{"title":"From persuasion to evasion: anti -collective action and the making of affordable housing in suburban Chicago","authors":"John N Robinson, Lillian Leung","doi":"10.1093/sf/soag022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"NIMBY—or “Not in my Back Yard”—opposition against renters has long defined segregation and housing markets in the United States. Recent years, however, have seen the rise of a new phenomenon: YIMBY or “Yes in my Back Yard” efforts, which have aimed to expand affordable housing supply for renters in lower-poverty places that have long restricted it. The clash between NIMBY and YIMBY poses a problem: how do actors effectuate change in markets where they face difficulties mobilizing and building coalitions? This article presents data on an example where developers have made demonstrable affordable housing gains: properties funded by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit have been widely built in suburban Chicago, specifically in lower-poverty areas. Drawing on interviews with the developers who build this housing, our findings show that developers often favor what we refer to as anti-collective action—tactics meant to sideline and circumvent audiences that developers deem unwinnable, rather than persuade or mobilize them. Findings therefore urge more attention to actors’ perceptions of the possibilities and limits of collective action—what we refer to as coalitional latitude—which vary by setting, and condition the choices and tactics that actors pursue. We explore implications for sociological work on the processes and conditions of change in economic fields.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Forces","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soag022","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
NIMBY—or “Not in my Back Yard”—opposition against renters has long defined segregation and housing markets in the United States. Recent years, however, have seen the rise of a new phenomenon: YIMBY or “Yes in my Back Yard” efforts, which have aimed to expand affordable housing supply for renters in lower-poverty places that have long restricted it. The clash between NIMBY and YIMBY poses a problem: how do actors effectuate change in markets where they face difficulties mobilizing and building coalitions? This article presents data on an example where developers have made demonstrable affordable housing gains: properties funded by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit have been widely built in suburban Chicago, specifically in lower-poverty areas. Drawing on interviews with the developers who build this housing, our findings show that developers often favor what we refer to as anti-collective action—tactics meant to sideline and circumvent audiences that developers deem unwinnable, rather than persuade or mobilize them. Findings therefore urge more attention to actors’ perceptions of the possibilities and limits of collective action—what we refer to as coalitional latitude—which vary by setting, and condition the choices and tactics that actors pursue. We explore implications for sociological work on the processes and conditions of change in economic fields.
邻避-或“不要在我的后院”-反对租房者长期以来定义了美国的种族隔离和住房市场。然而,近年来出现了一种新现象:YIMBY(即“Yes in my backyard”)活动,其目的是为长期受到限制的较贫困地区的租房者扩大经济适用房供应。邻避和YIMBY之间的冲突提出了一个问题:行动者如何在他们面临动员和建立联盟困难的市场中实现变革?这篇文章提供了一个例子的数据,在这个例子中,开发商已经取得了明显的经济适用房收益:在芝加哥郊区,特别是在较低贫困地区,由低收入住房税收抵免资助的房产已经被广泛建造。根据对建造这些房屋的开发商的采访,我们的发现表明,开发商通常倾向于我们所说的反集体行动策略,即边缘化和避开开发商认为无法赢得的受众,而不是说服或动员他们。因此,研究结果敦促人们更多地关注行为者对集体行动的可能性和局限性的看法——我们称之为联盟纬度——它因环境而异,并制约着行为者所追求的选择和策略。我们将探讨经济领域变化的过程和条件对社会学工作的影响。
期刊介绍:
Established in 1922, Social Forces is recognized as a global leader among social research journals. Social Forces publishes articles of interest to a general social science audience and emphasizes cutting-edge sociological inquiry as well as explores realms the discipline shares with psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. Social Forces is published by Oxford University Press in partnership with the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.