Yet this approach is politically toxic. Try campaigning not on an optimistic message of turning the tide and making the future as bright as it once used to be, but rather by telling voters that their neighborhood is going to be abandoned, that the bus won’t run anymore and that all the investment is going to go to a different district. Try telling the few remaining inhabitants of a valley that you can’t justify spending money on their flood defenses.
Is it? It feels, intuitively, like cleaning up unneeded infrastructure so that future generations will have an easier time of things would fit naturally into Japan’s national psyche.
On a more international level, I should think that per-capita statistics are more salient to voters (if not media outlets, but the general public doesn’t really change their mind based on what WSJ or NYT has to say anymore) than raw totals. If GDP fell 10 percent but per capita GDP increased ten percent, quality of life would probably be better. I think a politician could win an election on the basis of “I’m going to pay you to vacate the east half of town so you can enjoy roads that aren’t full of potholes and running water that isn’t brown”.[1]
I think the core of it is that you have to do two things:
Generously compensate the people whose regions are getting deprioritized. Even if they don’t leave[2]. They paid taxes for years, they invested into the community like good citizens, and their adherence to the social contract should feel rewarded.
Make sure that people like where they end up. There will be pressure to turn relocation into a partisan or demographic lever, and giving into this will kill the entire program because it depends on good faith from the government. Identify towns that are demographically, politically, and culturally similar to the areas being deprioritized, and incentivize the residents to move there to minimize the culture shock on both ends.
In America specifically, there might be backlash on the basis that lots of people no longer trust any large-scale government initiatives due to past mismanagement, but I think that’s a separate issue. Demonstrating competence and good faith is a universal prerequisite to any kind of solution, after all. Suburban sprawl is a product of city governments not being trusted not to ‘slaughter the golden goose’ that is their taxpaying population, and guarantees against such behavior would need to be very firm.
Some people prefer fewer neighbors, or are just traditional. A cash bonus will soften the shock and let them make arrangements for getting by with fewer government services.
I think you are underestimating to what extent the old people are opposed to moving. In Ukraine, when the front approaches, some people choose to stay, even though it means living in a war zone.
I think you are underestimating to what extent the old people are opposed to moving.
There will always be some, and, as mentioned, they should be compensated when the service transition occurs, but there are also some people who would prefer a closer community with better services. Right now, neither group is getting what they want.
With government coordination, a Schelling Point could be established that gives everyone what they want. The people who want better services get a simultaneous, coordinated transition to a demographically and culturally similar community that can benefit from economies of scale. The cowboys get their fair share of the economic savings from this transition, and won’t be subjected to potentially bothersome “revitalization efforts” meant to transform their communities.
BTW this makes me think that Japan has produced just about the only example of media I have seen in which an enthusiastic youth wanting to revitalise the little declining business they love ends with their dream crushed and them forced to accept reality and move on (if anyone wonders, it’s the anime The Aquatope on the White Sand).
Is it? It feels, intuitively, like cleaning up unneeded infrastructure so that future generations will have an easier time of things would fit naturally into Japan’s national psyche.
On a more international level, I should think that per-capita statistics are more salient to voters (if not media outlets, but the general public doesn’t really change their mind based on what WSJ or NYT has to say anymore) than raw totals. If GDP fell 10 percent but per capita GDP increased ten percent, quality of life would probably be better. I think a politician could win an election on the basis of “I’m going to pay you to vacate the east half of town so you can enjoy roads that aren’t full of potholes and running water that isn’t brown”.[1]
I think the core of it is that you have to do two things:
Generously compensate the people whose regions are getting deprioritized. Even if they don’t leave[2]. They paid taxes for years, they invested into the community like good citizens, and their adherence to the social contract should feel rewarded.
Make sure that people like where they end up. There will be pressure to turn relocation into a partisan or demographic lever, and giving into this will kill the entire program because it depends on good faith from the government. Identify towns that are demographically, politically, and culturally similar to the areas being deprioritized, and incentivize the residents to move there to minimize the culture shock on both ends.
In America specifically, there might be backlash on the basis that lots of people no longer trust any large-scale government initiatives due to past mismanagement, but I think that’s a separate issue. Demonstrating competence and good faith is a universal prerequisite to any kind of solution, after all. Suburban sprawl is a product of city governments not being trusted not to ‘slaughter the golden goose’ that is their taxpaying population, and guarantees against such behavior would need to be very firm.
Some people prefer fewer neighbors, or are just traditional. A cash bonus will soften the shock and let them make arrangements for getting by with fewer government services.
I think you are underestimating to what extent the old people are opposed to moving. In Ukraine, when the front approaches, some people choose to stay, even though it means living in a war zone.
There will always be some, and, as mentioned, they should be compensated when the service transition occurs, but there are also some people who would prefer a closer community with better services. Right now, neither group is getting what they want.
With government coordination, a Schelling Point could be established that gives everyone what they want. The people who want better services get a simultaneous, coordinated transition to a demographically and culturally similar community that can benefit from economies of scale. The cowboys get their fair share of the economic savings from this transition, and won’t be subjected to potentially bothersome “revitalization efforts” meant to transform their communities.
BTW this makes me think that Japan has produced just about the only example of media I have seen in which an enthusiastic youth wanting to revitalise the little declining business they love ends with their dream crushed and them forced to accept reality and move on (if anyone wonders, it’s the anime The Aquatope on the White Sand).