Over the years, we have tried lots of different things to “solve” poverty. From the programs of the New Deal down to Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” poverty is a perennial problem. Thinking about the policy discussion in Euchner and McGovern and Edwards and Imrie, the complexities of poverty illustrated in the films, and your own experience, what approach and policies do you think have the most promise for dealing with poverty? Consider poverty from both an individual and structural (e.g., society, economy) level. Provide examples/evidence from the readings and films to support your argument.
PADM 7
2
24
1
MODULE
Seminar in Urban Problems
PADM 7224
University of Memphis
Department of Public &
Nonprofit Administration
Edwards & Imrie (2015)
Chapters 3 & 4
2
PADM 7224
2
CHAPTER 3: WHOSE RIGHT TO THE
CITY?
Edwards & Imrie (2015) The Short Guide to Urban Policy
PADM 7224
3
The big question – does urban policy
seek to create a debated idea of the
“good city” by regulating and policing
behavior
? And is it behavior of specific
social classes?
PADM 7224
4
Whose Right to the City?
Unruly Cities & Urban Disorder
“City” is often associated with disorder
and dangerous
Major goal of urban planners is to
eliminate or control disorder through
the built environment – manage
pollution, overcrowding, etc.
City as a place of individual strangers vs.
a community of difference
PADM 7224
5
Whose Right to the City?
Unruly Cities & Urban Disorder
Differentiating groups of people has been
characteristic of urban policy – creation of
the idea of an “underclass”
Murray and Hernstein’s The Bell Curve (1994)
Vox 2018 critique of the ideas of Murray and
The Bell Curve
AEI 2014 interview with Murray on the 20th
anniversary of the book
Policy debates ensue about who’s
responsibility for different behaviors of
different groups
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong
PADM 7224
6
Whose Right to the City?
Managing Places and People
Urban policy frequently focuses on
managing problem behavior that threats
civilized society – crime, drug use, etc.
NYC zero-tolerance “broken windows”
approach to crime
Pulls resources away from policies that
address causes of poverty and inequality,
which lead to such threats
Perpetuates social exclusion
PADM 7224
7
Whose Right to the City?
Managing Places and People
Urban policy frequently focuses on
ensuring safe and secure public spaces
Common policy tools to accomplish:
Urban planning and architecture using the
built environment
Private-run business improvement districts
Initiatives that focus on “nudging” citizen
behavior
PADM 7224
8
Whose Right to the City?
Social Identities & the Rights to the City
Does urban policy reinforce traditional
value systems that promote various
social identifies and perceived
inequalities?
Policy on built city spaces often stimulate
traditional gender roles
Policy on built city spaces often excludes (or
does not consider) large groups of people
(e.g., children, LGBTQ+ community, disability
community)
PADM 7224
9
Whose Right to the City?
Web Links
Secured by Design (UK)
https://www.securedbydesign.com/
Neighborhood Scout (US)
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/
UN HABITAT (Global)
https://unhabitat.org/
https://www.securedbydesign.com/
https://unhabitat.org/
PADM 7224
10
CHAPTER 4: PRIVATIZATION AND
ENTREPRENEURIAL URBAN POLICY
Edwards & Imrie (2015) The Short Guide to Urban Policy
PADM 7224
11
Economic development / regeneration is a
perennial urban policy focus
Includes major infrastructure projects
Gained momentum in U.S. cities following
WWII
Accelerated in 1980s and 1990s in response to
1970s
Privatization is closely associated with
economic development given the large role
of private (non-governmental) actors
PADM 7224
12
Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
Emergence of Privitism in Urban Policy
Varying levels of privatization across different
types of sectors, services, and cities – it’s not a
“one-size-fits-all” approach
Always present in U.S., but further fueled by
Reagonism in the 1980s (reflective of
Thatcherism in the UK)
Considered a valid policy response to help ailing
cities when hit economic bottom in 1970s –
“trickle-down” economics
Lasting result of new urban governance
arrangements in urban regeneration – larger role
for private actors, reduce role for city government
PADM 7224
13
Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
Urban Entrepreneurialism & the Changing Nature of Urban Governance
City governments encouraged to be
“entrepreneurial” and partner with private
sector to bring prosperity to the city
Example – urban regeneration in 1950s New
York City (see Module 1 film)
Example – urban development corporations in
UK in 1980s/90s
Concerns about lack of democratic
accountability on private sector actors
PADM 7224
14
Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
Property-led Regeneration & Economic Development
During 1980s inner-cities began to be viewed as
places to spur private investment for economic
development
New economic development was NOT attracting
blue-collar sectors (“old” cities), but sectors
related to attracting the “creative class”
(“modern” cities)
Cities take a wide range of measures to attract
businesses (see p. 112) – recent example being
cities bidding to get the next Amazon
headquarters
Amazon has triggered a $5 billion bidding war
Why Amazon’s Search for a Second Headquarters
Backfired
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-headquarters-cities-in-a-bidding-war-2017-9
https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-hq2-search-backfired/
PADM 7224
15
Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
Urban Entrepreneurialism in the 2000s
Does urban entrepreneurialism lead to
further fragmentation and segregation
in the city?
Since 2000, rent has climbed faster than
incomes – residents are being out-priced of
their communities
Private spaces are growing – gated
residential communities
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) –
transferring city power to private (or quasi-
private) hands
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-lack-rent-plagues-cities-states.html
PADM 7224
16
Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
Web Links
Corporate Watch(UK)
https://corporatewatch.org/
https://corporatewatch.org/
Whose Right to the City?
Whose Right to the City?�Unruly Cities & Urban Disorder
Whose Right to the City?�Managing Places and People
Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
PADM 7
2
24
1
MODULE
Seminar in Urban Problems
PADM 7224
University of Memphis
Department of Public &
Nonprofit Administration
Euchner & McGovern (2003)
Chapter 2 – Poverty & the
Divided Metropolis
2
PADM 7224
2
Poverty – “lack of adequate provisions
for the basic necessities for living
established by society” to be an active
and contributing member of society
“Basic necessities” is debatable – universal
medical care is a constant debate in the U.S.
Absolute standard (what needed to get by)
vs. relative standard (what needed to have
fair footing with others)
PADM 7224
3
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
Summarized impact of poverty:
“But the effects of poverty ripple out beyond
impoverished households and touch the lives of
virtually all urban residents. When poverty
rises, many other issues are affected…crime
rate goes up…decay and abandonment of
housing… strains on the public school
system…tax revenues fall…communities that
suffer disinvestment and depopulation
experience a weakening in the bonds of civil
society…class and racial segregation follow, as
more affluent people distance themselves from
poor communities.“ (p. 35-36)
PADM 7224
4
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
Urban policy has traditionally
contributed to segregation in the city
between the poor and affluent or middle
class
Poverty is everywhere – cities, suburbs,
and rural areas; concentrated poverty is
most evident in cities
PADM 7224
5
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
Measuring Poverty
Central to the story is Mollie Orshansky,
“Miss Poverty”
Poverty line calculation developed in the U.S.
Social Security Administration in 1963
Same measure of poverty is used today
Criticisms of the poverty line calculation
Doesn’t consider “in-kind” benefits received by
the poor (e.g., Medicaid)
Out of touch with today’s economy –
calculation relies heavily on food costs which
are only one-sixth of the typical family budget
today
https://www.ssa.gov/history/orshansky.html
PADM 7224
6
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
Measuring Poverty
Why continue to use a 60-year-old poverty
line calculation?
Lack of political support – new calculation
would likely drastically increase the aid needed
to be delivered
New calculation would likely make U.S. income
inequality look even worse a global stage
Easier to track changes when using the same
calculation
Poor neighborhoods have better access to
material benefits in modern America (e.g.,
cell phones) – but typically less social
capital than previous generations
PADM 7224
7
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
Dimensions of Poverty in the U.S.
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-changing-geography-of-us-poverty/
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-changing-geography-of-us-poverty/
PADM 7224
8
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
Dimensions of Poverty in the U.S.
Working poor – contributing to the labor
market but not earning enough income to
raise above the poverty line
Typical sectors/jobs include retail, restaurant
service industry, custodial, maintenance,
medical care, many others…
Disproportionally minority populations
Combat working poverty – growing
support for a Living Wage vs. a minimum
wage that doesn’t keep up with costs of
living to
https://livingwage.mit.edu/
PADM 7224
9
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
Causes of Poverty
Identifying factors that contribute to
poverty from different levels of analysis
Individual – lack of education, poor access to
jobs, medical conditions, alcohol and drug use
Family/Community – unstable home
environment; lack of parental role models;
perpetual “culture of poverty”
Economy/Society – structure of capitalism
inevitably creates inequality and a poverty
class; racial discrimination hinders ability of
minorities to rise out of poverty
Government – public policies either enable or
hinder ability to rise out of poverty
PADM 7224
10
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
The Evolution of the Welfare State
Government benefits/entitlements for
certain groups/classes originated with
pensions for Revolutionary War veterans
Local governments focused on public
assistance for poor in their area to foster
sense of “community”
Industrial Revolution escalated challenges
of urbanism, including poverty; state
governments began to get involved with
public program
PADM 7224
11
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
The Evolution of the Welfare State
Catalyst for federal government involvement
was the 1929 stock market crash, but at a slow
pace
FDR’s New Deal (1933-1939) established
multiple social
programs
to benefit
unemployed and poor
“people entered into a kind of social contract with
the government: in return for work or other
commitments, they got benefits” (p. 69)
Social Security Act of 1935 established old-age
pension – drastically reduced and prevented
elder poverty – and system of unemployment
insurance
PADM 7224
12
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
The Evolution of the Welfare State
Truman (late 40’s, early 50’s) – expanded
Social Security, established minimum
wage, legislation for public housing, and
the GI Bill
LBJ’s Great Society (1964-68) – landmark
legislation that focused on extending
access to basic rights for minorities and
disadvantaged; reduced poverty
Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Open
Housing Act
Entitlement programs – food stamps,
Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, Head Start, etc.
PADM 7224
13
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
The Evolution of the Welfare State
Nixon (1970s) – expanded social welfare safety
net
COLA to Social Security; Blind and disabled
assistance at federal level; Job programs (CETA);
Affirmative action policies
Growing support for conservative scholars in
the 1970s (including controversial Charles
Murray, see AEI and SPLC) who argued against a
welfare state and any benefit of such
Regan (1980s) – “replace the carrot of work
incentives with the sticks of work
requirements”
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray
PADM 7224
14
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
The Evolution of the Welfare State
Welfare reform in the 1990s
Bush and Clinton granted state waivers to alter
their AFDC programs (“laboratories of
democracy”)
Tighter eligibility restrictions, shorter
timeframes, work requirements, penalties for
failure to comply
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)
Idea was to shift from dependency to self-reliance
Replaced AFDC with block-grant-based TANF
Shifted power to states to create own welfare
programs
PADM 7224
15
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
Evaluating Welfare Reform
What defines success of welfare reform?
Primary measure used – reduction in families
receiving assistance (caseload declines)
Reform caused sharp decline in caseloads
Have those families really transitioned out of
poverty?
Some studies suggest employment is high for
those who left welfare, yet wages are still
below poverty line
Success depends on one’s interpretation of
the goal of reform
Different outcomes in different states
PADM 7224
16
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
Future of Welfare Policy
States look to each other for innovative reform
ideas and best practices (Wisconsin’s W-2) –
think policy transfer or policy diffusion
“… to reduce welfare dependency and poverty
over the long run, the emphasis on personal
responsibility must be coupled with a broader
sense of public obligation” (p. 89)
Policy suggestions – increase support service
for people with minimal skills; reconsider
lifetime limits; reconsider limits on education
and job-training; reconsider restricted eligibility
Urban welfare reform requires coupling with
economic development
https://dcf.wisconsin.gov/w2/parents/w2
https://poliscizurich.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/what-is-policy-diffusion-and-why-should-we-care/:%7E:text=Policy%20diffusion%20(the%20idea%20that,this%20area%20is%20Craig%20Volden.
PADM 7224
17
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis:
Future of Welfare Policy
What will be the lasting impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on welfare policy?
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
(CBPP) COVID Hardship Watch
Urban Institute COVID-19 Policies to Protect
People and Communities
World Economic Forum – COVID-19 could
change the welfare state forever
Chicago Tribune – About 6 months in, will
the COVID-19 pandemic change Americans’
views of the social safety net?
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/tracking-the-covid-19-recessions-effects-on-food-housing-and
https://www.urban.org/features/covid-19-policies-protect-people-and-communities#chapter-1
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/coronavirus-welfare-state-covid19/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-american-social-safety-net-coronavirus-20200813-hx3iliwk5nhfjpyuan5tt5kjp4-story.html
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: Measuring Poverty
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: Dimensions of Poverty in the U.S.
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �The Evolution of the Welfare State
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �The Evolution of the Welfare State
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �The Evolution of the Welfare State
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �The Evolution of the Welfare State
Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �Future of Welfare Policy
