An economic efficiency analysis of deconcentrating poverty populations

By G. Galster. 2002

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c6e523fbc4ead495f749851c02da1713ead46c34

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

1. Kirk McClure
2. S. Musterd
3. G. Galster
4. Helen F. Ladd
5. Roger Andersson
6. Jens Ludwig
7. Nathaniel Hendren

In Sociology and Political Science

1. G. Galster
2. Roger Andersson
3. S. Musterd
4. Timo Kauppinen
5. Kirk McClure
6. Dave E. Marcotte
7. Nancy Augustine
8. M. Mandell

Citations in the corpus

• Does neighborhood income mix affect earnings of adults? New evidence from Sweden (2008, background): “There are a variety of theoretical reasons why the underlying social interactions potentially yielding neighborhood effects operate in non-linear fashion (Galster, 2002).”
• What’s the ’Hood Got to Do with It? Parental Perceptions about How Neighborhood Mechanisms Affect Their Children (2006, unknown): “A prior review (Galster, 2002) suggests that the independent impacts of neighborhood poverty rates in encouraging negative outcomes for individuals (like criminal behavior, school leaving, and duration of poverty spells) appear to be nil unless the neighborhood exceeds about 20% poverty, whereupon…”
• Should Policy Makers Strive for Neighborhood Social Mix? An Analysis of the Western European Evidence Base (2007, background): “For a more complete and rigorous demonstration of these arguments, see Galster & Zobel (1998) and Galster (2002).”
• The Influence of Neighborhood Poverty During Childhood on Fertility, Education, and Earnings Outcomes (2007, background): “Email: aa3571@wayne.edu wider range of locations to ascertain the degree to which neighborhood characteristics affect children’s developmental context (Galster, 2002, 2005; Galster et al. 2003).”
• Deconcentrating Poverty With Housing Programs (2008, background): “with fewer than 10% of the population in poverty (low poverty) remained fairly constant during this time period, while those with from 10% to 40% of the population in poverty (moderate poverty) increased ( Galster, 2002; Kingsley & Pettit, 2003).”
• Neighbourhood Social Mix as a Goal of Housing Policy: A Theoretical Analysis (2007, background): “This remarkable and important conclusion is explicated more fully in Galster (2002).”
• Quantifying the Effect of Neighbourhood on Individuals: Challenges, Alternative Approaches, and Promising Directions (2008, background): “A prior analysis (Galster, 2002) suggests that the independent impacts of neighbourhood poverty rates in encouraging negative outcomes for individuals like criminal behavior, school leaving, and duration of poverty spells appear to be nil unless the neighbourhood exceeds about 20 % poverty,…”
• The Benefits and Costs of Residential Mobility Programmes for the Poor (2002, background): “…improve their own outcomes, but lead to a countervailing deterioration in outcomes of the residents of host neighbourhoods of exactly the same magnitude (Galster, 2000; Galster & Zobel, 1998; Jencks & Meyer, 1990) and the overall volume of anti-social or pro-social behaviour will be unaffected.”