Does living in a poor neighbourhood result in network poverty? A study on local networks, locality-based relationships and neighbourhood settings

Abstract

This paper examines whether and how living in a poor neighbourhood results in ''network poverty''. Through a detailed analysis of the formation of personal networks of people living in a poor neighbourhood and those living in an affluent neighbourhood in Rotterdam, I examine the role of the neighbourhood in the formation of personal networks. I address three issues. First, whether resource-poor people who live in a poor neighbourhood form relationships with fellow-residents to compensate for their otherwise small network. I find that they do not and that their small network is primarily caused by non-participation in settings such as study, work, leisure and associations. Second, I distinguish locally maintained relationships that have originated in other settings from locality-based relationships that originated in the neighbourhood. The study shows that high network localness is more a matter of maintaining relationships in the neighbourhood than forming many new locality-based relationships with fellow-residents. Third, I examine how the neighbourhood facilitates relationship formation and conclude that this happens not in ''the neighbourhood'' but in neighbourhood settings, which attract a particular segment of a neighbourhood population. I conclude that the problem of network poverty is not in the first place spatial but rather lies in lack of participation in certain settings. Furthermore, social mixing policies can only be successful if they are accompanied by initiatives to draw a mixed population to neighbourhood settings and facilitate routine encounters between resource-rich and resource-poor people.

A multilevel analysis of factors influencing local social interaction

“…This finding is in line with other studies (e.g. Völker and Flap 2007;Van Eijk 2010;Van Beckhoven and Van Kempen 2003).…”

“…Völker and Flap (2007) suggest that ''neighbors become the first (and only) choice'' for people without other social network members, although they did not find strong empirical support for this. On the other hand, Van Eijk (2010) found that ''people with small networks do not seem to compensate for their small network by forming more ties with fellow residents''. This finding suggests that personal social network size does not affect the likelihood of interacting with local alters.…”

“…For instance, Van der Poel (1993) found that more educated people have more neighbors in their networks than less educated people, whereas Van Eijk (2010) found that the number of local ties was similar for people with a lower and higher level of education, but the share of local ties in the network was larger for less educated people. The different findings between Van der Poel and Van Eijk might be due to an interaction effect of personal education or income level and neighborhood education or income.…”

“…Other public facilities, such as parks and community centers were also found to be important, especially by people who spend more time at home, such as retired or unemployed people, people with poor health and people with children at home. In addition, schools can be a setting to develop and maintain social contact with fellow residents (Van Beckhoven and Van Kempen 2003;Völker and Flap 2007;Van Eijk 2010). According to the study by Francis et al (2012) Public Open Space, community centers, schools and shops are the most common public spaces for social interaction within the neighborhood.…”

A Multilevel Path Analysis of Social Networks and Social Interaction in Neighbourhood

“…The level of income is associated with work status, level of education and ethnicity. Van Eijk (2010) found that low educated people had a larger share of local ties in their network. However, the number of local ties was similar.…”