Social mixing as a cure for negative neighbourhood effects: evidence-based policy or urban myth?

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu In this paper, we review the evidence base for social mixing in neighbourhoods, which is used as a strategy to tackle assumed negative neighbourhood effects. We discuss in detail the theoretical links between neighbourhood characteristics, and outcomes of individuals living in concentrations of poverty. Through this we identify the theoretical case for promoting socially mixed communities. We then review the empirical evidence base, focusing on outcomes of the American poverty deconcentration initiatives including the Moving to Opportunity and HOPE VI programs. We identify that the evidence from these programs is at best inconclusive. Turning to the European experience we identify problems associated with using observational data to assess individual outcomes in relation to their neighbourhood context. We conclude by suggesting that the evidence base for social mixing is far from robust, and that many of the current empirical papers suffer from serious analytical shortcomings. Ultimately, the process of creating more socially mixed neighbourhoods is unlikely to create more opportunities in life for the original residents. Socially mixing neighbourhoods through tenure mixing will only change the population composition of neighbourhoods, increasing average incomes because more affluent (and employed) residents will move into the owner occupied housing replacing social housing. Terms of use: Documents in D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E SJEL Classification: I30, J60, R23

‘All in it Together’? Social Cohesion in a Divided Society: Attitudes to Income Inequality and Redistribution in a Residential Context

“…But our research also indicates that the argument about whether or not social mixing is an agenda worth pursuing should not be restricted to the question of whether or not it improves life chances or labour market outcomes for individuals (Manley et al 2011), but must also consider societal level effects upon civic attitudes.…”

Impacts of large-scale residential projects on urban sustainability in Dammam Metropolitan Area, Saudi Arabia

“…Individuals might suffer from difficulty to access job market due to the lack of access to job networks. Moreover, the similarity in working habits and low income profile might encourage isolation of social groups in ghettos with all its negative aspects such as concentrated poverty and deviant behaviours, which could lead to increasing crime rates and other social problems (Manley, Van Ham, & Doherty, 2011;Wilson, 1991).…”

“…They argue that people self-select themselves to live in neighbourhoods according to their income and services they can afford, and that a poor household will not become rich by mere living in rich neighbourhoods (Manley et al, 2011). Thus, it is not enough to provide different types of housing to implement social mix and to avoid social discrimination.…”

“…Theoretically, mixing social groups in the same neighbourhood might lead to 'role-model effect', when poor and delinquent youth imitate the behaviours of individuals of higher social class (Manley et al, 2011;Sarkissian, 1976). However, this positive effect cannot be guaranteed or generalized, as some researches showed that the effect is sometimes insignificant even in the case of very small communities (Allen, Camina, Casey, Coward, & Wood, 2005;Manley et al, 2011).…”

An Introduction to the Special Issue – Housing in Hard Times: Marginality, Inequality and Class

“…A key analytical focus has been the differential impact of social and urban policies in different places at different scales, with a particular emphasis on the most vulnerable, marginalised and excluded groups within society. Scholarship in this area includes for example, research into homelessness (Clapham, 2003;Anderson, 2004;Fitzpatrick and Pawson, 2007); the management and governance of social housing (Cole and Furbey, 1994;Flint, 2004;Malpass, 2003;McKee, 2011;McKee and Phillips, 2012); area-based regeneration, and related concerns about the gentrification of working class neighbourhoods (Allen, 2008;Watt 2008;Kintrea and Muir, 2009;Paton et al, 2012); place-based stigma (Damer, 1989;Hastings, 2004;Johnstone and Mooney, 2007;Robertson et al, 2010); neighbourhood effects (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2001;Manley et al, 2011); and housing market analysis (Bramley et al, 2008;Meen, 2009;Forrest, 2011). More recently, the private rented sector has also become an important area of analytical focus given the blurring of the boundary between the social and private rented sectors.…”