Bringing Institutions Into the Opportunity Hoarding Debate

Abstract

David Imbroscio’s “Beyond Opportunity Hoarding: Interrogating its Limits as an Account of Urban Inequalities” takes issue with the recent scholarly attention given to the concept of opportunity hoarding. Imbroscio worries that opportunity hoarding accounts of metropolitan inequalities place too much emphasis on the role of education and unequal patterns of consumption while ignoring the growing weakness of labor power vis-à-vis capital and the extreme concentration of capital ownership at the top of the wealth distribution. In this comment, I argue that Imbroscio downplays the importance of the institutions that generate metropolitan inequalities in the US. Imbroscio dismisses the two institutional processes that contribute to opportunity hoarding (barriers to the entry of people and the exit of resources) without providing a complete account of how the institutions of homeownership and fiscal decentralization work together to erect barriers to entry and exit. To dismiss entry and exit as solutions to opportunity hoarding without assigning blame to the institutions that stand in the way is to miss the forest for the trees.

Keywords:

• Opportunity hoarding
• homeownership
• fiscal decentralization
• local government fragmentation
• metropolitan inequality

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Casey J. Dawkins

Casey J. Dawkins is a professor of urban studies and planning at the University of Maryland and a research associate at the University of Maryland’s National Center for Smart Growth. His research interests include housing justice; U.S. housing policy analysis; metropolitan housing market dynamics; the causes, consequences, and measurement of residential segregation by race and income; affordable housing and transit-oriented development; and the link between land-use regulations and housing affordability.