The destruction of the character of the poor neighborhoods denounces the ignorance of factors other than market forces that determine the movement of the social groups and the use of land (Sampson & Morenoff, 1997). The culture of poverty is an influential theory that suggests the norms and behaviors of the poor in distinction to a subculture of the larger society (Lewis, 1968; Moynihan, 1965).
The culture of poverty thesis is extensive by critics for being too deterministic, blaming the victimized and diverting attention away from the real causes of poverty. Another perspective blames welfare policies for the disintegration of the urban black family on the offer of disincentives for work and marriage. The stated view discounts evidence that shows welfare rates rising even when the relative advantage of work at a minimum wage job outweighs that of welfare income.
Anthropologists and sociologists emphasize much on relations and social status, culture, and behavior. Moreover, political scientists base much on group power as well as access to collective resources.
Wilson (1987) maintains the two key factors that best explain the rapid deterioration of the “urban underclass”. The changes in structure and social composition of the economy are the case studies. Wilson (1996) argues that significant shifts in the structure of the American economy contribute to a downward spiral for the urban blacks. The jobs, relocate away, and the economic base shifts from manufacturing to the service sector. The jobs, then begin requisitioning formal education and credentials that many inner-city residents lack.
Systematic barriers are in place to limit black spatial mobility, which mostly confined blacks to disadvantaged neighborhoods. Federal housing policies contribute significantly to the disinvestment in black urban areas and the expansion of the suburbs. Locating public housing projects in poor