We regularly hear that
homelessness is on the rise in cities across the world. The general argument
from the person on the street (no pun intended) seems to be along the lines of:
We’re such a rich city, how on earth can we still have so many homeless people
in it? But economist reasoning soon shows the enquiry to be under-developed. It
is actually to be expected that the wealthier the city, the more homeless
people will be in it.
It’s not that the wealth of the city or the high cost of property is causing the homelessness – well, not in most cases – it’s more the case that, if you’re homeless, the relative cost of being homeless in London or Norwich is lower than the relative cost of being homeless in Bedford or Swaffham. The reason cities are so popular is they contain more things that more people want. If cities are a more desirable place to live for city folk than rural towns and villages, then it’s likely to be the same for homeless people, because those same qualities provide more benefits for them too. In other words, if you’re homeless, it’s easier to get money, food and small opportunities in a city than it is a town or a village.
Don’t get me wrong, I am
sure it’s awful being homeless, and it’s very hard to get enough food and money
to have much of a stable life – and I have every sympathy with those suffering
from homelessness. I’m simply explaining away the fact that, while homeless
people have a horrid time being on the streets, it is even more costly being
homeless if you're not in a city.
Further reading: an economic analysis On Giving to Beggars
