Comment on Mark Joseph's “Is mixed‐income development an antidote to urban poverty?”

Alan Berube

Housing Policy Debate, 2006, vol. 17, issue 2, 235-247

Abstract: If, as Joseph argues, there is so little evidence that mixed‐income development alleviates poverty, why does it enjoy such wide acceptance as a method of delivering affordable housing? I argue that such development, while still small in scale, is largely faithful to the economic integration that occurs organically in most urban neighborhoods today. Moreover, the greater degree of social control and higher quality of public and private services in mixed‐income versus high‐poverty neighborhoods provide benefits for residents and local governments alike. For these and other reasons, many European nations have embraced mixed‐income strategies even more actively than the United States has. Although additional research is surely needed, Joseph's findings on mixed‐income urban developments should be viewed in the wider context of what we know about “dispersal” and “inclusionary” housing strategies that embrace economic integration as a viable antidote to concentrated urban poverty.

Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521568 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:houspd:v:17:y:2006:i:2:p:235-247

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RHPD20

DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2006.9521568

Access Statistics for this article

Housing Policy Debate is currently edited by Tom Sanchez, Susanne Viscarra and Derek Hyra

More articles in Housing Policy Debate from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().