The spatial location of low income households in regions is one of controversial issues in the United States, particularly within the arena of low-income housing policies. Most studies on low-income housing policies have focused on the effects of the housing policies. However, although several studies identified the factors of poverty concentrations, very few studies have attempted to link regional theories to explain how the poor are concentrated in specific areas.
In this context, this paper reviewed regional growth theories that can explain the poverty concentration and the low income residential differentiation in urban regions. The theory referring to the geography of the low income household concentration include the urban ecological theory, industrial restructuring theory, political economy theory, and income segregation theory (with a microeconomics view). The first three theories show that the poor residents were concentrated in central cities or around the central cities through experiencing the influx of immigration, industrial structure changes, and political powers of capitalist and other "elites". The income segregation theory argue that American cities tend to have more low-income households close to main urban centers, such as CBD, while European and Asian cities have more high-income households in such areas due to the availability and extent of public transportation. In addition, while the urban ecological theory, industrial restricting theory, and the income segregation theory are based on market forces, the political economy theory argues that politics are more important factors forming the spatial pattern of the poor.
To further understand the force of the spatial pattern of the poor, this paper also attempted to link the regional theories to the U.S. housing policies, particularly place versus and people based policies. The U.S. housing policy has shifted from place-based housing policies to people-based ones, and currently to the hybrid. Place-based housing policy such as public housing was dominant from 1930s through 1970s, while people-based policy such as cash allowance to the poor from 1970s to 1990s, and hybrid-based such as HOPE VI after then.
Through the literature review, four major factors, including public transits, employment centers, race, and housing policies that contribute to the spatial location of the low-income people were identified. The comparative analysis between the Atlanta region in the U.S and the Seoul region in South Korea was conducted through the examination of the four factors to see how they are differently related to the distribution of the poor in both cases. The results show that the four factors differently contributed to the spatial pattern of the poverty in both cases. The Atlanta region has the contribution of poverty concentrated in the central city, while the Seoul region has a relatively dispersed pattern of low-income people, indicating that the different characteristics of the factors by region (or country) can generate a different spatial pattern of the poverty.
In terms of regional growth theories, this paper suggests that the regional theories may have different implications for different regions, particularly in different countries, which have different urban culture, history, economic base, density, and political systems, in explaining the residential differentiation of the poor. This is because the factors that each theory addresses to explain the spatial patterns have different conditions and meanings by region and country.