Locational disadvantage and the spatial distribution of government expenditure on urban infrastructure and services in metropolitan Sydney (1988–2015)

Abstract

Provision of public services by state governments rather than municipalities is considered an important urban governance factor preventing deeper levels of socio‐spatial inequality in Australian cities. The paper examines the spatial patterns of investment by the New South Wales state government in a wide range of services and infrastructure in metropolitan Sydney over 28 budget years from 1988/89 to 2015/16. We examined the relationship between volume and type of investment in infrastructure and services, and considered a local area's socioeconomic characteristics, distance from the central business district, and designation as a strategic site in metropolitan plans. Despite an overall redistributive approach favouring relatively disadvantaged areas, the most disadvantaged suburbs in metropolitan Sydney had significantly lower levels of investment. When funding was directed to the most disadvantaged suburbs, it was often in the form of new social housing development, reinforcing both the concentration of poverty and disadvantage in resource access. The findings suggest that this is a case of under‐investment by the state government in areas already populated by disadvantaged communities rather than a market‐driven process whereby disadvantaged households move into poorly resourced neighbourhoods.

Exploring the Impact of Remoteness and Socio-Economic Status on Child and Adolescent Injury-Related Mortality in Australia

“…Strategies to combat this may be policy approaches such as subsidies to improve vehicle quality and investment in improving infant restraint fitting and correct use [48]. Research also indicates that residents of low socio-economic areas have higher exposure to traffic [49] and see lower investment in transport-related infrastructure [50]. Similar to addressing road traffic-related mortality in geographically isolated areas, multi-faceted strategies will be needed to reduce injury risk.…”

Conceptualising modes of redistribution in public urban infrastructure

“…This contrasted with Sydney, where expenditure levels were below the metropolitan average in nearly every category except health. Within the lower SES suburbs in Sydney, it was the most disadvantaged suburbs (at the bottom IRSD decile, see Note 1) that received the lowest amount of funding (Wiesel et al, 2018).…”

Producing and appropriating neighbourhood prestige: cultural capital in Australia’s elite suburbs

“…Decades of government investment in infrastructure and services favouring the inner city have reinforced the highly centralised structure of Australian cities, and the spatial advantages of more affluent inner-suburbs. These include both longstanding elite neighbourhoods (such as Toorak and Mosman), as well as previously working-class inner-suburbs that have gentrified more recently (Wiesel et al, 2017).…”