CHAPTER

15

The Myth of Concentrated Poverty
STEPHEN STEINBERG

All of us have stories that shape our worldview and lurk behind our scholarship. In 1996, I went to Chicago with my son, who was applying for admission
to the University of Chicago. We stayed in the Marriott Courtyard on the
edge of the Loop and took a taxi to campus. The driver told us that Lakeshore
Drive was congested with traffic, and he made a detour through city streets.
Within minutes, the window of the cab framed Cabrini-Green, identifiable
by a massive rectangular sign in the middle of an open plaza. There it was—
Cabrini-Green—the “project” that had achieved iconic notoriety through
sensational press reports of anarchy and violence. The realization that
Cabrini-Green was situated on the edge of Chicago’s legendary Gold Coast
provided an epiphanic moment: It was obvious why Cabrini-Green was slated
for demolition. It occupied immensely valuable real estate that was in the
way of the growth machine. As two geographers (Wyly and Hammel 1999,
711) put it, Cabrini was “an island of decay in seas of renewal.”
Let me say up front that I am no housing expert or policy wonk. Had
I been immersed in the social science literature, I would have known that
Cabrini-Green was a shameful relic of a discredited policy that segregated
blacks in soulless high-rise “projects” where the problems of concentrated
poverty metastasized and took on a life of their own. No public housing had
been built since the Nixon administration, and under the Clinton administration, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros instituted a policy with a seductive
(and hypocritical) acronym: HOPE VI (short for Housing Opportunities
for People Everywhere). The stated policy objective was to replace “severely

213

Squires_C015.indd 213

4/9/2009 10:08:04 AM

 214 • Stephen Steinberg

distressed” public housing with low-rise apartments that would be mixedincome and mixed-race. Architects and urban planners at the University
of Chicago had advanced a “new urbanism,” whose architectural features
would blend residents of public housing into the surrounding neighborhood.
Against the specter of crime-ridden, high-rise buildings that “warehoused”
the poor and exacerbated their problems, we had the promise of decorous
row houses that would foster integration in terms of both race and class. A
compelling imaginary, to be sure.
Then again, if I had known still more, I would have known that my first
instinct was correct: that there were grassroots groups fighting the CabriniGreen demolition as a blatant land grab that served the interests of developers
and politicians; that trampled over the rights and interests of the residents;
and that would leave the displaced families worse off as they gravitated to
other densely poor neighborhoods, further away from jobs, transportation,
and services they relied upon (Bennett and Reed 1999; Goetz 2000; Wright
2006). To these critics, it was clear: HOPE VI was another instance of “Negro
Removal,” a term created by James Baldwin in the early 1960s and embraced
by Malcolm X to express opposition to the urban renewal projects of that
period. This same charge was leveled by a few scholars who argued vociferously that the demolition of Cabrini-Green was a calamity for the 14,000
African Americans who would be forcibly evicted from their homes (Wright
2006, 169). For these critics, the promise of building mixed-race and mixedincome housing was only a smokescreen to conceal what amounted to the
cleansing of cities of the black underclass.
So let me throw down the gauntlet: Does HOPE VI amount to Negro
Removal by another name, one that would rid the urban landscape of the
black nemesis and clear the way for the developers? This raises another
necessary question: Were scholars and policy wonks complicit in providing
indispensable legitimacy for this policy?
Let me be clear: I do not impugn the motives of those who imagine that
HOPE VI and other mobility projects advance the cause of integration. Nor
is it merely a question of unintended consequences. Rather, the thrust of my
critique is on the political uses of scholarship for ends that may be disavowed
by the scholars themselves. And if we are to follow the maxim made famous
by Watergate, we have to follow the trail of money, which leads to government
agencies and foundations that bankrolled and promoted knowledge production that is politically useful. Then, too, there are the subtle and pernicious
ways in which social scientists share the racial mindset and worldview that
spawn victim-blaming discourses and retrograde policy.
Negro Removal is an apt term, because it calls to mind another historical
case where the state was implicated in ethnic cleansing: Indian Removal.
Some will dismiss this claim as political hyperbole, if only because Indians

Squires_C015.indd 214

4/9/2009 10:08:08 AM

 The Myth of Concentrated Poverty • 215

were banished from white society, whereas the ostensible purpose of mobility projects is to enhance racial and class integration. Yet in the case of
Cabrini-Green, the rule for one-to-one replacement of low-income housing was abrogated by Cisneros, the allotment of low-income housing was
severely scaled back, and stringent tenant screening criteria, including strict
work requirements, assured that only a handful of displaced residents would
be allowed to return to the small allotment of public housing units in the
new mixed-income development (Smith 2006; Wilen and Nayak 2006, 221).
Cabrini-Green was relegated to oblivion, and the new development was
refurbished with a new name: Parkside of Old Town. By September 2007, a
local real estate blog offered this rhapsodic account of the neighborhood’s
transformation from slum to gold coast:
Parkside of Old Town Brings Development to Cabrini
Cabrini was once one of the most notorious neighborhoods in Chicago.
When public housing was built in the neighborhood, many of the old
homes were destroyed and families left the neighborhood.
During the 1980s and 1990s, crime and drugs levied a heavy cost on
the neighborhood, making it one of the most dangerous in the city.
Today, Cabrini is the scene of one of the largest real estate redevelopment projects in all of Chicago. Most of the housing projects are
gone now, replaced by cranes and new developments that offer a mix
of luxury condominiums and affordable housing for former residents
of public housing in the neighborhood.
One of the largest developments underway in Cabrini is Parkside of
Old Town. Buyers can choose from condos and townhomes that start
at $300,000. The townhomes sell for as much as $700,000.
This 18-acre development will offer park space with basketball courts
and a playground. There are also several other new condo developments
around the neighborhood that are attracting new families and bringing back the neighborhood feel that characterized Cabrini before the
construction of public housing.
Many new residents choose Cabrini for the excellent location just
minutes from downtown. Prices in the neighborhood are competitive
when compared to other areas of north Chicago such as the Gold Coast
and Streeterville.1
Efforts of community activists and years of litigation had all came to
naught, and according to one estimate, 97% of dislocated families moved
into areas that did not meet either the “low poverty or racial integration
requirements set out in the relocation rights contract” (Wilen and Nayak
2006, 220). Broken promises: another similarity to the nation’s treatment of
Native Americans.

Squires_C015.indd 215

4/9/2009 10:08:09 AM

 216 • Stephen Steinberg

Indian Removal is commonly remembered as an event involving the
infamous Trail of Tears, the forced movement of the Cherokees from their
cultivated farms and communities in Georgia to wasteland in Oklahoma in
1837. Actually, this was the last of a series of removals of tribes to Indian
Country, and the removal policy was contested in legislatures, courts, and
public venues for many years. Indeed, the 1830 Indian Removal Act was the
subject of contentious public debate, and the Removal Act passed by a slim
margin (28 to 19 in the Senate, 102 to 97 in the House). Why, one might
ask, didn’t President Jackson, famous for having massacred Indians in battle,
simply send in the cavalry and make removal a fait accompli? According to
a recent history of Indian Removal:
Jackson made certain that Indians knew he meant business, but he
also wanted to avoid violent unrest. He had political worries as well.
Realizing that many throughout the country would not approve unvarnished removal, he undertook to convince the public about the policy’s
wisdom. He recruited religious leaders and well-known proponents of
Indian rights…to explain that removal was actually in the best interests
of the Indians. In his first Annual Message he informed Congress of
the pressing need for Indian removal and asked for money to accomplish it. As he habitually did in his public statements, Jackson framed
his sentiments in humanitarian terms about the good effects removal
would have on Indians. (Heidler and Heidler 2007, 23–4)
Thus, the first Moving to Opportunity program was born! As with today’s HOPE VI demolitions and mobility programs, a façade was erected to
maintain the pretense that this was a legal program and that the Cherokees
went voluntarily. In Race, Racism, and American Law, Derrick Bell (2008,
688) provides quite another account:
The pressures from state and public officials created two factions among
the Cherokee Nation: the Treaty Party, comprising the elite mixed
bloods, and the Ross faction, supporters of Chief John Ross. Ross,
who had the support of most of the Cherokee people, was incarcerated
while the Treaty Party representatives negotiated the treaty. The treaty,
ratified at New Echota, the capital of the Cherokee Nation, by only 20
persons, ceded all the tribal land in Georgia in exchange for 7 million
acres of land in Indian Territory.
Some 16,000 of the 17,000 Cherokees signed a petition to Congress protesting the treaty, but to no avail. After gold was discovered in Georgia in
1829 (again inviting comparison to soaring real estate values in Chicago’s
postindustrial economy), pressures mounted to get rid of the Cherokees, the
last of the so-called civilized tribes. With that ignominious act, the nation
established a historical precedent for ethnic cleansing.

Squires_C015.indd 216

4/9/2009 10:08:09 AM

 The Myth of Concentrated Poverty • 217

To my eye, HOPE VI looks like Negro Removal, and Negro Removal
looks like Indian Removal, though dispossession and displacement are more
ingeniously camouflaged today than in times past. Nobody accuses blacks of
being “savages” incapable of being assimilated into white society. Well, that’s
not entirely true. We speak euphemistically of “the urban jungle,” and social
scientists who portray the inner city as a haven of pathology, disorder, and
immorality, are only a word away from declaring its inhabitants “uncivilized.”
Indeed, Dinesh D’Souza (1995,, 554) made precisely this allegation in The
End of Racism. According to D’Souza, racial disparities are due, not to racism,
but rather to a “civilizational gap” between blacks and whites. It is precisely
because the trope between “savage” and “civilized” endures that we have one
African American “who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking
guy” who inhabits the White House, at the same time that we have another
1.1 million African Americans who are in the slammer!
Like Indian Removal, Negro Removal, especially in the post-civil rights
era, required intellectual and moral justification. Enter the social scientist,
with a new arrow in the quiver: “concentrated poverty.” The concept of “concentrated poverty” has provided the crucial theoretical underpinning for
HOPE VI and other mobility programs.2 The hapless victims of these policies
are not relocated west of the Mississippi, but they are removed from urban
neighborhoods that are ripe for development. Dispossession and displacement are done in the name of deconcentrating poverty.
My purpose now is to subject the concept of “concentrated poverty” to
critical scrutiny, and to examine the origins and evolution of this idea, its
embedded assumptions, its consequences, and above all, its political uses.
Let us begin by distinguishing between concentrated poverty as fact
and as theory. The fact of concentrated poverty—that poverty is spatially
concentrated—is well known and easily documented. It is easy as well to
chart trends, and to show that poverty, especially black poverty, has become
more concentrated in recent decades (Jargowsky 1997; Massey and Denton
1993; Massey and Kanaiaupuni, 1993; Orfield 2002; Wilson 1987). But there
is also a theory of concentrated poverty that postulates a causal relationship
between concentrated poverty and a host of social ills. This is graphically
portrayed in Edward Goetz’s Clearing the Way (2003, 160). As can be seen
in Figure 15.1, concentrated poverty is conceptualized as an intermediary
factor between the structures that engender inequality and the “tangle of
pathology” that is associated with the underclass (Clark 1965). Thus, structural factors are acknowledged as primary causes of concentrated poverty:
economic restructuring, suburban exclusionism, disinvestment in centralcity neighborhoods, discrimination in housing markets, and government
policies (e.g., public housing). On the other hand, concentrated poverty
takes on causal significance all its own, leading to the familiar litany of
pathologies: drug use, violent crime, high school dropout rates/poor school

Squires_C015.indd 217

4/9/2009 10:08:09 AM

 218 • Stephen Steinberg

Figure 15.1 The cause and consequences of concentrated poverty. Source: Edward Goetz (2003,
22).

performance, out-of-wedlock childbirth, low labor force participation, and
“oppositional culture.”
I submit to you that this theory is deeply flawed: simplistic, misleading,
pregnant with false or unsubstantiated assumptions, and dangerous as a
predicate for social policy. In the first place, “concentrated poverty” may
be new to social science, but it plays on the familiar image of “the huddled
masses,” generously portrayed as yearning to breathe free. It also plays on
the trope of those “dangerous classes,” corrupted by the city, mired in pathology, and a menace to civil society. Marx provides yet another perspective on
urban concentration: It was precisely the density of the factory and of urban
life that provided the ecological prerequisite for class consciousness and
political action. Thus, as two housing advocates have noted, “It is debatable
whether integration efforts bestow on poor African-Americans economic
or sociological benefits or, rather, destroy nonwhite political power, sense
of community, culture, and neighborhood-based support systems” (Wilen
and Stasell 2006, 249).
As a theoretical construct, concentrated poverty entered academic
discourse with William Julius Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged (1987),
though I think that Wilson gets too much credit—or blame, depending on
your point of view—for this mistaken idea.3 There are only three citations
to “concentrated poverty” in the index of Wilson’s book, mostly alluding to
increases in concentrated poverty, followed by some speculation—and it is
sheer speculation, without a shred of evidence—about the adverse consequences of “social isolation” or the putative “concentration effects.” Moreover,
in The Truly Disadvantaged, Wilson did not sever the relationship between
concentrated poverty and the structural forces that engender it. His policy
recommendations all pertain to addressing the root causes of concentrated
poverty, through policies of full employment and a WPA-style jobs programs
aimed for the ghetto poor. However, as concentrated poverty emerged as the

Squires_C015.indd 218

4/9/2009 10:08:09 AM

 The Myth of Concentrated Poverty • 219

latest rage in poverty research, Wilson got on the bandwagon, embracing
both the theory of concentrated poverty and the idea that removal of the poor
from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty is a policy desideratum.4
The chief exponents of removal policy have been a new breed of Moving
to Opportunity (MTO) advocates and social capital theorists who make the
fatal mistake of treating concentrated poverty as a factor sui generis—one that
is a determinant of all these “urban” pathologies, and therefore one that can
be remedied through targeted social policy.5 Herein lies the epistemological
fallacy. With a sleight of hand, all these powerful structural forces that involve
major political and economic institutions are conflated into a single factor—
concentrated poverty, which is now identified as the central problem in terms
of analysis and social policy. As Goetz (2003, 160) shrewdly observed, “Over
time, focus has shifted away from the causes of concentrated poverty toward
the behavior of the poor in response to concentrated poverty.” Thus, instead
of dealing with the root causes of concentrated poverty, as Wilson did in his
initial intervention, we have one study after another treating concentrated
poverty as though it were an independent and self-sustaining factor, and
thus the theoretical underpinning for policies whose central purpose is to
deconcentrate poverty.
But what evidence is there that concentrated poverty has explanatory
significance above and beyond the effects of poverty itself? Do we know that
concentration magnifies or exacerbates poverty? Studies that advance the
theory of concentrated poverty (e.g., Jargowsky 1997; Massey and Kanaiaupuni 1993) devote pages proving that poverty has become more concentrated,
especially for African Americans, but they utterly fail to prove that concentration per se has an additive effect.6 To demonstrate this, they would have to
show that poor people who do not live in high-poverty census tracts—and
who are not warehoused in soulless high-rise apartment buildings (like mine
in New York City)—are far less prone to aberrant behavior than poor people
who live in concentrated poverty. But we know from studies of rural poverty,
whether in Appalachia or upstate New York or the farm belt, that all of these
“urban” pathologies run rampant there. Alas, urbanists have fallen into the
trap that Manuel Castells (1979) cautioned against long ago: of positing the
reified “city” or aspects of urban ecology as the cause of “urban ills,” rather
than a political economy that engenders deep and persistent inequalities.
And before we dynamite housing projects, obliterating the homes of 100,000
families, shouldn’t there be convincing evidence that deconcentration will
have the transformative effects that are presumed?
In short, the theory of concentrated poverty is based on a faulty theoretical premise—namely, that concentrated poverty can be severed from
its root causes and projected as the focal point of social policy. It is rather
like diagnosing a melanoma as a blemish and treating it with a palliative.

Squires_C015.indd 219

4/9/2009 10:08:09 AM

 220 • Stephen Steinberg

Therefore, it should not be surprising that follow-up studies of relocation
programs have failed to provide convincing evidence that deconcentration
has the expected outcomes. At least this was what Goetz (2003, 256) found,
based on a rigorous and exhaustive review of the extensive body of MTO
research. He concludes his book with a simple, categorical judgment: “The
scattering of poor people, in itself, accomplishes little.”7
Yet the cheerleaders of deconcentration turn a blind eye to the wide body
of research that goes against their pet idea. This point is made forcefully in
a recent article in which David Imbroscio (2008) challenges “the Dispersal
Consensus” (DC for short). Imbroscio levels three criticisms:
1. The DCers trample over what Chester Hartman has called “the right [or
ability] to stay put” (quoted in Imbroscio 2008, 114). Although the mobil-

ity programs typically recruit people whose participation is “voluntary,”
they can hardly be seen as exercising free choice when their only alternative is to live in neglected housing and underserved communities.
Imbroscio writes (115): “Preferences for dispersal become nothing
more than a desperate response to a set of desperate conditions, with
little to do with any real notion of freedom of choice.” Of course, in
the case of HOPE VI demolitions, “choice” is a moot issue.
2. The DCers are guilty of overselling evidence, based mainly on studies
of the Gautreaux program in Chicago and the MTO demonstration.
Critics (Crump 2002; Goetz 2003) insist that these studies are flawed
methodologically since participants are self-selected and heavily
screened, vitiating comparisons to the people left behind. To make
matters worse, the MTO studies typically report small findings that
are wildly overstated as corroborating the claim that deconcentration
has beneficial effects.
3. The DCers ignore or slight the evidence that points to viable alternatives
to HOPE VI and mobility programs, such as the work of thousands
of Community Development Corporations in providing affordable
housing for low-income people and contributing to the revitalization
of inner-city neighborhoods. Instead of contemplating strategies for
ameliorating social problems where the poor live, the DCers obstinately
cling to the idea that “opportunity” entails moving the poor as far as
possible from the temptations and pathologies of the inner city. For
all of their methodological sophistication, DCers seem oblivious to
the fact that the efforts of the Community Development Corporations
impact on entire communities, whereas MTO programs, at their very
best, impact on the lives of a paltry number of individuals, deliberately
scattered across the urban landscape: See responses by Xavier de Souza
Briggs (2008, 131–37), John Goering and Judith Feins (2008, 139–48),
and rejoinder by David Imbroscio 2008,149–54).

Squires_C015.indd 220

4/9/2009 10:08:09 AM

 The Myth of Concentrated Poverty • 221

Not only do mobility programs fail to magically transform the lives of
the small number of people who are delivered from “the hood,” but studies find that relocatees are often worse off than before. With or without a
Section 8 voucher, most relocatees gravitate to other poor neighborhoods
where rents are low, thus moving the poor from one neighborhood of concentrated poverty to another, ironically validating the fears of the NIMBYs
(Rosin 2008). Nor do the suburbs provide the magic formula. Xavier de
Souza Briggs (2005, 36), a leading advocate of mobility programs, concedes
that “many minority families that moved to the suburbs in the 1990s, even if
they became homeowners, did not escape the pattern that contains poverty,
school failure, and job isolation in particular geographic areas.” In a study of
a HOPE VI relocation program in Tampa, Florida, Susan Greenbaum and her
collaborators (In press) found that even when relocatees acknowledged that
their housing was improved, “many…expressed feelings of loss and nostalgia
for the neighborly relations they had in the public housing complexes where
they used to live. In addition to enjoyment, patterns of mutual assistance and
exchange among the residents had made survival easier on their very low
incomes and offered a sense of community” (16–17).
There is an addendum to the narrative I began with. When my son was
enrolled at the University of Chicago, living on Kimbark Avenue, his back
porch provided a telescopic view of a strip of low-rise, subsidized housing
that had been built on 55th Street. Architecturally, the houses were a New
Urbanist nightmare: fortified bunkers, walled off to the street, with a small,
internal courtyard. My son observed that on Sunday mornings, women
dressed in their Sunday best would stand on the corner for a long time,
waiting for a bus that would transport them, alas, back to “the hood” where
their church was located.8
All of this raises the question of whether HOPE VI and mobility programs
are predicated on a demonized image of the poor within those “severely
distressed” housing projects. Implicitly and often explicitly, theorists and
planners have in mind aberrant individuals who are the source of violence and
disorder. Obviously, one can compile statistics that present a bleak picture of
gangs, drugs, violence, et cetera, et cetera. But another picture emerges from
ethnographic studies: of ordinary people, desperately poor and struggling to
“survive”; of networks of resourceful women and extended families engaged
in mutual support; of neighborhoods and churches that provide people with
a sense of belonging and access to services and resources; and of activists
and advocacy groups who valiantly represent the poor against the powerful
institutions that seek their expulsion.9 Why is it, one might ask, that social
scientists valorize the solidarities of white ethnics as “Gemeinschaft,” whereas
in the case of racial minorities, these same solidarities are disparaged as
“hypersegregation” whose only remedy is “deconcentration by demolition”

Squires_C015.indd 221

4/9/2009 10:08:09 AM

 222 • Stephen Steinberg

(Crump 2002, 581)? These scholars forget that when white ethnics were
poor (like the Italians who were the first occupants of Cabrini-Green), they
produced the same litany of “pathologies” associated with today’s minorities.
If these “pathologies” were not as prevalent or as enduring, this is because
these white ethnics had the advantage of white privilege, were not encircled
by discriminatory barriers, and consequently were not mired in poverty for
generations (Marcuse 1997). As a result, they were able to fulfill the American
Dream by moving to the very suburbs where the DCers want to place poor
blacks who do not have the resources, and invariably encounter the bitter
hostility of their neighbors (Moore 2008; Thompson 1998).
In short, a policy predicated on the claim that the demolition of their
homes will advance the interests of the very people whose homes are being
destroyed is a preposterous sham. And here we confront the cold reality:
HOPE VI is not an antipoverty program, but on the contrary, one that
stomps over the rights and interests of the poor and sacrifices them on the
altar of political and economic power. This is how an agency whose historic
mission was to provide housing of last resort for the poorest Americans is
now responsible for the demolition of that very housing (Marcuse 1978). As
with Indian Removal, this policy must be implemented in such a way as not
to foment violent resistance or “political problems.” This is where the theory
of deconcentrated poverty comes into play, which is trotted out in Congressional hearings and in Congressional Research Service reports, to paste over
the patent injustices and to make a virtue of the unconscionable.10
It is not my contention that minus the theory of deconcentrated poverty,
HOPE VI would not exist. Powerbrokers heed the sage advice of experts only
when it is in their interest to do so. We have to be savvy about the political
uses of the theory of concentrated poverty, which is invoked wherever the
poor occupy valuable real estate that is coveted by developers, and which
is part of the neoliberal agenda of reclaiming urban space that earlier was
relinquished to the nation’s racial and class pariahs. Neil Smith (1996, 45–47)
has aptly called this “the revanchist city.” Atlanta is in the process of demolishing most public housing, including housing occupied by stable families
with regular employment.11 And in New Orleans, even housing projects
that escaped the ravages of Katrina were bulldozed despite the anguished
protests of their residents.12 While bodies were still being plucked from the
floodwaters, William Julius Wilson and Bruce Katz (2005) appeared on the
News Hour, declaring that Katrina presented a historic opportunity to break
up concentrated poverty.13 And when Xavier de Souza Briggs posted a petition on an urban sociology listserv under the title “Moving to Opportunity
in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” nearly 200 urban experts rushed to affix
their signatures, oblivious to the political uses of their dogma.14

Squires_C015.indd 222

4/9/2009 10:08:10 AM

 The Myth of Concentrated Poverty • 223

A final point. Let us concede for the sake of argument that deconcentration
and mobility programs provide better housing and schools for some poor
people, and advance the cause of racial integration. Even so, we have to ask
whether the political appeal of such policies is that they divert attention away
from the vastly greater problem: the plight of the millions of poor people who
still inhabit ghettos and barrios, whose plight has been exacerbated by the
dismantling of the welfare state, and who are now threatened with gentrification and other assaults of the neoliberal city. As Susan Greenbaum (2006,
111) has commented, “A poverty alleviation policy that excludes the majority
cannot be judged a success.” Not only do mobility programs provide relief
only for a select few, but they provide an ideological façade for the neoliberal
war against the poor and for disinvestment in the inner city. As Goetz (2003,
252) writes: “When accepted as a political strategy, deconcentration justifies
the redirection of community development efforts away from the declining
housing stock of poor neighborhoods and/or away from poor residents.”
Thus, instead of comprehensive policies that would revitalize these communities, provide jobs—the sine qua non of antipoverty policy—and include
grassroots organizations in the reconstruction of their communities, we have
demonstration projects that, at best, can help a select few. Furthermore, as
I suggested above, the dispersal of the minority poor makes it all the more
difficult for them to mobilize politically and to put pressure on political and
economic elites to live up to their responsibility to address the problems in
their own back yard. Instead, in the name of deconcentrating poverty, they
use dynamite as a remedy and transfer the problem to somebody else’s back
yard. And they do this with the indispensable sanction of urban experts
who labor under the illusion that they are advancing the project of racial
and economic justice.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Greg Squires and Chester Hartman for welcoming a genuine and
vigorous debate of housing policy. I first heard about the ravages of HOPE
VI from Adolph Reed, who has provided me with invaluable perspective
from both the ivory tower and the trenches on Chicago’s extraordinary
campaign to obliterate its public housing communities. Susan Greenbaum
was immensely helpful as I delved into the literature on mobility programs.
So too were Derrick Bell, Jane Collins, Mark Harvey, Micaela di Leonardo,
Jeff Maskovsky, and Devah Pager. In writing this paper, I have profited from
the incisive scholarship anthologized in Where Are Poor People to Live?
Transforming Public Housing Communities, ed. Larry Bennett, Janet L. Smith,
and Patricia Wright.

Squires_C015.indd 223

4/9/2009 10:08:10 AM

 224 • Stephen Steinberg

Notes
1. http://www.chicagorealestateblog.com/parkside-of-old-town-brings-development-tocabrini/
2. Clearly, HOPE VI and the MTO programs are different policies. However, the logic, the
embedded assumptions, and the overriding policy objective are the same: to deconcentrate
poverty and to move people as far as possible (as Stefanie DeLuca and James Rosenbaum
assert in their paper in this volume) from the dense urban neighborhoods that putatively
spawn pathology and prevent the poor from developing the social capital that would help
them escape poverty.
4. For an incisive account of the origins of Wilson’s “spatial turn,” and the adoption and elaboration of the notion of “concentrated poverty” among urban specialists, see Crump 2002.
5. Despite the fact that Wilson’s claims were altogether speculative and unsubstantiated, he provided indispensable authority and legitimacy to Chicago’s plans to dismantle public housing.
As far as I know, Wilson never took a public position during the acrimonious debated that
raged around the decision to demolish Cabrini-Green, the Henry Horner Homes, and the
Robert Taylor Homes. Yet his name and scholarship were frequently invoked by advocates of
demolition. According to one account, his concept of concentrated poverty was “the ironclad
precept” for housing officials and developers in enacting plans for the demolition of public
housing (Bennett, Hudspeth, and Wright 2006, 195).
In the debate over the 1999 Chicago Housing Authority’s “Plan for Transformation,” which
contemplated the downsizing of public housing, Alexander Polikoff, the senior staff counsel
of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, made the following argument:
“For me the case made by Harvard’s William Julius Wilson is entirely persuasive…. Wilson
speaks of the ‘social pathologies’ of ghetto communities and adds that, if he had to use one
term to capture the differences in the experience of the ghetto poor from the poor who live
outside, it would be ‘concentration effect’—meaning social pathologies generated when a
neighborhood is composed exclusively of ghetto poor…. [S]o persuaded am I of the lifeblighting consequences of Wilson’s concentrated poverty circumstances, that I do not view
even homelessness as clearly a greater evil” (quoted in Wright 2006, 159–60). As far as I know,
if Wilson objected to the use of his name and scholarship to justify the implosion of public
housing in Chicago, he never made his dissent public.
6. There is a very large body of studies (extensively reviewed in Goetz 2003; Imbroscio 2008) that
purport to evaluate the efficacy of mobility programs. By far, the most influential have been
James Rosenbaum’s studies of the Gautreaux program (for example, Rosenbaum and DeLuca
(2000, 1–8); Rosenbaum, DeLuca, and Tuck (2005); coauthored article in this volume). Other
recent interventions include Briggs (2005); Goering (2005); and a recent symposium in the
American Journal of Sociology, including Clampet-Lundquist and Massey (2008); Ludwig et
al. (2008); and Sampson (2008). From the standpoint of the politics of knowledge production,
the sheer amount of research on this dubious policy initiative is itself worthy of examination,
as are the massive institutional subsidies. Clampet-Lundquist and Massey acknowledge support from no fewer than twelve foundations, governmental agencies, and research centers
(including two grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and two from the National
Science Foundation). Clampet-Lundquist and Massey begin by acknowledging that studies
of the MTO housing mobility experiment “heretofore has not provided strong evidence to
support the hypothesis of neighborhood effects on economic self-sufficiency among adults,”
and assert that selective bias casts a shadow of doubt on all these studies (2008, 107). However,
instead of questioning the logic and assumptions, not to speak of the ideology, that undergird
the MTO project, Clampet-Lundquist and Massey, like others before them, assume that their
measures must be defective, and launch into yet another hairsplitting and word-parsing
exercise to redeem the MTO concept.
On the other hand, a number of studies have challenged the logic, methodology, and findings of the MTO canon. These include: Bennett and Reed (1999); Bennett, Smith, and Wright
(2006); Crump (2002); Goetz (2003); Greenbaum (2006, 2008); Greenbaum, Spalding, and
Ward (in press); Imbroscio (2008); Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber (2007); Reed and Steinberg
(2006); Reingold, Van Ryzin, and Ronda (2001); Thompson (1998); and Tienda (1991).
7. See Tienda (1991) for a thoughtful analysis of the logic of “concentration effects.” Tienda faults
existing studies for failing to specify the mechanisms through which these putative effects

Squires_C015.indd 224

4/9/2009 10:08:10 AM

 The Myth of Concentrated Poverty • 225

8.

9.
10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

are enacted. She further argues that “if resource stock problems are the root causes of social
dislocation observed in ghetto neighborhoods, then solutions focused on neighborhood
revitalization might be more productive than those aimed at rehabilitation of individuals”
(252, italics in original). Tienda concludes on a skeptical note: “Given the nature of available
data, it is virtually impossible to determine with any degree of confidence the existence of
neighborhood effects on poverty behaviors” (258).
The full passage reads: “A responsible antipoverty policy should not lead with the demolition of low-cost housing and the forced relocation of the poor. This nation’s history with the
urban renewal program suggests that without complementary actions to reduce exclusionary
barriers and incentives that foster and facilitate growing socioeconomic disparities—and the
geographic expression of those disparities—the scattering of poor people, in itself, accomplishes little.”
Nor is this an anomalous event: see McRoberts (2005).
Early ethnographic studies that portray the poor or public housing in a more positive light
are Liebow (1967); Stack (1974); Susser (1982; Williams and Kornblum (1985, 1994). For a
review of recent ethnographic studies of poverty, see Morgen and Maskovsky (2003).
For example, Maggie McCarty (2007). “Reauthorization of the HOPE VI Program,” Hearing
Before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity (June 21, 2007): http://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:37561.
wais
Springston (2007) and Pearlstein (2007).
For a glimpse of the protest before the New Orleans City Council, see http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=cMBWAXfGsc4
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec05/rebuild_9-16.html
The petition can be found at http://www.newvisioninstitute.org/movingOppotunityScholarsPetition.pdf.
For critical commentary, see Imbroscio (2008); Reed and Steinberg (2006).Also, see the
Symposium on Hurricane Katrina, including Susan Greenbaum, Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh,
and Xavier de Souza Briggs (2006, 107–28), and Nicolai Ouroussoff ’s column in the New York
Times (September 14, 2008) on the failure of planning in the reconstruction of New Orleans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/weekinreview/14ouroussoff.html?pagewanted=print

References
Bell, Derrick. 2008. Race, Racism, and American Law. Boston: Little, Brown.
Bennett, Larry, Nancy Hudspeth, and Patricia Wright. 2006. “A Critical Analysis of the ABLA Redevelopment Plan.” In Where Are Poor People to Live? ed. Larry Bennett, Janet L. Smith, and
Patricia A. Wright. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 185–215.
Bennett, Larry, and Adolph Reed Jr. 1999. “The New Face of Urban Renewal: The Near North Redevelopment Initiative and the Cabrini-Green Neighborhood.” In Without Justice for All, ed.
Adolph Reed Jr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 175–211.
———.Janet L. Smith, and Patricia A. Wright, ed. 2006. Where Are Poor People to Live? Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe:
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2005. “Introduction” and “More Pluribus, Less Unum? The Changing
Geography of Race and Opportunity.” In The Geography of Opportunity, ed. Xavier de Souza
Briggs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1-41.
———. 2006. “After Katrina: Rebuilding Places and Lives.” City & Community 5 (2): 119–28.
Castells, Manuel. 1979. The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clampet-Lundquist, Susan, and Douglas S. Massey. 2008. “Neighborhood Effects on Economic
Self-Sufficiency: A Reconsideration of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” American
Journal of Sociology 114 (1): 107–43.
Clark, Kenneth. 1965. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Crump, Jeff. 2002. “Deconcentration by Demolition: Public Housing, Poverty, and Urban Policy.”
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20: 581–96.
D’Souza, Dinesh. 1995. The End of Racism. New York: Free Press.
Goering, John. 2005. “Expanding Housing Choice and Integrating Neighborhoods: The MTO Ex-

Squires_C015.indd 225

4/9/2009 10:08:10 AM

 226 • Stephen Steinberg
periment.” In The Geography of Opportunity, ed. Xavier de Souza Briggs. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press, 127–49.
Goetz, Edward G. 2000. “The Politics of Poverty Deconcentration and Housing Demolition.” Journal
of Urban Affairs 22(2): 167–73.
———. 2003. Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in Urban America. Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute Press.
Greenbaum, Susan. 2006. “Comments on Katrina.” City & Community 5(2): 109–13.
———.2008. “Poverty and the Willful Destruction of Social Capital: Displacement and Dispossession
in African American Communities.” Rethinking Marxism. 20(1): 42–54.
———. Ashley Spalding, and Beverly G. Ward, “Scattering Urban Poverty: Hidden Results and
Unintended Consequences.” Forthcoming.
Heidler, David S., and Jeanne T. Heidler. 2007. Indian Removal. New York: Norton.
Imbroscio, David. 2008. “United and Actuated by Some Common Impulse of Passion”: Challenging the Dispersal Consensus in American Policy Research.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 30 (2):
111–30
Jargowsky, Paul. 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell Sage,
Joseph, Mark L., Robert J. Chaskin, and Henry S. Webber. 2007. “The Theoretical Basis for Addressing
Poverty Through Mixed-Income Development.” Urban Affairs Review 42 (3): 369–409.
Liebow, Elliot. 1967. Tally’s Corner: A Study of Streetcorner Men. Boston: Little, Brown.
Ludwig, Jens, Jeffrey B. Liebman, Jeffrey R. Kling, Greg J. Duncan, Lawrence F. Katz, Ronald C. Kessler, and Lisa Sanbonmatsu. 2008. “What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the
Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” American Journal of Sociology 114 (1): 14–88.
Marcuse, Peter. 1978. “Housing Policy and the Myth of the Benevolent State.” Social Policy 8 (4):
21–26.
———. 1997. “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What Has Changed in the Post-Fordist U.S.
City.” Urban Affairs Review 33 (2): 228–64.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making
of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
———. Shawn M. Kanaiaupuni. 1993. “Public Housing and the Concentration of Poverty.” Social
Science Quarterly 74 (1): 109–22.
McCarty, Maggie. 2007. “HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: Background, Funding,
and Issues.” CRS Report for Congress. Order Code RL32236.
McRoberts, Omar M. 2005. Streets of Glory: Church and Community in a Black Urban Neighborhood.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moore, Solomon. 2008. “As Program Moves Poor to Suburbs, Tensions Follow.” New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/us/09housing.html?scp=1&sq=as%20program%20
for%20poor%20moves%20to%20the%20suburbs&st=cse (August 9, 2008)
Morgen, Sandra, and Jeff Maskovsky. 2003. “The Anthropology of Welfare ‘Reform’: New Perspectives on U.S. Urban Poverty in the Post-Welfare Era.” Annual Review of Anthropology 32:
315–38.
Orfield, Myron. 2002. American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Pearlstein, Alex. 2007. “Atlanta to Demolish Nearly All Its Public Housing,” Planetizen: The Planning
& Development Network. http://www.planetizen.com/node/22899
Reed, Adolph, and Stephen Steinberg. 2006. “Liberal Bad Faith in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina.”
The Black Commentator http://www.blackcommentator.com/182/182_cover_liberals_katrina.
html
Reingold, David A., Gregg G. Van Ryzin, and Michelle Ronda. 2001. “Does Urban Public Housing
Diminish the Social Capital and Labor Force Activity of Its Tenants? Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management 20 (3): 485–504.
Rosenbaum, James, and Stefanie DeLuca. 2000. Is Housing Mobility the Key to Welfare Reform? Lessons
from the Gautreaux Program. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1–8.
———, Stefanie DeLuca, and Tammy Tuck. 2005. “New Capabilities in New Places: Low-Income
Black Families in Suburbia.” In The Geography of Opportunity, ed. Xavier de Souza Briggs.
Washington, D.C., 2005, 150–75.
Rosin, Hanna. 2008. “American Murder Mystery,” The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/
doc/200807/memphis-crime

Squires_C015.indd 226

4/9/2009 10:08:10 AM

 The Myth of Concentrated Poverty • 227
Sampson, Robert J. 2008. “Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood Effects and Experiments Meet Social
Structure.” American Journal of Sociology 114 (1): 189–231.
Smith, Janet. L. 2006. “Mixed-Income Communities: Designing Out Poverty or Pushing Out the
Poor?” In Where Are Poor People to Live? ed. Larry Bennett, Janet L. Smith, and Patricia A.
Wright. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 259–81.
Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York:
Routledge.
Springston, Jonathan. 2007. “Activists Mobilize to Save Atlanta Public Housing, Seek Legal Options,”
Atlanta Progressive News. http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0141.html
Stack, Carol. 1974. All Our Kin. New York: Harper & Row.
Steinberg, Steinberg. 2007. “Social Capital: The Science of Obfuscation,” New Politics 11 (4): http://
www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue44/Steinberg44.htm
Susser, Ida. 1982. Norman Street: Poverty and Politics in an Urban Neighborhood. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Thompson, J. Phillip. 1998. “Universalism and Deconstruction: Why Race Still Matters in Poverty
and Economic Development,” Politics and Society 26(2): 181–219.
Tienda, Marta. 1991. “Poor People and Poor Places: Deciphering Neighborhood Effects on Poverty
Outcomes.” In Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology,” ed. Joan Huber. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Williams, Terry M., and William Kornblum. 1985. Growing Up Poor. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
———. 1994. The Uptown Kids: Struggle and Hope in the Projects. New York: Putnam.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public
Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. Bruce Katz. 2005. The News Hour. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec05/
rebuild_9-16.html
Wright, Patricia. 2006. “Community Resistance to CHA Transformation.” In Where Are Poor People
to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities, ed. Larry Bennett, Janet L. Smith, and
Patricia A. Wright. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,125–67.
———. with Richard M. Wheelock and Carol Steele. 2006. “The Case of Cabrini-Green.” In Where
Are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities, ed. Larry Bennett, Janet
L. Smith, and Patricia A. Wright. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 168–84.
Wilen, William P., and Rajesh D. Nayak. 2006. “Relocated Public Housing Residents Have Little Hope
of Returning.” In Where Are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities, ed.
Larry Bennett, Janet L. Smith, and Patricia A. Wright. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 216–36.
———. Wendy L. Stasell. 2006. “Gautreaux and Chicago’s Public Housing Crisis: The Conflict between
Achieving Integration and Providing Decent Housing for Very Low-Income African Americans.” In Where Are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities, ed. Larry
Bennett, Janet L. Smith, and Patricia A. Wright. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 239–58.
Wyly, Elvin, and Daniel Hammel. 1999. “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Urban Policy and the
Resurgence of Gentrification.” Housing Policy Debate 10 (4): 711–71.

Squires_C015.indd 227

4/9/2009 10:08:10 AM

 Squires7C015.indd 228 4/9/2009 10:08:10 AM