, 11 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
I finally put my finger on why the ‘Moving to Opportunity’ study- conceptually & epistemologically- raises 🚩🚩🚩 for me:
- imputes mechanistic nature to social relations
- treats poverty as an exposure or state (not an outcome of policy w/ intergenerational effects)

- places onus on impoverished people to move to ‘opportunity’, despite a wealth of social scientific work on placing opportunities where people are
- side-steps the problem of social networks & capital- how moving often disrupts those
- treats places as simply filled in spaces
But, all of these objections arise from my orientation as a social scientist & a geographer. I begin w/ the assumptions:

- poverty & income inequity are policy choices
- mechanisms: social sorting in social space via residential segregation & rationing by price in rental market
- also, people have preferences that interact with constraints. This is where terms like ‘ethnic density’ are differentiated from ‘segregation.’
- proximity is not the same as access. Access to resources is spatially, structurally, AND socially mediated.

I admit, I bristle at the concept that simply ‘moving’ impoverished people into communities with higher concentrated advantage is a suitable ‘policy intervention’, when that just leaves the neighborhoods of origin behind & reinforces their concentrated disadvantage.
It does nothing to change the way that spaces/land/places are racialized via processes of sorting (segregation). It does nothing to change the settler logics of displacement as a resource.
Further note:
- rationing by price in housing ‘markets’ is doubly or triply discriminatory when one accounts for employment & wage discrimination on the basis of assigned race, gender, disability status
Gonna stop there. Gotta water my garden & do some writing.
What should be made explicit here is that I begin with *equity* as my goal. Moving a select group of people from a "disadvantaged" neighborhood to a neighborhood with wealthier residents & more resources =! address the structural distribution of resources
Spatial concentrations of wealth & structural advantage result, in part, from social processes that produce inequities. Segregation, housing, employment, & wage discrimination on the basis of assigned race, income, disability status.

Advantage & disadvantage = co-constituitive
Note the language here: *select*

The participants cleared the hurdle of qualifying for gov't subsidized housing. Those hurdles are much harder to clear today.

This findings of this study should not be used to *predict* outcomes for others.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Arrianna M. Planey
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!