評論
打印
CATTI二級口譯精講第34講講義
篇章口譯
From 1980 to 1997, 23 of America's 25 largest cities gained population more slowly than their metropolitan areas or lost population while the metropolitan area gained people. Even Sunbelt cities like Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston are growing more slowly than their suburbs. Cities have lost disproportionate numbers of middle- and upper-income households who form the backbone of economically strong communities1. //
From 1989 to 1996, 7.4 million upper- and middle-income households left cities for suburbs while only 3.5 million moved from suburb to city. Median household incomes of cities and suburbs thus continue to diverge. In 1989 suburban median income was 58 percent higher than central-city median income. By 1996 the chasm had widened to 67 percent. //
The impact of decentralization trends, of course, extends well beyond cities. Sprawling development patterns are destabilizing many of the suburbs that surround America's cities. Older suburbs are experiencing the same challenges as cities: failing schools, persistent crime, and the loss of jobs and businesses to other, further out suburbs2. Even suburban areas that are developing rapidly are finding that explosive growth has its drawbacks, especially in the form of overcrowded schools, but also in long commutes and the inability of local governments to pay for new roads, sewers, and other infrastructure. //
In the wake of decentralizing economies, central cities remain the residence of "choice" for low- and moderate-income families.3 While poverty has declined in central cities, urban poverty rates are still twice as high as suburban poverty rates, 18.8 percent as against 9.0 percent in 1997. Cities and older suburbs are also disproportionately home to families whose earnings are above the poverty level, but below median income (national median income is $37,000 a year, and 200 percent of the poverty level for a family of three is $27,000 a year4). //
The demographic composition of cities is important for several reasons. The incomes of the working poor and other low-income families have not kept pace with the rising costs of health care, housing, child care, transportation, and other necessities. Cities, therefore, are more likely to have residents who lack health insurance and struggle with the burdens of housing and child care. //
For example, slightly more than half of the households who have "worst-case housing needs" (that is, pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent or live in substandard housing) reside in central cities. Almost a quarter of the families who live in cities do not have health insurance, compared with 15 percent of suburban families. //
Cities are not just home to too many poor families; they are also home to neighborhoods where poverty is concentrated.5 From 1970 to 1990, the number of people living in neighborhoods of high poverty where the poverty rate is 40 percent or more nearly doubled from 4.1 million to 8 million. As Paul Jargowsky and others have shown, concentrated poverty is principally an urban (and racial) phenomenon6. //
The implications of concentrated poverty are severe. People in these neighborhoods often face a triple whammy: poor schools, weak job information networks, and scarce jobs. They are more likely to live in female-headed households and have less formal education than residents of other neighborhoods. //
Welfare reform is where the challenges of decentralizing opportunities and concentrating poverty come together.7 Many of the jobs that welfare recipients need cannot be found in their neighborhoods or even in their own cities. Not surprisingly, cities have a rising share of the welfare caseloads in their states, even as welfare rolls drop.8 Philadelphia is now home to 12 percent of all Pennsylvanians, but 49 percent of Pennsylvanians on welfare. Baltimore has 58 percent of the state's caseload and only 13 percent of the state's residents. //
Public school populations more or less mirror the populations of the neighborhoods in which the schools are located. In 1996, for example, 75 of the public schools in the Greater Washington, D.C., region had more than three-quarters of their students eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches. All but three of these schools were located in the poor neighborhoods of the central city. //
There is a strong correlation between a school's share of low-income students and poor performance by its students on standardized tests. In her studies of U.S. student performance, Diane Ravitch has found that fourth graders from high-poverty neighborhoods have dramatically lower scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress than their suburban counterparts. Although nearly two-thirds of suburban children achieve "basic" levels in reading, less than a quarter of children from high-poverty neighborhoods do so. Only about a third achieve basic levels in math and science, half the fraction of suburban students.//
Poor student performance, of course, is not just a product of concentrating poor students. As Ravitch has written, "too many big-city school systems have failed to use resources wisely, set clear academic standards, improve teacher recruitment and compensation, and, most important, increase achievement." //
Cities are not different just because of who lives there. They are generally older than their suburbs and show signs of age. Many cities were once home to manufacturing industries that have decamped for the suburbs or other nations9, leaving behind empty buildings and polluted lots. These lots either remain underused, creating a drag on tax rolls, property values, and general neighborhood morale10 or require expensive cleanup investments. The infrastructure, the roads, bridges, sewer lines, subway tunnels, school buildings, and the like in cities is old and has all too often been undermined by years of deferred maintenance11.
The existence of aging infrastructure is complicated by the dysfunction of urban governance. Many urban systems and bureaucracies have simply ceased to function in an efficient or streamlined fashion. As Mark Alan Hughes notes, Philadelphia has 15 separate bureaucracies with some responsibility for disposing of urban land.12 //
In other cities, similar horror stories abound13 with regard to school reconstruction, the delivery of basic services, and infrastructure repair. The hard fact of life14 is that newer suburbs are easier, cheaper, more predictable places to do business. In most places, doing business with or within a city is still a headache, which costs time and money. //
(Excerpts from "Enough of the Small Stuff! Toward a New Urban Agenda" by Bruce Katz, The Brookings Review, Summer 2000 Vol.18 No.3, pp.4-9)
