During the course of this report, we will investigate leading theoretical reasons behind the poverty of minorities in urban locales. A multi-level or holistic approach as to how neighborhoods of the inner-city became poor may provide much wanted evidence as to the origins of metropolitan poverty (with the expectation that these findings will be instrumental in developing interventions and provide insight to the social ills facing future generations of impoverished people). The reader will also be cautioned not to take the urban poverty dilemma as a linear cause-and-effect matter (as cited in Wolf 2007). Instead, it will be implicit that cultural variations need be taken into consideration when assessing urban poverty, but not to the extent that the dominant middle-class culture envelops the culture of the under-classes (Wilson 1991-92).
Inner-city communities across America typically suffer from the same mixture of dense habitation, racial segregation, chronic unemployment, and general poverty (Wolf 2007:42) common to these ill-fated neighborhoods. The substandard environmental conditions (broken windows, littered streets, public drunkenness, etc.) in these communities arguably mirror those of an impoverished nation. To be exact, one may expect to find such a pessimistic environ elsewhere but not in an affluent First World country like the United States.
To counter urban poverty, some scholars believe that a multi-level understanding of how these communities became poor will prove vital to effectively design and implement appropriate interventions, and to help grasp how related social problems will impact future generations (Wolf 2007:42). Thus, the crux of this essay will center on theoretical explanations of urban poverty and provide a brief survey of some implications for policy and practices.
[...] Here, I branch off from Wilson and say that the modified perceptions may then motivate strategies to reproduce structural conditions (e.g., support for inner-city churches, banks, recreational facilities) that, in theory, lead to adaptations that reinforce a climate of successes for the citizenry of impoverished communities. Albeit, this, too, may be an oversimplification to solving the problem of the poverty dilemma. Thus, a sociological perspective then includes an understanding of poverty at the individual, family, and neighborhood levels (Wolf 2007:55). References Commons, Michael, L “Implications [...]
[...] Perhaps a more encompassing view of urban poverty entails acknowledging that not one but multiple social problems and economic issues account for inner-city poverty. For instance, Wolf (2007) points out that the movement of blue-collar industry from the inner-cities to suburban or other areas (i.e., spatial mismatch) in effect displaced the inner-city worker (p. 46). This resulted in a deterioration of community resources and decline of social support from churches and other organizations (p. and arguably set in motion the breakdown of the two-parent family unit. [...]
[...] In more detail, social stratification theorists generally view poverty as a result of social isolation stemming from socioeconomic trends (Wolf 2007:43). However, even more direct lay the subset of social stratification literature that identifies the effects of residential segregation of ethnic minorities in inner-cities, coupled with racism, as sources of unrelenting poverty in these areas especially amongst African Americans (Gould 1999:173). A portion of the literature on urban poverty includes Holzer's review of the spatial mismatch hypothesis (1999). In brief, the theory centers on the premise that employment and earnings of, say, African Americans may be negatively affected by discrimination that limits their housing choices. [...]
using our reader.