流行病贫困治理:危机下的新自由主义

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
D. Collins, K. Beckett, Marco Brydolf-Horwitz
{"title":"流行病贫困治理:危机下的新自由主义","authors":"D. Collins, K. Beckett, Marco Brydolf-Horwitz","doi":"10.1177/15356841221140078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prevailing theories of poverty governance emphasize how political and economic constraints associated with urban neoliberalism have led to the retraction of protective welfare commitments and an increased criminalization of poverty. While research on this “disciplinary turn” has been generative, it tells us little about countervailing trends or how institutional responses to poverty change over time. Addressing these gaps, this article offers a case study of the emergence and acceptance by the business community of a supportive Housing First and harm reduction initiative called JustCARE—a distinct technique of poverty governance not readily explicable within existing theoretical frameworks. By situating JustCARE within a wider strategic action field of poverty governance, we reveal the macro-, meso-, and micro-level dynamics that together facilitated its inception, growth, and eventual embrace by members of the formerly hostile business establishment. Specifically, we underscore how two exogenous shocks (COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter [BLM] uprisings) enabled a well-positioned advocacy organization to articulate and implement a non-punitive homelessness response alternative. We conclude that field-based scholarship centering “theoretically deviant” cases can reveal how the contradictions and failures of neoliberal poverty management can generate unique opportunities for meaningful institutional change.","PeriodicalId":47486,"journal":{"name":"City & Community","volume":"22 1","pages":"195 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pandemic Poverty Governance: Neoliberalism under Crisis\",\"authors\":\"D. Collins, K. Beckett, Marco Brydolf-Horwitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15356841221140078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prevailing theories of poverty governance emphasize how political and economic constraints associated with urban neoliberalism have led to the retraction of protective welfare commitments and an increased criminalization of poverty. While research on this “disciplinary turn” has been generative, it tells us little about countervailing trends or how institutional responses to poverty change over time. Addressing these gaps, this article offers a case study of the emergence and acceptance by the business community of a supportive Housing First and harm reduction initiative called JustCARE—a distinct technique of poverty governance not readily explicable within existing theoretical frameworks. By situating JustCARE within a wider strategic action field of poverty governance, we reveal the macro-, meso-, and micro-level dynamics that together facilitated its inception, growth, and eventual embrace by members of the formerly hostile business establishment. Specifically, we underscore how two exogenous shocks (COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter [BLM] uprisings) enabled a well-positioned advocacy organization to articulate and implement a non-punitive homelessness response alternative. We conclude that field-based scholarship centering “theoretically deviant” cases can reveal how the contradictions and failures of neoliberal poverty management can generate unique opportunities for meaningful institutional change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"City & Community\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"195 - 219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"City & Community\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15356841221140078\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"City & Community","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15356841221140078","RegionNum":3,"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: 1

摘要

流行的贫困治理理论强调,与城市新自由主义相关的政治和经济限制如何导致保护性福利承诺的撤回和对贫困的刑事定罪。虽然对这一“学科转向”的研究具有创造性,但它几乎没有告诉我们抵消趋势,也没有告诉我们机构对贫困的反应如何随着时间的推移而变化。针对这些差距,本文提供了一个案例研究,探讨了商业界对一项名为JustCARE的支持性住房优先和减少伤害倡议的出现和接受——这是一种独特的贫困治理技术,在现有的理论框架内无法解释。通过将JustCARE置于更广泛的贫困治理战略行动领域,我们揭示了宏观、中观和微观层面的动态,这些动态共同促进了它的成立、发展,并最终被以前敌对的商业机构的成员所接受。具体而言,我们强调了两种外部冲击(新冠肺炎和黑人生命攸关(BLM)起义)如何使一个处境良好的倡导组织能够阐明并实施非惩罚性的无家可归者应对替代方案。我们得出的结论是,以“理论偏差”案例为中心的基于领域的学术研究可以揭示新自由主义贫困管理的矛盾和失败如何为有意义的制度变革创造独特的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pandemic Poverty Governance: Neoliberalism under Crisis
Prevailing theories of poverty governance emphasize how political and economic constraints associated with urban neoliberalism have led to the retraction of protective welfare commitments and an increased criminalization of poverty. While research on this “disciplinary turn” has been generative, it tells us little about countervailing trends or how institutional responses to poverty change over time. Addressing these gaps, this article offers a case study of the emergence and acceptance by the business community of a supportive Housing First and harm reduction initiative called JustCARE—a distinct technique of poverty governance not readily explicable within existing theoretical frameworks. By situating JustCARE within a wider strategic action field of poverty governance, we reveal the macro-, meso-, and micro-level dynamics that together facilitated its inception, growth, and eventual embrace by members of the formerly hostile business establishment. Specifically, we underscore how two exogenous shocks (COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter [BLM] uprisings) enabled a well-positioned advocacy organization to articulate and implement a non-punitive homelessness response alternative. We conclude that field-based scholarship centering “theoretically deviant” cases can reveal how the contradictions and failures of neoliberal poverty management can generate unique opportunities for meaningful institutional change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
City & Community
City & Community Multiple-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.00%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信