Nick of Electoral Math writes about the "Grocery Store Conundrum", the tendency for low-income city neighborhoods to see fewer supermarkets and higher food prices than middle- and high-income neighborhoods.
Why don’t market forces put as much downward pressure on the price of food in lower-income neighborhoods as they do in middle income and upper-middle-income neighborhoods?
…My personal hunch is that, as usual, several factors are in play. First and foremost is the scarcity of time and transportation in low-income neighborhoods. The next most important factor is probably the relative lack of competition in various markets (food, gasoline) in these areas. Also playing key roles are a lack of political attention and limited access to basic financial education.
He’s drawing mostly from a Brookings study about prices in the Philadelphia area. The situation in Boston is a little different: groceries in Beacon Hill, Back Bay, the North End or the South End are expensive, whereas ethnic supermarkets like Hi-Lo or the Super 88 do cater to the less affluent, at excellent prices. And it strikes me that the chain markets are making a concerted move into areas previously underserved, such as Mission Hill. But the general contour of the study seems right in suggesting that the poorest neighborhoods of the city have the smallest stores and the highest prices. Or is it?
What are the reasons you’d suggest for this situation? Transportation seems key to me, both in creating local captive markets and in discouraging the economies of scale that require people from a wide area to shop in a central location. The market pressures are finally putting in chain supermarkets in the middle of the city: Shaws at Prudential, the new Whole Foods on Cambridge St., and the forthcoming store in the North End. But that’s overwhelming market pressure; on the other hand, poorer neighborhoods sometimes have more readily available real estate to develop.
No comments have been added to this post yet.