As key sites of governance and poverty management, service hubs are conspicuous inner-city clusters of voluntary sector organizations that serve vulnerable urban populations, including people grappling with homelessness, substance abusers and mental illness. In this paper, we frame service hubs as potentially embodying capacious commons on the one hand, and meagre street-level bureaucracies on the other, reconstituting Lipsky’s individual focus to embrace the agency level. We use a comparative case study approach, focussing on two service hubs – Kamagasaki in Osaka and Overtown in Miami – to show how organizations in each combined, in various ways, the two logics in practice. The results suggest that service hubs acted more as ‘managed commons’, but with some tendencies towards street-level bureaucracy. This conversation between the commons and street-level bureaucracies, and its comparative application to the voluntary sector within service hubs, serve as our primary conceptual and empirical contributions, respectively. We conclude by considering how the two logics overlapped and created hybridized models of poverty management.
AldenS (2014) ‘At the Coalface’: The Role of the Street Level Bureaucrat in Provision of Statutory Services to Older People Affected by homelessness. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.
2.
AldenS (2015) Discretion on the frontline: the street level bureaucrat in English statutory homelessness services. Social Policy and Society14(1): 63–77.
3.
AminA (2008) Collective culture and urban public space. City12(1): 5–24.
4.
BenjaminS (2008) Occupancy urbanism: radicalizing politics and economy beyond policy and programs. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32(3): 719–729.
5.
BlomleyN (2008) Enclosure, common right and the property of the poor. Social and Legal Studies17(3): 311–331
6.
BlomleyN (2016) The right not to be excluded: common property and the struggle to stay put. In AminAHowellP (eds) Releasing the Commons: Rethinking the Futures of the Commons. London: Routledge, pp. 89–106.
7.
BoyneG (2004) ‘A “3Rs” strategy for public service turnaround: retrenchment, repositioning and reorganization’, Public Money and Management, 24(2), 97–103
8.
DearMWolchJWiltonR (1994) The service hub concept in human services planning. Progress in Planning, 42: 173–271
9.
DeVerteuilG (2015) Resilience in the Post-Welfare Inner City: Voluntary Sector Geographies in London, Los Angeles and Sydney. Bristol UK: Policy Press.
10.
DeVerteuilGLeeWWolchJ (2002) New spaces for the local welfare state? The case of general relief in Los Angeles county. Social and Cultural Geography3: 229–246.
11.
DeVerteuilGManleyD (2017) Overseas investment into London: imprint, impact and pied-a-terre urbanism. Environment and Planning A49(6): 1308–1323.
12.
DeVerteuilGPowerATrudeauD (2020) The relational geographies of the voluntary sector: disentangling the ballast of strangers. Progress in Human Geography44(5): 898–918.
13.
EizenbergE (2012) Actually existing commons: three moments of space of community gardens in New York City. Antipode44(3), 764–782.
14.
EnrightTRossiU (2018) ‘Ambivalence of the urban commons’. In WardKJonasAMillerBWilsonD (eds) The Routledge Handbook on Spaces of Urban Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 35–46.
15.
FairbanksR (2009) How it Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
FerreriM (2016) ‘Where’s the trick?’ Practices of commoning across a reclaimed shop front’. In KirwanSDawneySBrigstockeJ (eds) Space, Power and the Commons: The Struggle for Alternative Futures. London: Routledge, pp. 113–129.
17.
FosterSIaioneC (2016) The city as a commons. Yale Law and Policy Review34(2): 280–349.
18.
Gibson-GrahamJKCameronJHealyS (2016) Commoning as post-capitalist politics. In AminAHowellP (eds). Releasing the Commons: Rethinking the Futures of the Commons. London: Routledge, pp. 192–211.
19.
HallPLamontM (eds) (2013) Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HarveyD (2012) Rebel Cities.New York: Verso.
21.
HodkinsonS (2012) The new urban enclosures. City16(5): 500–518
22.
HuronA (2019) Carving Out the Commons: Tenant Organizing and Housing Cooperatives in Washington DC. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
23.
JeffreyAMcFarlaneCVasudevanA (2012) Rethinking enclosure: space, subjectivity and the commons. Antipode44(4): 1246–1267
24.
KienerJKornatowskiGMizuuchiT (2018) Innovations in gearing the housing market to welfare recipients in Osaka’s inner city: a resilient strategy?Housing, Theory and Society35(4): 410–431.
25.
KienerJMizuuchiT (2018) Homelessness and homeless policies in the context of the residual Japanese welfare state. In FuffereyCYuN (eds). Faces of Homelessness in the Asia Pacific. Routledge: Oxon and New York, pp. 9–27.
26.
LancioneMMcFarlaneC (2016) Life at the urban margins: sanitation infra-making and the potential of experimental comparison. Environment and Planning A48(12): 2402–2421.
27.
LathamALaytonJ (2019) Social Infrastructure and the Public Life of Cities: Studying Urban Sociality and Public Space. Geography Compass DOI: 10.1111/gec3.12444
28.
LevineC (1979) ‘More on Cutback Management: Hard Questions for Hard Times’, Public Administration Review, 179–183.
29.
LipskyM (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
LipskyM (1984) Bureaucratic distentitlement in social welfare programs. Social Service Review58: 3–27.
31.
LixLDeVerteuilGHindsA, et al. (2007) Residential mobility of individuals with severe mental illness: a comparison of frequent and infrequent movers. Social Psychology and Psychiatric Epidemiology42(3): 221–228
32.
MarrM (2015) Better Must Come: Exiting Homelessness in Two Global Cities. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
33.
MarrM (2019) The Ohaka (Grave) Project: Post-secular Social Service Delivery and Resistant Necropolitics in San’ya, Tokyo. Ethnography. 1466138119845393.
34.
Maynard-MoodySMushenoM (2000) State agent or citizen agent: two narratives of discretion. Journal of Pubic Administration Research and Theory10(2): 329–358.
