The Perfect Storm for Poverty

Michael Teitz and Karen Chapple write in their study eight different hypotheses of inner-city poverty, which can be summed as follows:
1. Structural economic shifts; 2. Inadequate human capital; 3. Racial & gender discrimination; 4. Interaction of culture & behavior; 5. Spatial mismatch; 6. Migration; 7. Endogenous growth deficit; and 8. Public policy.

While these hypotheses each form a substantial argument for inner-city poverty and could stand alone in their own right, I think that all eight form the foundation of a "perfect storm" of sorts. Like someone posed in class, the age old question of which came first the chicken or the egg, can be applied to this transition. All eight hypotheses stirred together form a sequence of events that had formed a cyclical brew that is still not only alive, but gaining ground today. While this article was written in 1998, ten years later nothing much has changed.

Inner-city poverty is still a problem affecting many today, with no apparent solution. The argument of who should find and implement the solution seems to be the real problem, with the blame shifting from the public to the government to the church to the nonprofit community. Is it a local, state, or federal policy problem? Is it a land planning, employment, cultural, or discrimination policy issue? With the hypothesis of public policy, one can look back at the often misguided government "solutions" of inner-city poverty. However, like we discussed in class, were it really solutions being formed or just a shifting of the "problem"? Did anyone in the government really look at the root of the problem or was it seen as an annoyance that must be swept under the rug?

Many of these questions can be asked today, but for the first time, the current generation seems to be asking the right questions. Not how can these problems be averted but how can they be solved? Is it not a numbers game, but a real issue affecting real people. Unless the root of the problem is solved, the same problems will reappear, sometimes with just a different face. If the economic pie is broadened, not short-changed, for everyone, than everyone as a whole can benefit from an increased growth in our economy. The answer only seems to be waiting on the right person or group to step up and admit that inner-city poverty is not right, that people living in such suffering and desolate opportunity is not the "America" that we all know.