Governance perspectives suggest the boundaries between public and private sectors are blurred, and recognize the involvement of third party actors in carrying out public objectives. Traditional policy models neglect to consider the involvement of third part actors and limit our understanding of the effectiveness of these approaches. By adopting a policy tools perspective, the potential and limitations of governance approaches can be better understood. Indirect policy tools can foster collective action around public problems by incorporating third party actors; however, it is necessary to understand the interaction between indirect tools and structural social capital. The actors involved in carrying out public objectives may depend upon the linkages between top-down and bottom-up social capital. A qualitative analysis of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 suggests indirect policy tools can foster collective reinvestment responses, but the effectiveness of indirect policy tools is contingent upon the existence of linking social capital.
Alexander, Ernest R.1992. Approaches to planning: Introducing Current planning theories, concepts, and issues. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.
2.
Bennett, Larry.1989. Postwar redevelopment in Chicago: The declining politics of party and the rise of neighborhood politics. In Unequal partnerships: The political economy of urban redevelopment in postwar America, ed. Gregory D. Squires, 161-77. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3.
Benston, George J.1997. Discrimination in mortgage lending: Why HMDA and CRA should be repealed. Journal of Retail Banking Services19 (3): 47-57.
4.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2000. The performance and profitability of CRA-related lending. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/surveys/craloansurvey/ (accessed October 10, 2006).
5.
Bogart, William.2003. Civic infrastructure and the financing of community development . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
6.
Bright, Elise M.2003. Reviving America's forgotten neighborhoods: An investigation of inner city revitalization efforts. New York: Routledge.
7.
Bush, Malcolm, and Daniel Immergluck .2003. Research, advocacy, and community reinvestment. In Organizing access to capital: Advocacy and democratization of financial institutions, ed. Gregory D. Squires, 154-68. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
8.
Christensen, Karen S.1999. Cities and complexity: Making intergovernmental decisions. Vol. 3 of Cities & planning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Courchane, Marsha, Brian Surette, and Peter Zorn.2004. Subprime borrowers: Transition and outcomes . Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics29 (4): 365-92.
10.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Treasury Task Force.2000. Final report and recommendations of the Predatory Lending HUD-Treasury Joint Task Force. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .
11.
Fishbein, Allen.1992. The ongoing experiment with "regulation from below": Expanding reporting requirements for HMDA and CRA. Housing Policy Debate3 (2): 601-36.
12.
Grant, Emma.2001. Social capital and community strategies: Neighbourhood development in Guatemala city. Development and Change32 (5): 975-97.
13.
Harvey, David.2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
Hero, Rodney E.2007. Racial diversity and social capital: Equality and community in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Holyoke, Thomas.2004. Community mobilization and credit: The impact of nonprofits and social capital on Community Reinvestment Act lending. Social Science Quarterly85 (March): 187-205.
16.
Immergluck, Dan.2004. Credit to the community: Community reinvestment and fair lending policy in the United States. Armonk, NY : M.E. Sharpe.
17.
Indianapolis Community Development Summit.2004. Report summarizing the Indianapolis task force findings . Indianapolis, IN: Indianapolis Community Development Summit.
18.
Joint Center for Housing Studies.2002. The 25th anniversary of the Community Reinvestment Act: Access to capital in an evolving financial services system. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University.
19.
Judd, Dennis R., and Todd Swanstrom.2004. City politics: The political economy of urban America. 4th ed. New York: Pearson/ Longman.
20.
Keating, W. Dennis, Norman Krumholz, and David C. Perry .1995. Cleveland: A metropolitan reader. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
21.
Keyes, Langley C.2001. Housing, social capital, and poor communities. In Social capital and poor communities, ed. Susan Saegert, Mark R. Warren, and J. Phillip Thompson, 136-64. New York: Russell Sage.
22.
Koski, Chris, and Peter J. May .2005. Interests and implementation: Fostering voluntary regulatory actions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16 (3): 329-49.
23.
Lopez, M. Lisette, and Carol B. Stack .2001. Social capital and the culture of power: Lessons from the field. In Social capital and poor communities, ed. Susan Saegert, Mark R. Warren, and J. Phillip Thompson, 31-59. New York: Russell Sage.
24.
Mariano, Joe.2003. Where the hell did billions of dollars for reinvestment come from? In Organizing access to capital: Advocacy and democratization of financial institutions, ed. Gregory D. Squires, 27-42. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
25.
Martin, Laurence L.2005. Performance-based contracting for human services: Does it work?Administration in Social Work29 (1): 63-77.
26.
May, Peter J.2002. Social regulation. In The tools of government: A guide to the new governance, ed. Lester M. Salamon and Odus V. Elliott, 156-85. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
McCluskey, Orin L.1983. The Community Reinvestment Act: Is it doing the job?Banking Law Journal100:33-57.
28.
National Community Reinvestment Coalition.2005. CRA commitments. http://www.ncrc.org (accessed October 15, 2006).
29.
Olson, Mancur.1965. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Ostrom, Elinor.2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives14 (3): 137-58.
31.
Pilloff, Steven J.2004. Bank merger activity in the United States, 1994-2003. Staff Study 176. Washington DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/staffstudies/2000-present/ss176.pdf (accessed July 5, 2008).
32.
Pogge, Jean.1992. Reinvestment in Chicago neighborhoods: A twenty-year struggle . In From redlining to reinvestment: Community responses to urban disinvestment, ed. Gregory D. Squires , 133-38. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
33.
Portes, Alejandro.1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology24:1-24.
34.
Posner, Paul.2002. Accountability challenges of third-party government. In The tools of government: A guide to the new governance, ed. Lester M. Salamon and Odus V. Elliott, 523-52. New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
Putnam, Robert D.2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community . New York: Simon & Schuster .
36.
Renuart, Elizabeth.2004. An overview of the predatory lending process. Housing Policy Debate15 (3): 457-502.
37.
Sabatier, Paul.1975. Social movements and regulatory agencies: Toward a more adequate- and less-pessimistic theory of "clientele capture." Policy Sciences6:301-42.
38.
Salamon, Lester M.2002. The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In The tools of government: A guide to the new governance, ed. Lester M. Salamon and Odus V. Elliott, 156-85. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Schwartz, Alex.1998. Bank lending to minority and low-income households and neighborhoods: Do community reinvestment agreements make a difference? Journal of Urban Affairs20 (3): 269-301.
40.
Schwartz, Alex.2000. The past and future of community reinvestment agreements . Housing Facts and Findings2 (1): 3-7.
41.
Sidney, Mara S.2003. Unfair housing: How national policy shapes community action. Studies in government and public policy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
42.
Squires, Gregory D.1992. From redlining to reinvestment: Community responses to urban disinvestment. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
43.
Squires, Gregory D.2003. Organizing access to capital: Advocacy and the democratization of financial institutions. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
44.
Squires, Gregory D.2004. Why the poor pay more: How to stop predatory lending. Westport, CT: Praeger.
45.
Stoecker, Randy.1996. Empowering redevelopment: Toward a different CDC. Shelterforce. http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/87/cdcmodel.html (accessed October 5, 2006).
46.
Stoker, Gerry.1998. Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal155 (March): 17-28.
47.
Stoker, Gerry.2004. Designing institutions for governance in complex environments: Normative, rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted. Economic and Social Research Council Fellowship Paper 1. Manchester, UK: Institute for Political and Economic Governance. http://www.ipeg.org.uk/papers/ESRC%20Paper%20No%201.pdf (accessed July 7, 2008).
48.
Stuart, Guy.2003. Discriminating risk: The U.S. mortgage lending industry in the twentieth century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
49.
Taylor, John, and Josh Silver.2003. The essential role of activism in community reinvestment. In Organizing access to capital: Advocacy and democratization of financial institutions, ed. Gregory D. Squires, 27-42. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
50.
Warren, Mark R., J. Phillip Thompson, and Susan Saegert.2001. The role of social capital in combating poverty. In Social capital and poor communities, ed. Susan Saegert, Mark R. Warren , and J. Phillip Thompson, 136-64. New York: Russell Sage.
51.
Wilson, James Q.1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
52.
Wilson, Woodrow.1887. The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly (1886-1905) 2 (2): 1-26.
53.
Woolcock, Michael.1998. Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society27 (2): 151-208.
