An interdisciplinary debate emerged in the 1990s about the nature of homeless governance in neoliberal cities. Contributions to this discussion have interrogated the form, function, and legitimacy of contemporary homeless management. Urban scholars have differentiated three techniques of homeless governance: punishment, support, and discipline. A subset of scholarship has defined punitive governance as an illegitimate act of repression that promotes urban revitalization by excluding the homeless from urban political economies, supportive governance as a legitimate act of voluntary or coercive care that helps the homeless survive a traumatic life experience, and disciplinary governance as an illegitimate act of production that fortifies urban political economies by including rather than excluding homeless individuals into bourgeois institutions. An emerging body of research demonstrates frontline workers coordinate these techniques of governance to pursue the aims of institutional elites. This article outlines the main points of contention in this debate, examines significant empirical findings that scholars have reported, and identifies salient knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research.

中文翻译：

---

惩罚、支持还是纪律？盘点最近关于新自由主义城市无家可归者治理的辩论

1990 年代出现了一场关于新自由主义城市无家可归者治理性质的跨学科辩论。对这次讨论的贡献已经询问了当代无家可归者管理的形式、功能和合法性。城市学者区分了三种无家可归者治理技术：惩罚、支持和纪律。一部分学术将惩罚性治理定义为通过将无家可归者排除在城市政治经济之外来促进城市振兴的非法镇压行为，将支持性治理定义为帮助无家可归者在创伤性生活经历中幸存下来的自愿或强制性护理的合法行为，以及纪律处分。治理是一种非法的生产行为，它通过将无家可归的人纳入资产阶级机构而不是将其排除在外来强化城市政治经济。一项新兴研究表明，一线工作人员协调这些治理技术以追求机构精英的目标。本文概述了这场辩论中的主要争论点，审查了学者们报告的重要实证结果，并确定了未来研究中需要解决的显着知识差距。