ShareThis Page
Impediments to economic growth |

Impediments to economic growth

| Sunday, June 26, 2005 12:00 a.m

How many people think a merger of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County would save money?

The Allegheny Institute answers that question in a new report available at its Web site. The answer is no.

For instance, the new Metro Louisville and the 35-year-old Indianapolis UniGov consolidations didn’t promise to reduce the cost of government. And they didn’t. Nor was there complete consolidation.

Supporters did promise “bigger” cities. Intuitively, it seemed certain that size and harmonizing economic development goals would attract investment.

Our intuition takes a different path. Cities become big and stay healthy because they have persisting vitality. Rebuilding the lines of government authority is window dressing.

In Louisville, jobs were lost and jobs were gained, but much of the growth came at the cost of government subsidy. The same was true in Indianapolis.

But a truer model is Philadelphia where total consolidation was completed in 1952. Today it remains under state oversight and per capita local government expenditures of $2,198 in 2004 were 60 percent higher than the $1,400 per resident in Allegheny County for municipal and county governments.

Pittsburgh is subject to state oversight because it borrows, collects and spends too much money. Consolidation voodoo is no cure.

There is no hope for Pittsburgh to turn the corner unless the central impediments to economic growth are torn down.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.