Creating Inclusive Communities through Balancing Social Mix: A Critical Relationship or Tenuous Link?

Abstract

This paper explores some fundamental assumptions being linked by State Housing Authorities to 'social mix' strategies in contemporary Australian public housing estate regeneration policy. Six case study estates, two each in new South Wales, South Australia and Queensland form the basis for the empirical analysis. The two major ideas emerging from South Australian and Queensland projects are: first that lowering concentrations of public housing and developing more mixed income communities offers a means to reconnect socially excluded public housing tenants to mainstream society; second that a balanced social mix is a prerequisite for the development of 'inclusive', 'sustainable' and 'cohesive' communities. However, in light of the empirical findings that strong cohesive communities already exist on some estates prior to regeneration commencing, there is no evidence that a balanced social mix is a necessary condition for building inclusive communities. Coupled with findings in the projects of inadvertent negative consequences of implementing social mix policies, the paper questions whether policy makers are over-emphasising the extent to which social mix assists regeneration.

Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands

“…Social mixing is expected to lead to a range of positive outcomes, like social cohesion, social mobility opportunities, more social capital, better services, less crime, an improved neighbourhood reputation, and more residential stability (see e.g., Arthurson 2002;Kleinhans 2004;Tunstall 2003). Many of the associations between these outcomes and mixing policy lack a convincing empirical underpinning (Joseph et al 2007), but for the purpose of this paper, we will only focus on the link between social mix and social cohesion.…”

Sustainable development goals and inclusive development

“…in terms of human relations), and cognitive well-being (i.e. taking people's knowledge, experiences and aspirations into account) (Gough and McGregor 2007;Fritz et al 2009;Narayan et al 2009;Borel-Saladin and Turok 2013;Arthurson 2002;Mansuri and Rao 2004). These policy processes need to be contextually sensitive (Fritz et al 2009;Borel-Saladin and Turok 2013), and encourage participatory governance and capacity building to enhance such participation (Sachs 2004a, b;Lawson 2010).…”

What is the Meaning of ‘Social Mix’? Shifting perspectives in planning and implementing public housing estate redevelopment

“…Thus the creation of a 'problem' of concentrations of disadvantage in public housing estates is promoted by government agencies for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it provides a clear focus for intervention (Darcy 2010: 19). Similarly, Arthurson (2002;2010a) has critiqued the related notions that developing a mixed-income community addresses inequality through reconnecting socially-excluded public housing tenants to mainstream society, and policy makers' expositions that a balanced social mix is 'a prerequisite for the development of "inclusive", "sustainable" and "cohesive" communities ' (2002: 245). In the US, Chaskin (2013) likewise argues that social integration is an anticipated after-effect from new mixed income housing developments built to replace public housing in Chicago.…”