Module 2: Discussion
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 7224 1
MODULE
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on Module 2: Discussion completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
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
Whose Right to the City?
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
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/
PADM 7224 10
CHAPTER 4: PRIVATIZATION AND ENTREPRENEURIAL URBAN POLICY
Edwards & Imrie (2015) The Short Guide to Urban Policy
PADM 7224 11
Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
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
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
PADM 7224 16
Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy Web Links
Corporate Watch(UK) https://corporatewatch.org/
- Edwards & Imrie (2015)�Chapters 3 & 4
- Chapter 3: Whose right to the city?
- Whose Right to the City?
- Whose Right to the City?�Unruly Cities & Urban Disorder
- Whose Right to the City?�Unruly Cities & Urban Disorder
- Whose Right to the City?�Managing Places and People
- Whose Right to the City?�Managing Places and People
- Whose Right to the City?�Social Identities & the Rights to the City
- Whose Right to the City?�Web Links
- Chapter 4: Privatization and Entrepreneurial urban policy
- Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy
- Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy�Emergence of Privitism in Urban Policy
- Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy�Urban Entrepreneurialism & the Changing Nature of Urban Governance
- Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy�Property-led Regeneration & Economic Development
- Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy�Urban Entrepreneurialism in the 2000s
- Privatization & Entrepreneurial Urban Policy Web Links
,
PADM 7224 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 & the Divided Metropolis
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
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/
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
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”
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
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?
- Euchner & McGovern (2003)�Chapter 2 – Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: Measuring Poverty
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: Measuring Poverty
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: Dimensions of Poverty in the U.S.
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: Dimensions of Poverty in the U.S.
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �Causes of Poverty
- 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: �The Evolution of the Welfare State
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �Evaluating Welfare Reform
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �Future of Welfare Policy
- Poverty & the Divided Metropolis: �Future of Welfare Policy
