Source: p 156, Urban Geography (2009; 3rd ed) by Michael Pacione

The main ideological battle is between pro-growth and anti-growth factions. The pro-growth ideology proclaims that more development results in increased population, greater aggregate sales, more local tax revenues and more local jobs, owing to increased local spending. Benefits therefore flow to those who need employment and those in favour of lower taxes. The
anti-growth ideology emphasises the other side of the coin: development brings more people to an area than local institutions can service, thus any $\color{darkred} { \text { downward trend in taxation } }$ is overcome in the later stages of growth by the need for $\color{green} { \text { greater fiscal expenditure } }$.

1. How does excessive consumption in local institutions cause a $\color{darkred} { \text { downward trend in taxation } }$? Excessive consumption ought to be boost tax revenue?

2. The last sentence seems to contradict the anti-growth ideology. Please clarify? I am guessing that the anti-growth ideologues want to avoid $\color{green} { \text { greater fiscal expenditure } }$; so why do they reject a growth (or overgrowth) in consumption?


Actually the text does not state that consumption leads to a downward trend in taxation, but actually the other way around--

According to the text, anti-growth ideology says that low taxes do indeed lead to development, mainly focusing on population increase, but that this population growth will strain local institutions, meaning public services like emergency response, sewage services, etc.

Greater fiscal expenditure would be required to expand these services to accommodate the increased population.

During its explanation of the anti-growth ideology the article is not referencing increasing consumption of private goods, such as at local businesses, but rather of public goods as explained above.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy