Search results

AbstractOver the last two decades decision makers have sought to address problems with large concentrations of poverty and minority ethnoracial groups in the cities of Western Europe and the Anglo-American world that are the direct result of the manner in which public housing was built in the early postwar era. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have developed programs that introduce "social mix" into such public housing developments. These initiatives are designed to alter the social dynamics of places with high levels of concentrated poverty and ethnoracial minority groups that are believed to magnify the disadvantages of poverty and marginalization. In this paper, I argue that this is a destigmatization strategy, but not the same kind of destigmatization strategy that has been described in the literature. Using the example of Toronto's Regent Park, a large public housing development near downtown, I develop a research agenda for understanding the gap between a quasi-state agency's efforts to destigmatize public housing sites ("place destigmatization") and the everyday destigmatization practices and experiences of residents ("personal destigmatization"). The paper begins with a review of the putative mechanisms linking socially mixed public housing redevelopment and outcomes for residents, including social capital, social control, role modelling, and changes to the political economy of place. This review finds little evidence of these effects in the literature. Consequently, I argue for an inductive approach to the study of the outcomes of social mix, rather than the common practice of judging such outcomes against the benchmark of close, intimate relationships between new, middle-class residents and existing public housing residents. I further argue that the "normalization" of the built form that is a major part of socially mixed redevelopment is a form of place destigmatization, and may alter both material practices and representational practices related to stigma, which have very real effects on the everyday experience of residents.

Intro -- Contents -- Figures and Tables -- Preface -- CHAPTER 1 Introduction -- PART I The Natural and Human Environments -- CHAPTER 2 Agriculture and Soil -- CHAPTER 3 Forests, Trees, and Floral Diversity -- CHAPTER 4 Wildlife -- CHAPTER 5 Water and Water-Related Resources -- CHAPTER 6 Sanitation and Disease- The Human Environment -- PART II Wealth and Resources -- CHAPTER 7 The Environment, Rich and Poor -- CHAPTER 8 Wealth andthe Environment Quantified -- CHAPTER 9 Sustainable Development versus Resource Multiplication -- PART III Politics and the Environment -- CHAPTER 10 Causes of Public Confusion -- CHAPTER 11 Regulations and Environmental Priorities -- CHAPTER 12 The Cultural-Environmental War -- PART IV Toward a Better Environment -- CHAPTER 13 Some Environmental Principles -- CHAPTER 14 Toward a Better World for Future Generations -- Selected Bibliography -- Index.

AbstractHistorically, self-regulation has provided some professions with power and market control. Currently, however, governments have scrutinized this approach, and priorities have shifted toward other mandates. This study examines the case of paramedics in Ontario, Canada, where self-regulation is still the dominant regulatory model for the healthcare professions but not for paramedics. Instead, paramedics in Ontario are co-regulated by government and physician-directed groups, with paramedics subordinate to both. This paper, which draws on interviews with paramedic industry leaders analyzed through the lens of institutional work, examines perspectives on the relevance of self-regulation to the paramedic professionalization project. Participants had varying views on the importance of self-regulation in obtaining professional status, with some rejecting its role in professionalization and others embracing regulatory reform. Because paramedics disagree on what being a profession means, the collective professionalization project has stalled. This research has implications for understanding the impact of intraprofessional relationships and conflict on professionalization projects.