打印

作者

Emily Rosenman

来源

URBAN GEOGRAPHY,Vol.40,Issue8,P.1124-1147

语言

英文

关键字

Financialization,poverty management,social impact investing,affordable housing,impoverishment

作者单位

Department of Geography & Planning, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

摘要

Social impact investing differentiates itself from traditional investing by claiming to create public social benefits alongside private profits. Globally, municipal governments are increasingly looking to this model to fund urban social services and poverty management.  Through a case study of social impact investing in affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay Area, I deconstruct the financial and ideological underpinnings of this model to understand how private profits are drawn from local geographies of impoverishment.  Analyzing social impact investing as a poverty politics reveals how it places preexisting, state-subsidized systems of poverty management into social impact investing portfolios, dividing impoverished spaces into new hierarchies of deservingness by incorporating private investors’ visions of what will help low-income tenants. But these processes also fail to subsume social life within housing financed in this manner, as tenant practices subverting those idealized by the state and investors persist alongside the generation of private profits.KEYWORDS: Financialization, poverty management, social impact investing, affordable housing, impoverishmentAcknowledgmentsThank you to Wesley Attewell, Lucy Bernholz, Christof Brandtner, Dan Cohen, Martin Danyluk, Anthony Levenda, David Ley, Kathe Newman, Jamie Peck, Carolyn Prouse, Elvin Wyly, and three anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions on previous versions of this manuscript. Thanks to Eric Leinberger for graphic design. Thanks also to the Rochelle tenants and other interview participants for generously contributing their time and expertise to this study. All errors and omissions are my own.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.