Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- PART I -- chapter 1 Slow Train Coming -- chapter 2 A Seat at the Table -- chapter 3 In Search of Spatial Legibility -- PART II -- chapter 4 Representing the Community -- chapter 5 Following the Money -- chapter 6 Community Power -- Conclusion -- Methodological Appendix -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index

AbstractThe study of urban poverty is alive and well in sociology. The study of urban politics, by contrast, has stagnated. Though scholars agree that politics shapes the creation and durability of urban poverty, analytical connections between the two subfields are rarely made explicit. In this article, I make the case for a more integrated body of research. I first illustrate how urban poverty scholars implicitly discuss politics, and conversely, how urban politics scholars implicitly discuss poverty. I then highlight recent developments in the literature and propose two paths forward—by no means the only paths forward, but two ways to jumpstart greater conversation across both subfields. For the urban poverty literature, a focus on organizations can help scholars analyze political dynamics more directly. And for the urban politics literature, an emphasis on political mechanisms rather than overarching perspectives can disrupt the current theoretical malaise. These two moves can advance both literatures while drawing them closer together.

Are interorganizational network ties "placeless" or "placed"? The study of organizations, particularly the study of interorganizational network ties, has reemerged in urban sociology, yet the urban literature on place and the organizations literatures on organizational network activity are not fully integrated. This article bridges these theories through an investigation of the social and spatial underpinnings of interorganizational network ties. Quantitative analysis of data from 152 interviews with nonprofit organizations serving youth across 12 contiguous neighborhoods in Boston reveals a propensity for organizations to share resources within the local neighborhood, controlling for proximity to other organizations, organizational characteristics, and various network properties. Qualitative data suggest a multilevel social process underlying the parochial network structure, illustrating the context for collaboration, restrictions on extra–local exchange, and incentives guiding a local focus. Based on this evidence, I propose a theory of organizational parochialism, extending research on organizations, networks, and urban social processes.

ObjectiveWhile scholars treat neighborhoods as important contexts of inequality, few studies explore the social processes that create disparities in neighborhoods' political capacities. How does neighborhood social organization affect rates of political participation?MethodsWe combine surveys from the U.S. Census and Boston Neighborhood Survey (BNS), and administrative data from the City of Boston. Accounting for spatial dependence, we fit a series of regression models investigating the relationship between neighborhood social structure and four forms of political engagement: community meeting attendance, contacting local government for services, and voter turnout in a local and a national midterm election.ResultsWe find higher rates of political participation in more stable neighborhoods, and lower rates of participation in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of immigrants. The relationship between collective efficacy and rates of political participation is not statistically significant in our models. We find a positive association between concentrated disadvantage and city election turnout, but this association is nonlinear: beyond a certain threshold, increases in disadvantage are associated with decreasing rates of participation.ConclusionWe argue that neighborhoods are indeed political places, and residential stability, immigrant concentration, and—to a lesser extent—concentrated disadvantage are important factors affecting the civic capacity of urban communities.