After reading both of the articles, I gained a greater sense of the cyclical nature of large communities, and found it to be familiar to the economic/business cycle. Both Detroit and Jamaica enjoyed booming times initially, but the state of these communities changed with the times, as did the funds allocated to them. When public employment and education were not as readily available, the cities began to show symptoms of recession. This brings me to question the level of dependency that these areas had on the funding they were provided. If a neighborhood requires a large amount of funding to prosper, then there may be a problem with its fundamental infrastructure. Thus, both of these stories illustrate that when neighborhoods that are expanding, municipal funding flows freely in support; whereas locations that are struggling may have funds taken from them and allocated elsewhere, exposing the community’s lack of self-sufficiency.

The articles also made me think about the best way to efficiently allocate municipal funds. To me, it seems like the best method would resemble a juggling act – the city has to cycle its funds such that it will catch communities on the way down, and direct them upwards again. Unfortunately, when an entire city endures hardship (i.e. Detroit’s losses in manufacturing), the number of falling communities becomes too much too handle. Moreover, due to the sheer size and expansiveness of cities like Detroit and New York City, allocating resources efficiently is often easier said than done. Regardless, there should always be an ongoing debate regarding the allocative efficiency of municipal funding, such that the city can provide the greatest gain to its communities.