In this article  two policy programs targeting areas of concentrated poverty and argue that a multifaceted approach to socio spatial integration policies can provide significant social benefits to the poor. They base their claim on a comparison of the Moving to Opportunity  program in the U.S.A and the urban renewal program of the Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam (Netherlands). There are at least three fundamental flaws in the comparison. First, it isn’t really clear what the authors try to compare.

In it three types of comparisons seem to be mixed in a rather confusing manner. Second, the comparison of the two programs is problematic because they are entirely different in nature and embedded in different policy contexts, which makes transfer of the urban renewal program to the American context rather difficult. Third, from a Dutch perspective there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that urban renewal in the Bijlmermeer is a success.

Our first problem is with the comparison of different types of policies. Stal and Zuberi have chosen to compare the relocation program MTO in the US to the renewal of the Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam with the objective to evaluate policies and draw lessons while making several comments about neighborhood effect studies. Their case selection seems to be based on the condition that both policies seek to deconcentrate poverty. The renewal of the Bijlmermeer has displaced some of its residents regardless of their income or ethnicity. However, there is no data presented on these dispersed residents. Consequently there is no comparison between those who are dispersed by MTO program and those who are dispersed by the renewal program of the Bijlmermeer.