A Theory of Neighborhood Problem Solving: Political Action vs. Residential Mobility

Abstract

People have three ways of responding to neighborhood problems: leaving (exit), political action (voice), and doing nothing (passivity). The model assumes: 1. Voice is more likely to ameliorate neighborhood problems than exit or passivity; exit, in fact, can make things worse, 2. Rational behavior on the part of residents, coupled with constraints that limit options: status, race, the responsiveness of government and the nature of the problems. Survey data on one city are combined with census data differentiating neighborhood types. Voice is characteristic of suburban areas among high and low status whites; exit is characteristic of white urban areas. Among ghetto blacks—whose exit options are severely constrained—voice is most characteristic. Problems faced by blacks and whites living in the city are similar, while their adaptations are different.

Homeownership and Local Voting in Disadvantaged Urban Neighborhoods

“…Orbell and Uno (1972) described how people make choices about responding to unfavorable neighborhood conditions. They argued that people have three options: leave the neighborhood, attempt to change the neighborhood, or do nothing.…”

Behavioural responses to neighbourhood reputations

“…Apart from a few exceptions (Orbell and Uno 1972;Cox 1983;Van Vught et al 2003), voice and exit are studied separately. That is striking, as both options are interrelated.…”

“…Exit and voice strategies were found to be influenced by dissatisfaction with community services-the more dissatisfied community members there are, the more likely they are to take action, either by exiting or voicing their concerns, than the satisfied members (see also Lyons and Lowery 1986)-and people's dependency on the community and its services. The authors argue that exit opportunities are more limited for older people, households with children, homeowners and lower-income households, as they are more dependent on the neighbourhood (Orbell and Uno 1972). Thus, people who are dissatisfied and less dependent are more likely to take the exit option, while dissatisfied people with higher dependency on their area of residence are more likely to choose the voice option.…”

“…The residents who attach most importance to the neighbourhood's reputation can be expected to be among the first to opt for the exit option when this reputation becomes negative. This means a potential loss of active persons (Hirschman 1970, p. 51;Orbell and Uno 1972;Dowding et al 2000). The decision to leave the neighbourhood (the exit option) is not always simple: the burden of moving can be rather high, as relocation involves high (transaction and/or emotional) costs (Dowding et al 2000, p. 471).…”

A Defence of Revealed Preference Analysis

“…Las razones expresadas se refieren a mudanzas reales (Dowding y John, 1996;John et al, 1995;Percy et al, 1995;Teske et al, 1993) o a la intención de mudarse (Lowery y Lyons, 1989;Lyons, Lowery y DeHoog, 1992;Orbell y Uno, 1972;Sharp, 1984). Los estudios que analizan las mudanzas reales piden a los encuestados que elijan de entre una serie de factores, incluyendo impuestos y servicios locales, aquéllos que influyeron en la decisión de dónde residir.…”