IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Opting-out and income mixing in urban economies:the role of neighborhood effects




Residence-based public education systems promote income segregation across neighborhoods or school districts (e.g. Epple and Romano, 2002). It has been argued that allowing private schools to enter the market may reduce the levels of income segregation because private education severs the link among school quality and place of residence for those using a private school. On the other hand, the socalled neighborhood effects constitute another segregating force in urban areas. We use a two-neighborhood model of an urban economy in order to study whether such externalities inhibit the desegregating effects of private education or not. The analysis reveals that they may indeed reduce or completely eliminate private education induced income mixing. This will happen if the best public school is located where neighborhood effects are most beneficial. However, it may also be the case that neighborhood effects promote the mixing of high income households using a private school with low income ones using a public school in the neighborhood providing the most beneficial neighborhood effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Martínez Mora, 2004. "Opting-out and income mixing in urban economies:the role of neighborhood effects," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/67, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
  • Handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2004_67

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Kurt Schmidheiny, 2002. "Income Stratifcation in Multi-Community Models," Diskussionsschriften dp0215, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    2. Epple, Dennis & Filimon, Radu & Romer, Thomas, 1993. "Existence of voting and housing equilibrium in a system of communities with property taxes," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 585-610, November.
    3. Lankford, Hamilton & Wyckoff, James, 1997. "The changing structure of teacher compensation, 1970-1994," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 371-384, October.
    4. Roland Bénabou, 1996. "Equity and Efficiency in Human Capital Investment: The Local Connection," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 237-264.
    5. Luengo-Prado, Maria Jose & Volij, Oscar, 2003. "Public education, communities and vouchers," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 51-73.
    6. Brueckner, Jan K. & Thisse, Jacques-Francois & Zenou, Yves, 1999. "Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor?: An amenity-based theory," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 91-107, January.
    7. Dennis N. Epple & Richard Romano, 2003. "Neighborhood Schools, Choice, and the Distribution of Educational Benefits," NBER Chapters,in: The Economics of School Choice, pages 227-286 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Durlauf, Steven N., 2004. "Neighborhood effects," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics,in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 50, pages 2173-2242 Elsevier.
    9. Robert W. Fairlie & Alexandra M. Resch, 2002. "Is There "White Flight" Into Private Schools? Evidence From The National Educational Longitudinal Survey," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 21-33, February.
    10. Thomas J. Nechyba, 2003. "Centralization, Fiscal Federalism, and Private School Attendance," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(1), pages 179-204, February.
    11. Thomas J. Nechyba, 2000. "Mobility, Targeting, and Private-School Vouchers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 130-146, March.
    12. Thomas J. Nechyba, 2003. "Introducing School Choice into Multidistrict Public School Systems," NBER Chapters,in: The Economics of School Choice, pages 145-194 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Figlio, David N. & Stone, Joe A., 2001. "Can Public Policy Affect Private School Cream Skimming?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 240-266, March.
    14. Epple, Dennis & Nechyba, Thomas, 2004. "Fiscal decentralization," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics,in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 55, pages 2423-2480 Elsevier.
    15. Dennis Epple & Thomas Romer & Holger Sieg, 2001. "Interjurisdictional Sorting and Majority Rule: An Empirical Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1437-1465, November.
    16. Lankford R. H. & Lee E. S. & Wyckoff J. H., 1995. "An Analysis of Elementary and Secondary School Choice," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 236-251, September.
    17. John Conlon & Mwangi Kimenyi, 1991. "Attitudes towards race and poverty in the demand for private education: The case of Mississippi," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 5-22, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    residential mobility; segregation; neighborhood effects; school choice.;

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods
    • H73 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects
    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General
    • R13 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General Equilibrium and Welfare Economic Analysis of Regional Economies
    • R31 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location - - - Housing Supply and Markets

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:cea:doctra:e2004_67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Susana Mérida). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.