Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Matthew Robare

Matthew Robare

  • Joined: May 21, 2025
  • Articles: 4

Market Urbanist Book Review: Cities and The Wealth of Nations by Jane Jacobs

No one writer of the last 60 years has influenced urban planning and thinking as much as Jane Jacobs. It seems like just about everyone who has ever set foot in a major city has read The Death and Life of Great American Cities and most professional urban planners have embraced at least part of her ideas. But that was not the only book she wrote and the others deserve attention from urbanists. First published in 1984, Cities and the Wealth of Nations was her last book to focus on cities and her second concerned with economics. Conceived at the height of 1970s stagflation, Jacobs brought her considerable polemical skills to bear on macroeconomics and elaborated on the observations in The Economy of Cities. In that book she theorized that economic expansion in cities was driven by trade, innovation and imitation in a process she called “import replacement”. In this one she extended the idea, arguing that cities and not nation-states are the real basic units of macroeconomic life. She also examined how the economic expansion affected regions in differing geographic proximity and how import-replacement and the wealth generated by it can be used in ways that ultimately undermine the abilities of cities to create wealth, which she called transactions of decline. Import-replacement is one of Jacobs’ more controversial ideas, partially because it seems similar to a discredited development policy called import substitution and partially because her evidence is largely anecdotal, as Alon Levy wrote back in 2007. Nevertheless it’s the centerpiece of Jacobs’ economic theories. And dismissing her work based on a lack of conventional credentials ignores her entire rise to fame and influence. Two important things distinguish import-replacement from import-substitution. Substitution is a national policy pursued by governments with taxes, tariffs and subsidies while replacement is a process […]

Are States Really The Solution To Urban Mismanagement?

  Recently Stephen Eide, writing in City Journal, argued that states could run cities better than cities can run themselves, by offering an antidote to the mismanagement gripping many localities  (“Caesarism for Cities:, March 2016). In the process, he overlooked the nefarious nature of many state governments, and the way in which they already inhibit cities. Eide begins his article with a litany of urban issues: excessive debt, unfunded pensions and political dysfunction. “Local political apathy has enabled some cities to become dominated by one party or even one interest group, skewing the political process and often encouraging extensive corruption and mismanagement of finances…Fans of local autonomy are hard-pressed to explain these and other failures.” This was a flimsy premise, since everything he wrote could be applied to states themselves. In fact, the very magazine he was writing for routinely publishes articles decrying and detailing the excessive spending, debt, political dysfunction and unfunded pension crises of states like California, Illinois, Rhode Island and New York. Yet it is unlikely that we will see a piece advocating for the federal government to rein in state spending. “It makes more sense for state, not city, officials to do what’s right when faced with local fiscal distress instead of what’s politically convenient,” Eide wrote, offering no support for this faith in state officials. In fact, states have shown little willingness to engage in fiscal restraint. The Texas Department of Transportation recently spent over a billion dollars to relieve congestion on the Katy Expressway near Houston by widening it, thus subsidizing sprawl and inducing further demand. California’s unfunded gold-plated pensions equal around $600 billion, according to Eide’s very own City Journal. Similar tales of irresponsible spending can be found in virtually every state. It’s worth considering how urban fiscal problems are exacerbated by state interference. Many […]

Massachusetts Senate Passes Zoning Reform

On Thursday, the Massachusetts State Senate voted 23-15 to pass the zoning reform bill, S.2311, after approximately three hours of debate and amendments. 20 of the 63 amendments were adopted, with the rest either defeated or withdrawn. According to the Massachusetts Smart Growth Coalition, the bill directs municipalities to allow accessory dwelling units as-of-right in single-family residential districts; permits more as-of-right multifamily housing; reduces the number of votes needed to change zoning from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority; allows development impact fees; eliminates the need for special permits for some types of zoning; provides standards for granting zoning variances; establishes a training program for zoning board members; and lastly, modifies the process of creating a subdivision. One amendment that was defeated, proposed by Sen. William Brownsberger, removed a provision that would have required cities with an inclusionary zoning policy to offer concessions such as density bonuses. A provision from the first Senate version of the bill, S. 122, that would have allowed for consolidated permitting, was not enacted. Unlike past ones, this bill actually has teeth: the as-of-right multifamily provision establishes a minimum density of 8 units per acre for rural communities and 15 for others and if municipalities don’t comply, courts can provide relief. The bill was passed despite last-minute attempts to derail it by Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Essex and Middlesex), who attempted to have it sent back to the Ways and Means Committee on the grounds that it had no public hearings since last September. This was rejected by the other senators, with Sen. Dan Wolf (D-Barnstable) saying he wished every bill was as fully vetted as S.2311. “We have fully vetted this, we are ready to move,” he said. “We need to update outdated zoning laws,” said Sen. Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester). “To recommit will serve nothing but […]

Protectionism Is Already Harming American Workers And Cities

Both Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York reality television personality Donald Trump have based their presidential campaigns in part on the issue of trade. Both of them oppose free trade policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the pending Tran Pacific Partnership, arguing that free trade has resulted in American jobs going overseas, leaving American workers worse-off. To remedy this situation, Trump has proposed declaring China a currency manipulator and imposing duties on Chinese-made goods, while elsewhere he’s advocated a 35 percent import tax on items made in Mexico and a 20 percent tax on all other imported goods. Sanders has also advocated imposing tarrifs on countries that manipulate their currencies to subsidize exports. To counter both candidates’ narratives of heartless corporations offshoring American jobs or unscrupulous foreigners “stealing” jobs that belong to American workers, economists and commentators from across the political spectrum have compiled impressive arrays of statistics proving that free trade actually benefits everyone. But they didn’t have to do so much. There are already examples, right now, of protectionist legislation that explodes the myths of the Trump and Sanders crowds. Since 1978, the “Buy America” provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act has forced transit agencies and passenger railroads like Amtrak and commuter rail services to have around 60 percent of the equipment and structural components manufactured in the United States if they want federal funding for their projects, unless they apply for and receive a waiver. Has this provision protected American workers? Does the United States now have a thriving rail equipment industry capable of competing with European, Japanese and Chinese companies, bearing out Alexander Hamilton’s “infant industry” argument? No. According to Metro Magazine, the Buy America provision makes “significant supply-chain disruptions” likely because the American market share for bus and train components […]

Trending now

gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation
The Great American Streetcar Myth
O’Toole Under More Fire