Poor service, cheaply provided, earns Wichita Top 15 in WalletHub ranking | Commentary

We love rankings.

In the digital age, easy access to immense amounts of data has fueled the rise of companies specializing in hasty analyses of companies, products — even entire cities.

The sociologist Matt Patterson has used the term “scoreboard urbanism” to describe the proliferation of online city rankings that provide fodder for a ceaseless, counterproductive game of interurban competition.

One of the premier sources of these ubiquitous ratings is the firm WalletHub, which churns out new ratings of all dimensions of city life week after week in pursuit of eager clicks and shares on social media.

On June 20, WalletHub published a new report purporting to rank the “Best- & Worst-Run Cities in America.”

Out of 149 cities analyzed, Wichita was ranked #15 on the list of the country’s “best-run cities.” Predictably, the city government seized on this finding, boasting on social media that Wichita was a gem of urban efficiency and sound leadership.

How did WalletHub arrive at this conclusion?

To determine which cities were run well or poorly, they created an arbitrary index measuring the quality of municipal services — roads, schools, and recreational facilities, along with a hodgepodge of nearly two dozen other characteristics over which government leaders have little control, such as motor vehicle fatalities per capita.

There was no rhyme or reason to the selection or weighting of variables, and any competent social scientist would quickly throw out the results of this analysis.

But WalletHub didn’t stop there.

Drawing on the dubious assumption that “effective” government is obtained by achieving goals as cheaply as possible, they then measured each city’s expenditures per capita, and for each city they divided the index of municipal services by this per-capita spending measure.

Wichita did not come out looking great on the index measuring the quality of municipal services. Indeed, Wichita ranked in the bottom fifth — No. 123 out of 149 — on this index.

So why did Wichita rank so highly on the “best-run” list?

It was certainly not because of the quality of local services here.

Instead, it was the other factor in this ratio that boosted the Air Capital to dizzying heights.

Among the 149 cities in the sample, Wichita ranked No. 4 in having the lowest expenditures per capita.

This is a good thing, according to WalletHub’s logic.

In other words, the reasoning underlying this study suggests that the “best-run cities” are those, like Wichita, that provide a paltry level of quality of life to their residents, but are so stingy that they do it on the cheap.

This does, indeed, reflect the lived experience of residing in Wichita, where our transit system is dysfunctional, our public parks are consistently sold off to well-connected businesses, our ancient water infrastructure is on the brink of failure, and deferred maintenance has led to the degradation of key public assets like the Ice Center and Century II.

It strains credulity, however, to think that this is a reliable reflection of what most people think of when they evaluate whether or not their city is “well run.”

There are a few lessons to be learned from this example of “scoreboard urbanism.”

First, it’s always important to dig into the data and methodology when clickbait stories cross your social media feed. If something doesn’t smell right, it’s likely the analysis is suspect.

Second, local media and government leaders should think twice before tooting their own horn about the latest rankings article. Given the flimsy analyses underlying most of these rankings, a city coming out on top on one rating could easily find itself at the bottom of the next.

Finally, while clickbait is fun, it’s more important than ever that we invest in the social scientists, data analysts, and journalists who produce high-quality research to help us understand current social problems and develop robust public policy solutions to improve our cities.