Conflictive clients and peripheral partners: How poor city-dwellers contest developer-led housing programs in two Latin American cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflecting global shifts toward privatization in social housing policies, many Latin American states have adopted the “demand-subsidy” model of state-funded but developer-led provision. While critical urbanists have shown that demand-subsidy programs consistently produce segregated, low-quality housing, this article uses comparative ethnography to examine how beneficiaries experience and contest them in different urban political contexts. The study takes a sequential approach to comparison. Beginning with an ethnographic case study of housing struggles in Santiago, Chile—the birthplace of the demand-subsidy model—the research was later expanded comparatively by following the model to São Paulo, Brazil, where it was implemented under different political conditions. The comparison reveals that popular housing organizations in both cities engaged in “contentious participation,” using confrontational protest to claim participatory voice in otherwise top-down, developer-led programs. This took different local forms as similar claims were refracted through distinct state-civil society regimes. In Santiago, a history of technocratic governance and movement demobilization left housing-seekers to organize in state-sanctioned committees and wage fragmented struggles for ad hoc participation in individual housing projects. In São Paulo, where the demand-subsidy model broke with a local history of participatory governance, consolidated networks of housing movements used mass mobilization to claim institutionalized participation in federal policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".