1997
DOI: 10.1177/107808749703200401
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Community Option in Urban Policy

Abstract: There is a plausible community option in local and national urban policy, an alternative to growth-oriented and top-down approaches that represents a possible new reality to be considered by urban scholars and professionals. The authors present evidence from interviews with the staffs of community development corporations and allied organizations and draw implications for professional schools in outreach work and in research.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
35
0
2

Year Published

1998
1998
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
35
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, more progressive government ideological approaches to national urban policy might point to an active set of initiatives. Under the active government model, however, the question has long been whether the goals and objectives of revitalization are driven and supported by the communities themselves (a ''bottoms-up'' or grassroots approach) or does the national government offer a set of broader remedies that are applicable not only to cities, but point to a set of domestic policy priorities at large (Clavel, Pitt, & Yin, 1997;Haar, 1975;Rich & Stoker, 2014;Silver, 2010). 4 Yet neither ''minimalist'' nor ''engaged'' national urban policies have achieved a holistic approach to the broad range of ills facing cities (Biles, 2011;Euchner & McGovern, 2003;Ferguson & Dickens, 1999).…”
Section: The Typologies Of National Urban Policymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, more progressive government ideological approaches to national urban policy might point to an active set of initiatives. Under the active government model, however, the question has long been whether the goals and objectives of revitalization are driven and supported by the communities themselves (a ''bottoms-up'' or grassroots approach) or does the national government offer a set of broader remedies that are applicable not only to cities, but point to a set of domestic policy priorities at large (Clavel, Pitt, & Yin, 1997;Haar, 1975;Rich & Stoker, 2014;Silver, 2010). 4 Yet neither ''minimalist'' nor ''engaged'' national urban policies have achieved a holistic approach to the broad range of ills facing cities (Biles, 2011;Euchner & McGovern, 2003;Ferguson & Dickens, 1999).…”
Section: The Typologies Of National Urban Policymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Today these include programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the Social Services Block Grant, Community Development Block Grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant, the Empowerment Zones/ Enterprise Communities Initiative, and the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program for low-income housing (Clavel, Pitt, and Yin, 1997;Salamon, 1995Salamon, , 1999.…”
Section: Political and Institutional Environment Of Program Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…La dimension organisationnelle englobe également les divers répertoires d'actions (Tilly, 1976(Tilly, , 1986. La question de la professionnalisation de l'action collective (Clavel et al, 1997 ;Moulaert et al, 1997 ;Hamel et al, 2000 ) s'y inscrit également.…”
Section: Regards Théoriques Sur Les Mouvements Sociauxunclassified