Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

The political will to address problems of poverty and income inequality can be geographically concentrated within nations.  As a consequence, situations may arise where local rather than national governments take steps to address inequality.  These might include labor market regulations, education initiatives, or direct anti-poverty measures.  The effectiveness of these programs, while debatable at even the national level, may be hampered by additional factors when implemented locally.  This manuscript reviews cautionary tales of local governments that overextended themselves in efforts to redistribute, most notably New York City in the 1970s.  It reviews more recent efforts to address inequality locally, including initiatives in Seattle and other American cities to raise the minimum wage, mandate worker benefits, and address housing affordability.  These efforts may avoid the pitfalls of earlier eras because they generally do not create entitlements or directly use government funds.  At the same time, these strategies may prove ineffective because they rely on third parties to voluntarily fund redistribution efforts.  The inequality-reducing potential of these new initiatives is also limited by the fact that jurisdictions undertaking them typically feature high living costs.  Indeed, it may be seen as an irony that certain jurisdictions adopt anti-poverty measures primarily in cases where housing markets have first assured that few poor families will reside in the jurisdiction.