IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/luk/wpaper/8527.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is Public Space A Public Good? A Structure/Agency View of Narrative of Loss

Author

Listed:
  • Surajit Chakravarty

Abstract

Public space is examined from the perspective of economic goods, defined by ‘rivalness’ and ‘excludability’, to explain the reasons for the ‘narrative of loss’ through this framework. The explanation is twofold – the first part deals with the structural imperatives that lead to the commodification of space, and the second part discusses how agentic action in publicly-owned space can also create conditions of privatization.

Suggested Citation

  • Surajit Chakravarty, 2008. "Is Public Space A Public Good? A Structure/Agency View of Narrative of Loss," Working Paper 8527, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
    • Handle: RePEc:luk:wpaper:8527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://lusk.usc.edu/sites/default/files/working_papers/wp_2008-1005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heikkila, Eric J., 1996. "Are municipalities Tieboutian clubs?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 203-226, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dawkins, Casey J., 2005. "Tiebout choice and residential segregation by race in US metropolitan areas, 1980-2000," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 734-755, November.
    2. Ravit Hananel & Joseph Berechman & Sagit Azary-Viesel, 2022. "Join the Club: Club Goods, Residential Development, and Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Eric J. Heikkila & Jordy Coutin, 2024. "Tieboutian clubs revisited," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 73(3), pages 1097-1123, October.
    4. Chris Webster, 2003. "The Donald Robertson Memorial Prizewinner 2003 The Nature of the Neighbourhood," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(13), pages 2591-2612, December.
    5. John F. McDonald & Daniel P. McMillen, 2004. "Determinants of Suburban Development Controls: A Fischel Expedition," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(2), pages 341-361, February.
    6. Afonso, António & Fernandes, Sónia, 2008. "Assessing and explaining the relative efficiency of local government," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1946-1979, October.
    7. Lee Hachadoorian, 2024. "Jurisdictional homogeneity and coterminous local government borders: a comparison of counties in New Jersey and New York State," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 73(3), pages 1045-1067, October.
    8. Goytia, Cynthia & Heikkila, Eric J. & Pasquini, Ricardo A., 2023. "Do land use regulations help give rise to informal settlements? Evidence from Buenos Aires," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    9. Failde, Maria Alicia, 1996. "Rural and urban fiscal patterns," ISU General Staff Papers 1996010108000017633, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Basile Michel, 2022. "On the Establishment of Creative Workers’ Clubs within Creative Quarters," Post-Print hal-04042526, HAL.
    11. Gudmundur F Ulfarsson & John I Carruthers, 2006. "The Cycle of Fragmentation and Sprawl: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Model," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 33(5), pages 767-788, October.
    12. Lee Hachadoorian, 2016. "Homogeneity tests of Tiebout sorting: A case study at the interface of city and suburb," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(5), pages 1000-1021, April.
    13. Anthony U. EGBU & Edith C. Pat-MBANO & Kalu A. OBIALO, 2012. "pUBLIC GOODS PROVISION: INFORMAL RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT FAILURE IN THE CITIES OF NIGERIA," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 7(2), pages 67-78, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:luk:wpaper:8527. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Steins (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lcuscus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.