2014
DOI: 10.1068/a4621
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Urban Poverty and Regulation, New Spaces and Old: Japan and the US in Comparison

Abstract: After the 1970s the new urban poverty (NUP) ballooned in Japan and the US, and it evoked policy responses that produced new, rescaled regulatory spaces to contain the poor on the fringe of social rights and the capital circuit. The paper illuminates this process through the comparison of Japanese and US trajectories, both of which, evolving through economic crises, have established unique pathways. The author first constructs a theoretical framework based on Marxian, Polanyian, and Lefebvrean traditions. Then,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Homelessness, a core element of the new urban poverty (Mingione ), has been visited upon vast numbers of urban proletarians since the late 1970s, particularly in parts of the world's so‐called global North. In encountering homelessness, authorities have often opened up new, rescaled regulatory spaces in each city, and in so doing fragmented the national‐scale poverty regulation embedded in the welfare state—wittingly or unwittingly (Hayashi , , ). Lefebvre (:128) would call this mode of regulation “a simulacrum of decentralization”, because its creed has typically been to emancipate urban regulators, without emancipating radical urban practices, by accommodating the uneven spatial development of urban poverty along with two general lines of regulation: policing and work‐first (or “workfare”).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Homelessness, a core element of the new urban poverty (Mingione ), has been visited upon vast numbers of urban proletarians since the late 1970s, particularly in parts of the world's so‐called global North. In encountering homelessness, authorities have often opened up new, rescaled regulatory spaces in each city, and in so doing fragmented the national‐scale poverty regulation embedded in the welfare state—wittingly or unwittingly (Hayashi , , ). Lefebvre (:128) would call this mode of regulation “a simulacrum of decentralization”, because its creed has typically been to emancipate urban regulators, without emancipating radical urban practices, by accommodating the uneven spatial development of urban poverty along with two general lines of regulation: policing and work‐first (or “workfare”).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concrete studies show that this type of regulation, an advanced mode of decentralization in the age of new state spaces (Brenner ), has evolved since the 1970s by overcoming recurrent crises; that it has dealt with the homeless by making them subject to relatively autonomized urban regimes; and that urban regimes have introduced categorical divides within the diverse populations of the urban poor, in order to keep them controllable in ununited forms (Hayashi , , ; see also Blau ; Burrow et al ; Mingione ; Stoner ). Such regulation has resurrected the nineteenth century state ideology of “sloth and indolence” of “paupers” (Pereleman :16), and at the same time has powerfully codified the “othered‐ness” of the homeless from contemporary citizenship (Arnold ; Hansel ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%