Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s notion of "organized abandonment" refers to the deliberate withdrawal of resources, protections, and opportunities from vulnerable communities, thereby enforcing inequality through structural violence rather than direct violence. This concept is well-documented with supportive data and examples.

Key data and points backing this up:

• Since around 1970, incarceration rates in the US have risen drastically, illustrating an aspect of organized abandonment whereby vulnerable populations are criminalized and imprisoned rather than supported. For example, California’s prison population increased by 274% since 1970. The US national incarcerated population, while slightly declining from its peak in 2009, remains almost double the early 1990s rate—about 2.1 million people, nearly 1 in 100. Women’s incarceration is nearly 10 times higher than in 1970. This expansion is linked to political choices, such as the 1994 Crime Bill, allocating billions for more policing and prison construction, reflecting disinvestment in community support and reinvestment in control and punishment.

• Specific examples of organized abandonment include infrastructural neglect like New Orleans' levees failing during Katrina, which showed how vulnerable communities are deliberately left exposed to risk while resources are redirected elsewhere. The reopening of tourist areas the day after mass violence in New Orleans also exemplifies this logic of prioritizing capital over community well-being.

• Structural violence that accompanies organized abandonment shapes conditions where survival becomes uncertain, visible in communities like Vancouver’s Downtown East Side (DTES), often called Canada’s “poorest postal code.” Here, Indigenous peoples are disproportionately affected by poverty, homelessness, and health inequities rooted in colonial and systemic disinvestment. They face much higher risks such as increased hospitalization and death from fire due to precarious housing linked to organized abandonment.

• Organized abandonment manifests in long-term disinvestment and degradation of environments, privatization, and neglect that lead to health disparities and social exclusion. This extends harm beyond direct violence, as populations suffer from the withdrawal of basic social goods.

• Studies articulate how this process conditions survivors to expect no aid, fostering resilience in the context of persistent crisis conditions imposed by the state and capital.

In summary, data on rising incarceration rates, infrastructural neglect, health disparities in marginalized communities, and policy choices confirm Gilmore’s framework of organized abandonment. It operates by reshaping material conditions so populations face structural violence and uncertainty of survival, not always through spectacular violence but through sustained institutional neglect and reallocation of resources toward punitive rather than supportive investments.

This evidence supports Gilmore’s argument that inequality is actively maintained by what the state and capital choose to abandon as much as by what they violently control.

Perplexity

Statistics and research indicate that investment in struggling neighborhoods and reducing inequality does lower crime rates. Key points include:

• Urban regeneration projects that improve housing and neighborhood environments have been associated with local crime reductions of up to 19-36%, particularly in crimes like theft and drug-related offenses that tend to concentrate in physically degraded areas. However, these effects are often localized and may not always produce large citywide crime drops.

• Reducing economic inequality correlates strongly with reductions in violent and property crimes. For example, decreasing inequality to levels seen in more equal countries could reduce homicides by 20% and robberies by 23%. Inequality fuels crime through social competition, hopelessness, and diminished social trust.

• Investing in place-based, low-income neighborhood development can improve conditions like walkability and reduce incivilities, factors linked to crime. But some studies found that investments alone do not always yield consistent crime reductions, indicating complexities in how investments translate to safety.

• When neighborhood investments happen, police presence often increases as well. Research shows that in some cases, increased policing accounts for much or all of the observed drop in violent crime following investment projects. This suggests investment and law enforcement often work together, and the independent effect of investment on lowering crime may be intertwined with policing changes.

• Evidence shows that policing reduces crime economically by limiting harms that affect employment and investment, but over-policing can have negative social costs. Balanced approaches that address root social causes of crime along with fair policing are more effective.

In summary, data broadly supports that reducing inequality and investing in struggling neighborhoods lowers crime rates. Investment changes social and environmental conditions that make crime less attractive or necessary, which addresses root causes. However, these effects often work in conjunction with policing, which also reduces crime through enforcement. While investing in communities may have more sustainable social benefits, the combined approach of social investment plus effective law enforcement tends to produce the best crime reduction outcomes.

Perplexity