Downdrift: Provoking Agents and Symptom‐Formation Factors in the Process of Impoverishment

Micheli, Giuseppe

doi:10.1002/9780470712900.ch2

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current economic recession is difficult, not only for the poor, but also for the large middle class with high amounts of debt. Transition to poverty can be very rapid for those who become unemployed or ill, in societies lacking or with limited welfare systems (Micheli 1996).…”

Section: Consumer Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

Hidden consumers in marketing – the neglect of consumers with scarce resources in affluent societies

Ekström¹,

Hjort²

2009

Journal of Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in marketing has neglected economic scarcity in affluent societies, with a few exceptions. Many affluent states are today facing financial difficulties and a global belief in the market as self-regulating, and in de-regulation have led to a focus on consumer agency. This has also contributed to a widening gap regarding opportunities to consume in affluent societies. The purpose of this article is to bring attention to the importance of considering economic scarcity in affluent societies among marketers in studies on consumption by using theoretical concepts from welfare studies such as inclusion and exclusion, participation and inequality. Researchers who ignore the consequences of the lower strata in the income hierarchy disregard the complexity of consumption. It is argued that regardless of income, we are all consumers, but with different opportunities and abilities. The hegemony of free choice needs to be challenged.

show abstract

Section: Consumer Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

Hidden consumers in marketing – the neglect of consumers with scarce resources in affluent societies

Ekström¹,

Hjort²

2009

Journal of Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This of course has been aided by major technological advances that have helped flexible production which has not only forced Fordist firms into vertical disintegration of organization of production but also reduced the collective bargaining power of high-wage labour as down-sized firms realized opportunities to relocate in areas with low wages and less protected labour (Martinelli and Schoenberger, 1991, pp. 117-24;Gans, 1993;Buck, 1996;Micheli, 1996;Sassen, 1996;Dicken, 1998, p. 260).…”

Section: Leveraged Marginalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Europe and North America, systemic microspatial marginal areas are usually located in the centres of major metropolitan areas (Coulton et al, 1996;Wacquant, 1996a;Marcuse, 1997a). Although systemic micromarginality is often attributed to factors that are internal to poor urban communities as exemplified by the "culture of poverty" debate, it is the systemic external forces, including "social gatekeeper" agencies, that seem to be more responsible for the phenomenon (Roscigno and Bruce, 1995;Micheli, 1996;Tosi, 1996;Wacquant, 1993Wacquant, , 1996aMarcuse, 1997a). Systemic microspatial marginality is revealed in those areas in which there is a convergence of many of the stereotypical factors of vulnerability.…”

Section: Marginality and Spatial Scales Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Concepts in social and spatial marginality

Mehretu

Pigozzi

Sommers

2000

Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual taxonomy of marginality resulting from two counterposed structural conditions within laissez-faire on the one hand and controlled markets on the other. Marginality is a complex condition of disadvantage that individuals and communities may experience because of vulnerabilities which may arise from unequal or inequitable environmental, ethnic, cultural, social, political and economic factors. A typology of marginality is based on two primary and two derivative forms. The primary forms are contingent and systemic. The derivative forms are collateral and leveraged. Contingent marginality is a condition that results from competitive inequality in which individuals and communities are put at a disadvantage because of the dynamics of the free market whose uncertain and stochastic outcomes affect them adversely. Systemic marginality is a socioeconomic condition of disadvantage created by socially constructed inequitable non-market forces of bias. Collateral marginality is a condition experienced by individuals or communities who are marginalized solely on the basis of their social and/or geographic proximity to individuals or communities that experience either contingent or systemic marginality. Leveraged marginality is a contingent or systemic disadvantage that people/communities are made to experience when their bargaining position in free markets is weakened by dominant stakeholders like transnational corporations which are able to leverage lucrative concessions by using the threat of alternative, often cheaper and marginalized (contingent or systemic) labour pools to which they can potentially take their business.

show abstract

“…In this section we would like to point out how our capital pentagon and space relate to each other in a reciprocal way, on the basis of our empirical findings and cultural and structural determinist theories. We think it would be wrong to directly juxtapose our findings with these theories, or to select one of them as being a more accurate reflection of the true picture, as neither the idea of the poor as victims of their own bad attitudes and wrong choices, nor the image of them as victims of negative social and economic forces in a bad system, addresses the complete reality of poverty (Marks, 1991;Micheli, 1996).…”

Section: Segregationmentioning

confidence: 88%