 89 (5): 914–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, Allan, and Richard, Scott (1983) “Tests of a rational theory of the size of government.” Public Choice 41 (3): 403–18.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali (2001) The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Miguel, Edward (2004) “Tribe of nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya versus Tanzania.” World Politics 56 (3): 327–62.Google Scholar
Montalvo, Jose, and Reynal-Querol, Marta (2005) “Ethnic polarization, potential conflict and civil wars.” American Economic Review 95 (3): 796816.Google Scholar
Posner, D. (2004) “The political salience of cultural difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas are allies in Zambia and adversaries in Malawi.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 529–45.Google Scholar
Poterba, James M. (1997) “Demographic structure and the political economy of public education.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16 (1): 4866.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham (1982) Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert (2007) “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the 21st century.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (2): 137–74.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas (1975) “Individual welfare, majority voting, and the properties of a linear income tax.” Journal of Public Economics 4 (2): 163–85.Google Scholar
Rugh, Jacob, and Trounstine, Jessica (2011) “The Provision of Local Public Goods in Diverse Communities: Analyzing Municipal Bond Elections.” Journal of Politics 73 (4): 1038–50.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., and Citrin, Jack (1985) Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Kevin, and Meier, Kenneth (1995) The Case against School Choice: Politics, Markets, and Fools. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ralph (1995) “The impact of crime on communities.” Annals of AAPSS 539 (1): 2845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedin, Kent L., Matland, Richard E., and Weiher, Gregory R. (2001) “Age, race, self-interest, and financing public schools through referenda.” The Journal of Politics 63 (1): 270–94.Google Scholar
Tuch, Steven, and Hughes, Michael (1996) “Whites’ racial policy attitudes.” Social Science Quarterly 77 (4): 723–45.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (2005–2007) “2005–2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Summary File: Technical Documentation.” American Community Service Office, http://www2.census.gov/acs2005_2007_3yr/summaryfile/2005-2007-ACS_3-Year_Summary_File_SF_Tech_Doc.pdf.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (2009–2011) “2009–2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Summary File: Technical Documentation.” American Community Service Office, http://www2.census.gov/acs2011_3yr/summaryfile/ACS_2009-2011_SF_Tech_Doc.pdf.Google Scholar
Vigdor, Jacob (2004) “Community composition and collective action: Analyzing initial mail response to the 2000 census.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (1): 303–12.Google Scholar
Wrinkle, Robert D., Stewart, Joseph Jr., and Polinard, J. L. (1999) “Public school quality, private schools, and race.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (4): 1248–53.Google Scholar
Figure 0

TABLE 1. Effect of diversity and inequality on private provision of public goods

Figure 1

FIGURE 1. Effect of diversity and inequality on private provision of public goods

Figure 2

TABLE 2. Effect of diversity and inequality on private provision of public goods, separate racial measures