- imputes mechanistic nature to social relations
- treats poverty as an exposure or state (not an outcome of policy w/ intergenerational effects)
- side-steps the problem of social networks & capital- how moving often disrupts those
- treats places as simply filled in spaces
- poverty & income inequity are policy choices
- mechanisms: social sorting in social space via residential segregation & rationing by price in rental market
- 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.
- 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
Advantage & disadvantage = co-constituitive
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.