Privatization and Low-Income Housing in the United States Since 1986

Guthrie, Douglas; McQuarrie, Michael

doi:10.1016/s0895-9935(05)14002-9

Cited by 25 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our argument that corporate social action within communities has a definitive focus is supported by studies that report significant differences across cities in how and where corporate giving is focused (Guthrie, 2003;Guthrie & McQuarrie, 2005); low income housing, for example, characterized corporate giving in Cleveland and Atlanta but not in Seattle. Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, are also illustrative of cities with very different patterns of corporate philanthropy.…”

Section: The Nature Of Corporate Social Action: Focus and Formmentioning

confidence: 86%

Community isomorphism and corporate social action

Marquis

Glynn

Davis

2007

AMR

781

691

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a model of how institutional pressures at the community level shape corporate social action-behaviors and practices that extend beyond immediate profit maximization goals and are intended to increase social benefits or mitigate social problems for constituencies external to the firm-within the metropolitan area where firms are headquartered. We propose that community isomorphism influences the nature and level of corporate social action within communities and conclude with theoretical implications emphasizing the community as the focal unit of analysis for understanding corporate social action.

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of Corporate Social Action: Focus and Formmentioning

confidence: 86%

Community isomorphism and corporate social action

Marquis

Glynn

Davis

2007

AMR

781

691

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the US Department of Treasury terminated passive loss tax deductions (Guthrie and McQuarrie 2005). This termination deterred private investment in multifamily constructionunits most likely to house low-income households due to economies of scale (DeSantis 2002;Schwartz and Johnston 1983).…”

Section: The Housing Element As a Government Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State Mandates, Housing Elements, and Low-income Housing Production

Ramsey-Musolf

2017

Journal of Planning Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to create low-income housing opportunities and mitigate exclusionary zoning, in 1968 Congress mandated that municipalities receiving comprehensive planning funds must create a housing element. In tandem, many states mandated that municipal housing elements must accommodate low-income housing needs. After examining empirical research for California, Florida, Illinois, and Minnesota, this review found aspirational success because those states rewarded the municipal planning process. In order to increase low-income housing, this review argues for state housing policy reform. Under US Department of Housing and Urban Development's revised fair housing rule, which requires an assessment of local data, states can no longer ignore the exclusionary behavior of municipalities.

show abstract

“…In other words, through the LIHTC, corporations and banks get an exceedingly beneficial tax deal and also become hidden ''investors'' in low-income housing. Since 1986, the LIHTC has become the primary driver behind the flow of resources into inner-city housing project development, accounting for more than five billion dollars in corporate investment (Guthrie and McQuarrie, 2005).…”

Section: How and Why States Help Banks Meet Federal Cra Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rouse of the Enterprise Foundation, both of whom would become key players in the institutionalization of this practice on a national scale (Guthrie and McQuarrie, 2005). Today, the use of LIHTCs by corporations and banks entails a complex accounting procedure that requires a variety of organizations working together to realize the double tax break.…”

Section: This Institutional Innovation Of Using Lihtcs For Corporatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

State activism and the hidden incentives behind bank acquisitions

Marquis

Guthrie

Almandoz

2012

Social Science Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tA number of studies have shown that, as a result of the ambiguity of US legal mandates, organizations have considerable latitude in how they comply with regulations. In this paper, we address how the different agendas of the federal and state governments increase ambiguities in state-firm relations and how states are interested actors in creating opportunities for firms to navigate the federal legislation. We analyze the institutional forces behind bank acquisitions within and across state lines in order to illuminate the ways that US states take advantage of federal ambiguity and are able to shape corporate practices to their benefit. We specifically examine how patterns of bank acquisitions are shaped by the crucial relationship between the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and a littleunderstood provision in the federal tax code that is implemented at the state level, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The relationship is complex because, while the federal government uses the CRA to control bank acquisition activity, states promote use of the LIHTC, through which banks can address federal CRA concerns, and thereby promote bank acquisitions in their jurisdictions. Thus, our findings suggest that the implementation of social legislation at one level in a federal regulatory system undermines the mechanisms of social legislation at another level. We use archival research and in-depth interviews to examine the interaction between these institutional processes and formulate hypotheses that predict the ways in which bank acquisitions are constrained by banks' CRA ratings and the way states in turn help banks overcome their CRA constraints. Quantitative analyses of all bank acquisitions in the United States from 1990-2000 largely support these hypotheses.

show abstract

Privatization and Low-Income Housing in the United States Since 1986

Cited by 25 publications

References 17 publications

Community isomorphism and corporate social action

Community isomorphism and corporate social action

State Mandates, Housing Elements, and Low-income Housing Production

State activism and the hidden incentives behind bank acquisitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About