A City that only Values Economy

In analyzing the relationship between a city’s economic prosperity and social services, the priorities of the city must be the primary concern. Though economic stability aids a portion of the population within a city, the manner in which monetary gains are achieved and utilized can hinder marginalized communities therefore making advances insignificant and ephemeral. As such, while a city must be economically viable, the social services that local government provides in order to maintain population wellness and affluence must be emphasized. The quality and quantity of these services is based not only on the financial state of the local government, but also on resource management, accessibility, and community evaluation. Additionally, local government is limited in its ability to connect on the grassroots level due to the structure of politics and individual agency of the population. As a whole, Memphis continues to value economic concerns of the general governance over the economic worth of social services for its denizens.

While logic dictates that the city must strive for a balance between economic prosperity and social services, local issues are often seen through political or economic lenses that necessitate the prioritization of one goal over another. This issue is derivative of the manner in which problems are perceived. If we see issues only from the economic perspective, then only economic solutions will be prescribed. However, problems are never one-sided failures of a certain area; every issue interconnects. While local Memphis government is focused on recognizing and treating these issues, the interdependence is not identified and thus experts are unable to properly diagnose or prescribe treatment. It is therefore crucial to recognize the relation between economic institutional health and the support offered through social services: without economic means, social services cannot be funded, which leads to less prepared job candidates for upper level occupations. Without the necessary skills, people are left with limited, often temporary or low-wage, job options. Consequently, less money is spent by individuals so less money circulates to reinvigorate the economy, thereby decreasing the tax revenue for the local government to put toward social services. This cyclical Catch-22 of local economic development can be broken only with outside assistance from state or national government, a solution that the local government has little control over. Although inspiring economic growth from within is a viable option, it requires venture capital, additional educational infrastructure, physical planning, and stipulates an early investment within an economic downtown for success.

Addressing these problems necessitates not only an inclusive lens to recognize issues, but also an understanding of the relationship between monetary resources and social services. Because economic prosperity is seen as a means to an end instead of the end goal itself, economic goals are often seen as the antithesis to social services.  Local Memphis government can attempt to overcome economic barriers through the utilization of redistributive policies that shift economic priorities from business-oriented transactions to prioritize social services. If offering services is financed by economic prosperity, Memphis will be able to better provide for its population without falling into financial ruin. Since economic wealth only serves to increase the standing of the city while simultaneously supporting only the wealthiest of the population, economic wealth alone cannot be the only motive for financial prosperity. It is the duty of the city to utilize economic stability to increase the standard of living for residence. As such, social services are a necessity for any city with marginalized populations. Supporting marginalized populations might initially take economic investment, but long-term payoffs will far outweigh the initial sacrifice.