In the excerpt, “From Underclass to Entrepreneur: New Technologies of Poverty Work in Urban America”, Katz talks about how the expression “underclass” evolved over time. During the late twentieth century, “underclass” was used to describe the poor, especially poor black women. The term also described the life of drugs, crime, high poverty, and urban decay. And thus, America’s inner cities were deemed as “a terrain of violence and despair”. I personally think that these characteristics actually describe just being “underclass” and not poverty. One can choose a life of drugs and crime and not necessarily be poor. One can choose to ignore education. That is what I define as “underclass”.
At the turn of the century however, these same people are seen as highly motivated and ambitious. Because of their low social status, they wanted to prove to everyone that they were not a lower class of people. Katz states that the label essentially became a metaphor of social transformation. Formerly described as “underclass”, these individuals jumped at any opportunity and became entrepreneurs. Market-based technologies certainly helped the poor obtain this newfound status.
Katz discussed exactly how market-based technologies gave the poor a boost. Four market-based strands were intertwined with poverty work, including “place-based initiatives that intended to unleash poor people as consumers by rebuilding markets in inner-cities; microfinance programs that turned poor people into entrepreneurs; asset-building strategies that helped poor people accumulate capital; and conditional cash transfers that focused on deploying monetary incentives to change behavior.” As a business major and psychology minor, I found these ideas to be very interesting. These market-based brands mixed aspects of business and psychology together to obtain a positive result.
Other points I found interesting was when Katz talked about Clinton’s presidency and Muhammad Yunus. Throughout my studies in American History before college, I have never heard of the Enterprise Zone or the Empowerment Act of 1998. Although it ultimately did not succeed, the Clinton administration did try hard to revitalize the inner-city. This act called for nine empowerment zones and ninety-five enterprise communities, both of which were allowed tax breaks and “other incentives” to help the poor. Clinton also added eligibility to social services and community-based programs. On the other hand, Yunus’ Grameen program proved successful. He was more inclined to help women because he felt that they were more likely to do good for their families compared to men. He also believed that that was the main reason for the program’s success. Although it may come off as a little unfair to men, I do agree with Yunus and his method of helping the poor.
Overall, I found this reading to be very informative and insightful. As a New Yorker exposed to a variety of entrepreneurial ideas, I certainly do see a great deal of talent and motivation coming from individuals who are less wealthy. But how exactly is the government dealing with poverty today? I do believe that our government is doing an adequate job (considering the economic circumstances) assisting the poor today. There are many social services including food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, etc. With that said, there is always room for more improvement.
