Two Models of the Urban Crisis
An Analytical Essay on Banfield and Forrester
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback33 pages | $20.00 | $16.00 20% Web Discount |
This essay examines the arguments and evidence used in two recent models of the urban Edward C. Banfield's The Unheavenly City and Jay W. Forrester's Urban Dynamics. Although Banfield's model is sociological and Forrester's is economic and physical, both imply that much can be done to alleviate urban problems and that positive programs may make them worse. The authors of this critique contend that the articulation of argument and evidence inadequate to support the implication. They advocate that promising current programs be on the basis of evidence and experience and that policymakers continue to search for efficient programs through social experiments.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research memorandum series. The Research Memorandum was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1973 that represented working papers meant to report current results of RAND research to appropriate audiences.
This research in the public interest was supported by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors, the fees earned on client-funded research, and independent research and development (IR&D) funds provided by the Department of Defense.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.