EAST LANSING, Mich. — As controversy continues swirling around the Michigan Legislature’s move to raise taxes, a Michigan State University researcher argues that communities with high taxes and robust urban infrastructures, including social-service spending, attract more private companies and development.
Igor Vojnovic, associate professor of geography, contends the Republicans’ long-standing claim that low local and state taxes make a city more competitive in the business world has not proven true.
In the December issue of GeoJournal, an international journal of geography, Vojnovic’s financial analysis of major U.S. cities and the concentration of the world’s 100 largest corporations show that cities with high taxes and spending on public infrastructure and welfare – such as New York, San Francisco and Boston – tend to experience more commercial growth.
Vojnovic also said Michigan and its communities have not kept pace.
“In Michigan, you continue to hear from Republicans that we should lower taxes to boost competitiveness,” he said. “This has not worked for the last two decades. We have been dropping taxes and we’re not developing. In fact, as evident with the state’s ongoing decline, we have been losing economic competitiveness since adopting this policy direction.”
The Legislature, in an effort to help balance the state budget, voted Oct. 1 to raise the income tax from 3.9 percent to 4.35 percent and to expand the 6 percent sales tax to some services. As a result, a recall effort was launched against some lawmakers, and business groups began pushing for a repeal of the sales tax.
Vojnovic’s research shows that significant community investment through taxes, charges and other revenues can benefit both the private and public sectors. New York City, for example, has one of the nation’s highest per-capita local taxes – $7,308 – but is also the world leader in attracting major corporations. In addition, New York has one of the highest expenditures on public welfare and parks and recreation, and invests heavily in physical infrastructure such as its world-renowned subway system, Vojnovic said. Cities such as San Francisco, Boston and Los Angeles maintain similar public finance and corporate investment profiles.
Vojnovic said that to business, robust urban infrastructures such as education, transportation and telecommunications are more important than lower taxes. “Urban infrastructure enables corporations to run effectively and efficiently.”
According to the research, low-tax cities such as Houston and Phoenix attract far fewer companies and have less to invest in urban infrastructures, and particularly in education, which is favored by corporate leaders in today’s high-tech economy. Vojnovic explained that “Houston, for instance, does well with petroleum-related industries, but the city and locally-based firms have received extensive, and in some cases unprecedented, federal and state government subsidies to develop Houston’s petroleum-related infrastructure, from transportation to pipelines.”
Detroit is an exception – a high-tax urban region that has failed to invest appropriately in education, public transportation and other important programs, Vojnovic said. “A critical issue that the Detroit region confronts is a local culture, and state and regional investment patterns, that support excessive and inefficient suburbanization.”
In another publication – a book of collected works coming out next year called “Michigan: A Geography and Geology” and edited by MSU geography professors Randy Schaetzl and Joe Darden, and Danita Brandt, MSU associate professor of geological sciences, Vojnovic explores the consequences of urban decentralization in Michigan.
He said Detroit is “a city with an infrastructure base that has supported close to 2 million people, with some 1 million people currently missing. The remaining population is supporting the city and its infrastructure, which is rapidly deteriorating and inadequate to compete against the rich and updated infrastructure base of extremely high-taxing and high-spending cities such as Boston, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco.”
“Detroit is fighting a losing battle as it’s constantly competing with suburban infrastructure investment that draws the population and businesses further into the periphery.” Eventually, he said, the urban region becomes so dispersed that it loses its economic competitiveness.
In contrast, top performing U.S. cities, and the corresponding state governments, have focused extensive infrastructure investment to revamp local infrastructures and redevelop their urban cores to accommodate even higher business and residential densities.
Similar to Detroit, the cities of New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Boston also were experiencing severe urban decline during the 1970s. Vojnovic said that “extensive urban infrastructure investment in their inner cities enabled them to reverse the outcome, intensifying both residential and business concentrations, and developing vibrant urban economies.”
“The best performing cities and regions,” he wrote, “maintain the most robust urban infrastructures, including public welfare programs, and have so historically, while also being key global economic performers.” Vojnovic said that “these investment patterns are consistent nationally and internationally as evident with Tokyo, Paris, London, Beijing, Seoul and Zurich.”
###
Michigan State University has been advancing knowledge and transforming lives through innovative teaching, research and outreach for more than 150 years. MSU is known internationally as a major public university with global reach and extraordinary impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges attract scholars worldwide who are interested in combining education with practical problem solving.