'Place Prosperity vs People Prosperity' Revisited: An Old Issue with a New Angle

Abstract

'Place prosperity vs people prosperity' is a familiar shorthand expression of various issues in designing national policies to assist persons and places that are economically depressed. The paper reviews some traditional issues, including those introduced by Louis Winnick, who coined the phrase in the title, and also introduces some new ones. It suggests that 'sense of place' is relevant to the policy debate, because sense of place is a factor in regional and local identity and is an important form of intangible capital that has positive externalities. The paper relies on principles of benefit-cost analysis, and it notes that a concern for the sense of place is consistent with some recent developments in economic theory, namely in the theory of household production and theories of 'fairness' and community values. It also includes an appreciation of the work of Ben Chinitz, whose emphasis on 'supply' in regional analysis is consistent with a respect for the sense of place and is also relevant to a discussion of 'place prosperity vs people prosperity'.

Territorial Development

“…Doing this, it chose not to adopt the several assumptions upon which the theory is built on. Most importantly, it focuses on invigorating place prosperity and people (community) for development in the rural space (Bolton, 1992). It also views the central places, not from the perspective of hierarchy but from that of complementarity.…”

The Impact of Round II Urban Empowerment Zones on Local Communities

“…Alternatively, people-based programs, sometimes referred to as supply side, typically occur in the form of monetary transfers, education, skills training or job placement initiatives. For the most part, place-based strategies tend to be considered more effective and efficient methods for local economic development (Bolton, 1992;Gyourko, 1998;and Crane & Manville, 2008). However, without a people-based component to community development, for example, through job training for existing local residents, improvements to a locale will likely result in a mismatch of disproportionate skills and further disenfranchise the base population.…”

The Influence of HOPE VI Public Housing on Public Schools

“…As inner cities dealt with the profound effects of concentrated poverty that include escalated crime rates, low quality housing, and urban blight (Crane & Manville, 2008;Bolton, 1992) The rest of this chapter explains the research design and methodology to answer the above questions. First, the background of the study is reiterated for setting up the context of the study.…”

“…These boundaries inextricably link public schools and neighborhoods. In inner cities, economic segregation compounded with the profound effects of concentrated poverty, high crime rates, and low quality housing have affected the performance of neighborhood schools (Bolton, 1992;Crane & Manville, 2008 historic preservation, 6) low-maintenance (but not poor quality), and 6) the livable, workable, and walkable neighborhoods (HUD, 2000). In the end, HOPE VI's housing and community revitalization projects, incorporated five main goals:…”

“…Rents were often not enough to cover the maintenance costs, and the revenue gap led to the deterioration of many units (Stoloff, 2004).The National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (1989) reported that 86,000 (six percent) of 1.4 million public housing units were severely distressed, characterized by physical deterioration, uninhabitable living conditions, high levels of poverty, inadequate and fragmented services, institutional abandonment and blighted neighborhoods. The negative impacts of high density, low-income housing developments manifested themselves in a variety of forms as the spatial concentration of poverty led to disproportionate rates of crime, unemployment, and low quality schools (Crane & Manville, 2008;Bolton, 1992). …”