During a summer College Now class in high school, I was exposed to the idea of “poverty as pathology” – the idea that the poor are doomed to remain poor due to their own lack of motivation, focus on instant gratification and lack of initiative. In my opinion, this is a very simplistic and convenient explanation for a pervasive social problem. The strategy of “blaming the victim” is a recurrent theme in many debates about various social justice issues. Michael Katz’s discussion of 19th and 20th century attitudes towards poverty show that this attitude was the foundation of theories regarding urban poverty. It can be easily argued that this outlook on poverty is still highly prevalent in society. By determining poor people to be the cause of their own poverty, society can dissolve itself of any responsibility in trying to solve the problem.

This is the reason why the idea of the “underclass” became so easily accepted into mainstream theories about poverty, it was an idea that was legitimized by media – it appeared in Times magazine and other leading publications, as Mr. Katz mentions repeatedly – and it was palatable to the extent that policy makers didn’t have to see poverty as a consequence of failed social structures. The main problem with this, as Mr. Katz points out is the resulting image of the undeserving poor as being fundamentally different and therefore beyond the reach of solutions offered to those who were merely experiencing temporary financial difficulties. But, Mr. Katz makes several comparisons which show that the activities observed in poor neighborhoods and demonized by researchers and policy makers – such as drug dealing – were simply substitutes for mainstream market activities.

It was a really interesting connection to make that drug markets and markets for other illegal activities thrived in certain neighborhoods because mainstream markets such as the housing market did not exist in these neighborhoods. I wonder if Mr. Katz was suggesting that it was the natural entrepreneurial spirit at work here and with no legal means available, people turned to available markets as a way of getting ahead. In any case, the idea of creating markets in poor neighborhoods is a valid idea. But as exemplified by programs implemented during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, even programs that tried this approach have often failed.

The article identifies, with reference to the work of Michael Porter, the reason or the failure of these programs was that they treated inner city neighborhoods as being “different” and separate from their surrounding neighborhoods and economies. Instead of treating them as being lesser than other markets and desperately incentivizing businesses to invest, it would be a better idea to portray them as places with advantages such as their “strategic location,” yet-to-be saturated local demand, and vast wealth of untapped human resources.

The article goes on to discuss current programs in place, many of them involving public-private partnerships. This reflects, in my view, the general popularity of social entrepreneurship in recent times. Social entrepreneurship and public-private initiatives weren’t invented in this generation but such projects have certainly reached new and great heights in the past few years. I think there is great potential in the ideas discussed by Mr. Katz, particularly micro financing and the focus on education. With a growing understanding of the causes of poverty and destigmatization of the “underclass,” solutions to poverty can and should involve more than just food stamps and unemployment benefits.