Recent US welfare-form initiatives affecting employment and housing assistance have promoted more flexible applications of assistance as well as devolving the responsibility of care for the poor from federal levels to the individual. Implicit in these policy changes is the assumption that individuals enter labor and housing markets where open access is the norm and a ‘level playing field’ exists. In this paper, we use the analogy of seeing labor and housing markets as public spaces to analyze how the ideals of democratic capitalism in labor and housing markets exist normatively, but are always violated in practice. We argue that the influence of neoliberalism, and the devolution of welfare responsibility to the individual in particular, have led to policy changes that neglect issues of unequal access connected to hierarchies of race and gender and their spatial manifestations. Welfare reform in the specific areas of employment and housing assistance has promoted the primacy of private markets as essential components to ensuring social welfare. These reforms have super-ficially opened more options to recipients of public assistance while simultaneously allowing to continue the instruments, institutions, and structural forces that constrain practical access to the full range of jobs and housing. We argue that efforts to maintain these markets have not been distributed to measures ensuring fair play of participants. As a consequence, some problematic contradictions between policy and practice call into question the suitability of the private market as a strategy of providing welfare for the poor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenhabibS, 1992, “Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition, and Jürgen Habermas”, in Habermas and the Public Sphere Eds CalhounC (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 73–98
2.
Bureau of the Census, 2001a2000 Census of Population Summary tape file 1 (US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC)
3.
Bureau of the Census, 2001b1990 Census of Population and Housing Residential Segregation, 1990: Black or African-American, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/resseg/gettable.html (as viewed on 12 June 2001)
4.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998Current Population Survey“Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment” (US Department of Labor, Washington, DC)
5.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1995Census Transportation Planning Package: Urban Element BTS-CD-15–05 (US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC)
6.
BurnsEGoberP, 1998, “Job linkages in inner-city Phoenix”Urban Geography1912–23
7.
CookeT, 1997, “Geographic access to job opportunities and labor-force participation among women and African-Americans in the Greater Boston Metropolitan Area”Urban Geography18213–227
8.
CopeM, 2001, “Between welfare and work: the roles of social service organizations in the social regulation of labor markets of the poor”Urban Geography22391–406
9.
DardenJ, 1995, “Black residential segregation since the 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer decision”Journal of Black Studies25680–691
10.
EhrenreichB, 1999, “Nickel and dimed: on (not) getting by in America”Harpers Magazine January, pp 37–52
11.
EPI, 2001Hardships in America: The Real Story of Working Families (Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC)
12.
FarleyJ, 1995, “Race still matters: the minimal role of income and housing costs as causes of housing segregation in St. Louis, 1990”Urban Affairs Review31244–254
13.
FraserN, 1989Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
14.
Geolytics, 1996Census CD: The Complete 1990 Census Reference on a Single CD (Geolytics, New Brunswick, NJ)
15.
GilbertM, 1998, “‘Race’, space, and power: the survival strategies of working poor women”Annals of the Association of American Geographers88595–622
16.
HandlerJ, 1995The Poverty of Welfare Reform (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
17.
HansonSPrattG, 1995Gender, Work and Space (Routledge, New York)
18.
HartungJHenigJ, 1997, “Housing vouchers and certificates as a vehicle for deconcentrating the poor: evidence from the Washington D.C., metropolitan area”Urban Affairs Review32403–420
19.
HUD, 1998A Picture of Subsidized Households (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC)
20.
IWPR, 2001Working First But Working Poor: The Needfor Education and Training Following Welfare Reform Executive Summary (Institute for Women's Policy Research, Washington, DC)
21.
Johnston-AnumonwoI, 1997, “Race, gender, and constrained work trips in Buffalo, NY, 1990”The Professional Geographer49306–318
22.
JonasA E G, 1998, “Busing, ‘white flight’, and the role of developers in the continuous suburbanization of Franklin County, Ohio”Urban Affairs Review34340–358
23.
KaplanD, 1999, “The uneven distribution of employment opportunities: neighborhood and race in Cleveland, Ohio”Journal of Urban Affairs21189–212
24.
KincaidJ, 1999, “De facto devolution and urban defunding: the priority of persons over places”Journal of Urban Affairs21135–167
25.
KofmanE, 1995, “Citizenship for some but not for others: spaces of citizenship in contemporary Europe”Political Geography14121–137
26.
LashSUrryJ, 1994Economies of Signs and Space (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)
LightASmithJ, 1998, “Introduction: geography, philosophy, and public space”, in The Production of Public Space Eds LightASmithJ (Rowman and Littlefield, Boston, MA) pp 1–16
29.
McLaffertySPrestonV, 1992, “Spatial mismatch and labor market segmentation for African-American and Latina women”Economic Geography68406–431
30.
MecklerL, 1999, “New rules push many off welfare”Wisconsin State Journal 29 March, page 2A
31.
MitchellD, 1996, “Political violence, order, and the legal construction of public space: power and the public forum doctrine”Urban Geography17152–178
32.
MitchellD, 1997, “The annihilation of space by law: the roots and implications of anti-homeless laws in the United States”Antipode29303–336
33.
New York State Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights, 1999Equal Housing Opportunities in New York: An Evaluation of Section 8 Housing Programs in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse (US Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC)
34.
PainterJPhiloC, 1995, “Spaces of citizenship: an introduction”Political Geography14107–120
35.
PeckJ, 1996Work-place: The Social Regulation of Labor Markets (Guilford, New York)
36.
PeckJ, 2001Workfare States (Guilford, New York)
37.
PeckJTickellA, 1994, “Jungle law breaks out: neoliberalism and global-local disorder”Area26317–326
38.
RabinY, 1997, “The persistence of racial isolation: the role of government action and inaction”, in Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows Eds ThomasJ MRitzdorfM (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 93–108
39.
RitzdorfM, 1997, “Locked out of paradise: contemporary exclusionary zoning, the supreme court, and African-Americans, 1970 to the present”, in Urban Planning and the African American Community; In the Shadows Eds ThomasJ MRitzdorfM (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 43–57
40.
RuddickS, 1996, “Constructing difference in public spaces: race, class, and gender as interlocking systems”Urban Geography17132–151
41.
RyanM, 1992, “Gender and public access; women's politics in nineteenth-century America”, in Habermas and the Public Sphere Ed. CalhounC (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 259–288
42.
SmithN, 1993, “Homeless/global: scaling places”, in Mapping the Futures; Local Cultures, Global Change Eds BirdJCurtisBPutamTRobertsonG (Routledge, New York) pp 87–119
43.
SmithN, 1999, “Which new urbanism? New York city and the revanchist 1990s”, in The Urban Moment: Cosmopolitan Essays on the Late-20th Century City Eds BeauregardRBody-GendrotS (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 185–208
44.
StaeheliLClarkeS, 1995, “Gender, place and citizenship”, in Gender in Urban Research Eds GarberJTurnerR (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 3–23
