"The fact that they own it isn't going to give them the money to put in a new bathroom," Cavanaugh says, noting that a substantial subsidy would be required to make the program work effectively.
Apgar agrees that, although private ownership might have positive effects on the tenants, the government must back up these ideals with solid financial support.
"The controversy is not so much whether we should have tenants more involved in the running of their lives," Apgar says. "The question is what kind of supports are necessary to make this work."
Ellwood, a Kennedy School labor economist who specializes in the study of poverty, agrees that New Paradigm strategies are seriously limited in their ability to aid the poor.
Ellwood notes that strategies such as tenant management and enterprise zones are generally aimed at very urban areas. His research indicates, however, that only seven to 10 percent of poor Americans live in city ghettos.
Ellwood also notes that the New Paradigm does not address two of the most important poverty issues: the impoverished situation of single-parent families and the dilemma of people who work full time and still remain below the poverty line.
"Unless we find solutions to these problems, we are basically putting them in the position where there's not much they can be empowered to do," Ellwood says. "My real fear is that the administration will make this their entire poverty program and not deal with these other major problems."
Apparently, Ellwood is not alone in this concern. Many scholars--even liberal ones--do praise the philosophy of decentralization underlying the New Paradigm. But others say the New Paradigm is a poor excuse for a comprehensive domestic policy.
"Republicans have felt philosophically for a long time that state and local governments should take on the onus of all these problems because they're closer to the people," Cavanaugh said. But Cavanaugh argues once again that state and local governments do not have the financial resources to deal with these problems alone.
But Schneider says that, even though these programs are not new per se, the articulation of a New Paradigm has sparked a newly-revived interest in existing programs.
"What we need to do may be exactly what the Bush administration is doing--repackage these programs and go out and sell them," Schneider said.
Actual Effects?
But while the New Paradigm continues to be all the rage in Washington D.C., it remains to be seen exactly what effect the idea will have on research at the Kennedy School.
Some, like Ellwood, say that when it comes to K-School research, the New Paradigm is nothing new.
"I think the idea of empowerment underlies all that we do," Ellwood says. "We're not looking for welfare-based solutions. We're looking for ways to help people help themselves."
"It's evolving," admits Pierce. "It isn't an ideology fully developed in the academic world or in the political world. It's a concept that will take years to fully implement and understand and work with."
And analysts agree that, although the idea may not be that new, the New Paradigm, with its wave of publicity, will continue to provide the political world with food for thought.
"I think it's a value assessment whose time has come," says Schneider. "Our goal as a government ought to be to empower every individual, particularly the poor, who may need extra help."