THEORIES OF URBAN POVERTYAND IMPLICATIONS FORPUBLIC HOUSING POLICYAlexandra M. CurleyUrban poverty has been the subject of sociological and political debate formore than a century. In this article I examine theories of urban povertyand their place in American housing policy. I first discuss theories thathave arisen out of the sociological and policy discourse on urban povertyand the research that supports and challenges these theories. I then reviewcurrent public housing initiatives and discuss the impact of these theorieson current housing policy.Keywords: urban poverty, sociological theory, poverty concentration,neighborhood effects, housing policy, HOPE VIUrban poverty has been the subject of sociological and polit-ical debate for more than a century. The debate over the causes,consequences, and solutions to poverty has gained renewed in-terest and significance in recent decades due to the dramaticconcentration of urban poverty. Since the mid-1960’s, poverty hasbecome more concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods across thenation and has had the greatest impact on the black urban poor.For example, between 1970 and 1980 alone, the poor black pop-ulation living in extreme poverty areas increased by 164 percent,while the increase was only 24 percent for poor whites (Wilson,1987). The increase in poverty concentration has coincided with adramatic increase in joblessness, female-headed households, wel-fare dependency, out-of-wedlock births, segregation, and crime.Early Theories of Urban PovertyUrban ecological theory, which dominated in the UnitedStates in the early 1900s, analyzed cities through a human ecologyJournal of Sociology and Social Welfare, June, 2005, Volume XXXII, Number 29798 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfarelens and saw poor urban neighborhoods as transitional and func-tional zones of larger urban metropolises; places where newimmigrant groups would pass through for a temporary periodof time (Park & Burgess, 1925). Other ecological theorists exam-ined the disorganized nature of cities and the negative effectsof social disorganization in certain poor neighborhoods (Wirth,1938; Shaw & McKay, 1942). The traditional urban ecologicalperspective has been denounced for not recognizing the perma-nent nature of many poor black neighborhoods and for ignoringfactors other than market forces that can shape the movement ofgroups and land use (Sampson & Morenoff, 1997).Another influential theory was the “culture of poverty”,which suggested that the norms and behaviors of the poor can bedistinguished as a subculture of larger society and characterizedby a distinct way of life, including an atypical worldview and lowaspirations (Lewis, 1968; Moynihan, 1965). This culture was saidto perpetuate itself from generation to generation. The culture ofpoverty thesis has been widely criticized for being too determin-istic, blaming the victim, and diverting attention away from thestructural causes of poverty. Another perspective suggested thatwelfare policies were to blame for the disintegration of the urbanblack family by offering disincentives for work and marriage(Murray, 1984). Although influential, this perspective has beendiscounted with evidence that shows welfare rates rose evenwhen the relative advantage of work at a minimum wage joboutweighed that of welfare income (Wilson, 1987).Social Isolation and Concentration EffectsPerhaps more influential than any other previous work onurban poverty is William Julius Wilson’s thesis in The Truly Disad-vantaged (1987). Wilson maintains thattwo key factors best explainwhy the social conditions of the “urban underclass” deterioratedso rapidly since the mid-1960’s: changes in the structure of theeconomy and changes in the social composition of inner-cityneighborhoods. Wilson argues that major shifts in the structureof the American economy, including the suburbanization of jobsand the decreasing demand for low-skilled labor, contributed to adownward spiral for urban blacks (1987, 1996). At the same timeTheories of Urban Poverty 99jobs were relocating away and the economic base shifted frommanufacturing to the service sector, more jobs began requiringformal education and credentials that many inner-city residentslacked.Coinciding with the major economic shifts that led to in-creased joblessness were significant changes in the socioeconomicmakeup of urban residents. From the 1940’s to the 1960’s, inner-city neighborhoods were integrated with lower, working, andmiddle-class black families. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, however,middle-class, and eventually working-class blacks, moved out ofthe inner-city, leaving the most disadvantaged residents behind—the group Wilson labels the underclass. Wilson also argues thatchanges in the age structure of urban neighborhoods contributedto the increase in social problems. Between 1960 and 1970, thenumber of inner-city blacks aged 14 to 24 increased by 78 percent(while only 23 percent for whites) (1987, p. 36).Essentially, the removal of entry-level jobs from the inner-city compounded with the removal of middle-class blacks toproduce the devastating and isolating effects of concentratedpoverty. Wilson suggests that as time went on, poor residents be-came increasingly isolated from informal job networks, workingrole models, mainstream institutions, and mainstream patternsof behavior. Middle and working-class families were importantfor these communities because they enhanced stability and so-cial organization by sustaining the basic community institutions(such as schools, churches, and businesses) and reinforcing soci-etal norms and values pertaining to employment, education, andfamily structure. Thus, Wilson argues, urban communities todayare suffering from concentration effects—the effects of concentratedneighborhood poverty on individual residents. Neighborhoodconcentration effects are at the heart of Wilson’s thesis in TheTruly Disadvantaged, where he provides a compelling argumentthat neighborhood poverty affects individual level outcomes,independent of individual and family characteristics.Residential Segregation and DiscriminationAlthough Wilson’s thesis has been very powerful, othertheories of urban poverty remain influential as well. Several100 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfareemphasize the role discrimination plays in limiting the employ-ment, educational, and housing opportunities for poor, urban,minority families (Massey & Denton, 1993; Leventhal et al,