Most studies on neighbourhood change attribute a key role to mobility in social upgrading and downgrading patterns, while incumbent processes-i.e. changes in the socioeconomic status of non-migrants-are often ignored. This paper explores the relationship between mobility and neighbourhood change by examining income developments of in-migrants, out-migrants and non-migrants of neighbourhoods in three Dutch cities. The paper demonstrates that in-and out-migration are not the only processes at work and that changes in the socioeconomic status of nonmigrants are of importance too. Within upgrading neighbourhoods, incumbent processes of non-migrants seem to be an important driver of upgrading. Furthermore, although in-migrants have relatively low incomes when moving in, they experience strong income gains in the years after in-migrating. The contribution of outmigrants to upgrading is mixed. In line with previous studies, migration reinforces downgrading processes, although at the same time, incumbent processes of nonmigrants impede downgrading.

No abstract

This paper investigates the income levels and income developments of in‐migrating, out‐migrating, and sitting households in gentrifying neighbourhoods in Amsterdam over a 10‐year period (1999–2008). First, to analyse these data, this paper discusses the impact of institutional and housing market contexts on the residential‐mobility patterns of households and subsequently discusses the outcomes of gentrification processes. The general Continental‐European context and the specific context of Amsterdam are highlighted in particular. We argue that in highly regulated markets, marginal gentrification can form an important process of neighbourhood upgrading. This contrasts the gentrification stage model. Second, using a unique, individual‐level longitudinal dataset, we show that gentrifying neighbourhoods in Amsterdam arguably form cases of marginal gentrification. Recent in‐migrants possess incomes that are structurally lower than the incomes of sitting residents. However, in‐migrants experience significant incumbent upgrading after moving in, more so than the sitting population. The Amsterdam housing market, dominated by social‐rental housing, is key to explaining these mobility patterns. Yet, a gradual liberalisation of the social‐rental stock could arguably contribute to more mature forms of gentrification. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

This paper provides insight into the way in which state-led gentrification unfolded in three neighbourhoods in Amsterdam and The Hague. Although Dutch gentrification has been comparatively mild, state actors increasingly adopted gentrification as a policy tool. However, the Netherlands provides a particular context for state-led gentrification. First, the national government plays a key role, as regeneration policies increasingly promoted gentrification as an instrument for differentiating the housing stock and as necessary to prevent social problems and decline. These goals are adopted by local governments in neighbourhood regeneration. Second, housing associations are important stimulators of gentrification. They are hybrid organizations: although their task is providing affordable housing, they are also market-oriented actors who generate income from market activities. However, power inequalities between actors, different objectives and priorities of actors and different local contexts resulted in processes of negotiation and consequently, diverse regeneration strategies. Although interventions are moving into a neoliberal direction, governments and housing associations still form a strong buffer between market interventions and neighbourhood development.