Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00719.x Byline: VINIT MUKHIJA (1), PAAVO MONKKONEN (2) Keywords: Designated colonias; Demographic colonias; Low-income settlements; Border states; Housing; Chicano studies; Metaphors; Racialized places Abstract: Abstract 'Colonias' in the United States are a relatively recent phenomenon for planning practitioners and scholars. Most of the focus of policy and literature has been on the unregulated, substandard settlements in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Past studies of colonias in the three states have criticized policy efficacy and questioned whether colonias are appropriately or adequately defined. Our objective in this essay is complementary. We draw from the literature, and our research in California, to explain and share our concerns with the policy practice of naming settlements with poor infrastructure and living conditions as colonias, a Spanish-language name. We argue that the name can be misleading, prejudiced and risks being detrimental. We discuss our misgivings about federal public policy using a non-English title for labeling substandard settlements, and suggest that scholars and policymakers need to revisit the terminology. Resume Les colonias constituent un phenomene relativement recent aux Etats-Unis pour les acteurs et chercheurs en amenagement. La plupart des politiques et publications se sont interessees aux implantations sauvages de qualite deplorable apparues au Texas, au Nouveau Mexique et en Arizona. Les etudes existantes sur les colonias de ces trois Etats ont remis en cause l'efficacite de la politique publique et la pertinence de la definition donnee au terme colonias. Cet essai vise a les completer. A partir des publications et de nos recherches en Californie, il explique et expose notre inquietude de voir la pratique politique designer par colonias, un nom espagnol, des implantations aux infrastructures et conditions de vie mediocres. A notre avis, cette appellation peut etre trompeuse, porteuse de prejuges et potentiellement nefaste. L'article soumet nos interrogations vis-a-vis d'une politique publique federale qui emploie une designation en langue etrangere pour cataloguer des implantations d'habitats de qualite inferieure, et invite chercheurs et decideurs politiques a revisiter cette terminologie. Author Affiliation: (1)Department of Urban Planning, UCLA, School of Public Affairs, Los Angeles, California, USA (2)Department of City and Regional Planning, College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA Article note: Vinit Mukhija (vmukhija@ucla.edu), Department of Urban Planning, UCLA, School of Public Affairs, Los Angeles, California, USA and Paavo Monkkonen (paavo@berkeley.edu), Department of City and Regional Planning, College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.

The focus of this essay is success in collective action. It is based on a critical review and synthesis of the literature on collective action and property rights. I make three key arguments in the essay. First, contrary to the narrow conventional wisdom, self-interested behavior can lead to successful collective action in both commonly managed resources and open-access situations. The literature documents and explains a number of examples of success. Second, and nonetheless, collective action can be problematic and may require institutional responses, but privatization is not a panacea. Paradoxically, privatism can be a key source of the problems in collective action. And third, since the conventionally postulated, simple one-to-one relationship between a private property rights regime and an efficient outcome is not true, and given planners' institutional interests, they should take a leading role in publicly advocating the potential viability of common property and collective action. Another important objective of the essay is to introduce to the readers a vast body of non-traditional literature that has relevance for urban studies and planning practice. I include the literature on private property rights, 'the tragedy of the commons', 'the inverse commons', 'the comedy of the commons', and 'the tragedy of the anticommons'.