Suchergebnisse

Reconceiving the state-market division -- Reengaging economics -- Reassessing the shaming of the inside game -- Rethinking the dispersal consensus -- The local public balance sheet -- A triad for community economic stability -- The folly of liberal politics -- The posibilities of an alternative politics

Liberal expansionism is the dominant approach to addressing the problems of American cities. This approach combines liberal political philosophy with the idea that these problems can be solved only by creating linkages between cities and resources beyond their boundaries. The case for liberal expansionism derives from the shaming of the inside game—a critique of community development and the progressive capacities of cities themselves. I develop a countercritique of this notion. I find that much of it is unjustified by empirical evidence, and instead, results from ideological bias. This conclusion suggests that the dominance of liberal expansionism be questioned.

AbstractConcentrated urban poverty is America's deepest social problem. Eliminating it stands as our nation's greatest challenge. In this article I analyze from a normative perspective antipoverty policies that attempt to address this problem via "mobility," that is, policies that attempt to disperse the urban poor to suburban locations. I find these policies to be normatively problematic on two grounds: the level coercion experienced by (and the corresponding lack of free choice given) a vulnerable population and the undesirable effects (in the current context of American urban development) caused by failing to regard established neighborhoods as stable communities. The results of this analysis indicate strongly the need to generate increased levels of economic activity in America's inner cities, and I suggest that more research on this issue be conducted with an eye toward formulating and implementing a comprehensive strategy to bring about inner‐city revitalization.

The author considers the plausibility of granting a "right to place" (RTP) as an entitlement of citizenship in a nation such as the United States. Such a right would afford people the capacity to live in the places (or place communities) they choose. To explore whether granting such a right is plausible, the author identifies and examines the salient barriers now preventing Americans from choosing their place communities. The final section suggests that these myriad barriers, while formidable, are not insurmountable—a conclusion that, in turn, suggests that an RTP could be plausibly granted to Americans in the twenty-first century.

In this article I analyze from a normative perspective antipoverty policies that attempt to address concentrated urban poverty via "mobility," ie, policies that attempt to disperse the urban poor to suburban locations. I find these policies to be normatively problematic on two grounds: the level of coercion experienced by (& the corresponding lack of free choice given) a vulnerable population & the undesirable effects (in the current context of US urban development) caused by failing to regard established neighborhoods as stable communities. The results of this analysis indicate strongly the need to generate increased levels of economic activity in America's inner cities, & I suggest that more research on this issue be conducted with an eye toward formulating & implementing a comprehensive strategy to bring about inner-city revitalization. 70 References. Adapted from the source document.