Chris Hamnett

The Blind Men and the Elephant: The Explanation of Gentrification

This paper critically reviews the major theories of gentrification which have emerged over the last 10 years and the debate which has surrounded them. It argues that the reason why the gentrification debate has attracted so much interest, and has been so hard fought, is that it is one of key theoretical battlegrounds of contemporary human geography which highlights the arguments between structure and agency, production and consumption, capital and culture, and supply and demand. It also argues that each of the two major explanations which have been advanced to account for gentrification (the rent gap and the production of gentrifiers) are partial explanations, each of which is necessary but not sufficient. Finally, it argues that an integrated explanation for gentrification must involve both explanation of the production of devalued areas and housing and the production of gentrifiers and their specific consumption and reproduction patterns.

Social Polarisation in Global Cities: Theory and Evidence

This paper examines the debate over social polarisation in global cities. It focuses on the claims made by Sassen that the processes of economic change in such cities are leading to a growing polarisation of the occupational and income structures whereby there is absolute growth at both the top and bottom ends of the distribution and a decline in the middle of the distribution. It is argued that while these claims may hold true for New York and Los Angeles, possibly because of their very high levels of immigration and the creation of large numbers of low skilled and low paid jobs, her attempt to extend the thesis to all global cities is problematic. In other cities professionalisaton appears to be dominant. Evidence on occupational change in Randstad Holland is presented to support this argument.

Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961-2001:

This paper reviews the debates over the explanation of gentrification and argues that gentrification is best explained as the social and spatial manifestation of the transition from an industrial to a post-industrial economy based on financial, business and creative services, with associated changes in the nature and location of work, in the occupational class structure, earnings and incomes and the structure of the housing market. The paper sets out the links between these changes in the London context. It also examines the evidence for gentrification-induced displacement in London, arguing that it may be more appropriate to view the process partly as one of replacement.

Unequal city: London in the global arena

1. Introduction 2. The changing economy of London: From manufacturing to financial services 3. Polarisation or professionalism? Changing occupational structure of London 4. Earnings and incomes: Greater inequality but not polarization 5. Migration, ethnicity, race and segregation 6. Restructuring the housing market 7. Gentrification and social remaking of London 8. Social deprivation, inequality and segregation 9. The changing landscapes in London

Social Polarisation, Economic Restructuring and Welfare State Regimes

The central argument of this paper is that it is misconceived to view social polarisation of occupational structure and incomes in global cities as either inevitable or as a direct product of economic restructuring. It is argued that this neglects the key role of different welfare state structures which can and do influence both occupational and income structures independently of the processes of economic restructuring. The form and extent of polarisation in different cities are likely to reflect the nature and form of welfare state regimes in different countries as well as the form of economic restructuring and other factors such as the scale of immigration. Evidence from London suggests that growing income polarisation is accompanied by a professionalisation of the occupational structure.

The best, the worst and the average: secondary school choice and education performance in East London

In this paper we investigate whether the distance between school and the pupil’s home is related to social background in a six borough area of East London. Also investigated is the extent to which schools in the area perform in line with expectations on the basis of the social composition of their intake. The research involves analysis of the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) to which geodemographic codes supplied by Experian have been attached. We demonstrate that the six schools in the area which achieved the highest average points score at GCSE recruit pupils widely from within the area (and to a lesser extent outside), whilst the lowest performing six schools recruit from much more narrowly defined catchment areas. In terms of school performance, we show that whilst we might expect schools to perform better as they become more distant from inner East London and nearer to the M25, this is not necessarily the case. In our conclusions we argue that these data support the claims made on the basis of ethnographic data about the class nature of school selection and parental choice.

The new Mikado? Tom Slater, gentrification and displacement

was pleased to see Tom Slater’s provocative article on gentrification research (2009), not least because it indicates that a concern with class and inequality in cities is alive and kicking. But, while I agree with several of his comments regarding the flaws of economic and policy-relevant research, his rhetorical and judgemental style means that many of his arguments regarding gentrification are flawed or over-simplistic and the purpose of this response is to take issue with them for those who may otherwise be seduced into seeing Slater as the Luke Skywalker of gentrification, wielding his light sabre on behalf of the true faith against Darth Vader and the evil empire of neo-liberal urban policy. Rather, it may be more appropriate to see Slater as the Mikado of gentrification research, seeking to burnish his own critical credentials and punish those who dare to question the emperor’s theoretical and political edicts (Slater, 2006). Some of his criticisms of other work in the paper may well be valid but I confine my response to his criticisms of my own work. Let me begin by stating that, like Slater, I view gentrification as essentially a classbased process whereby working-class or rundown areas of the city are transformed into middle-class residential areas often with attendant changes in commercial use. Transformation of the class and income structure of residential areas is at the heart of the process as Ruth Glass recognised 45 years ago. But, if we are to see gentrification as a class-based process, it is necessary to address the questions of where the expanded middle class come from, where the working class has gone, and what the connections are between gentrification, social class change and displacement. I do not think that gentrification always involves displacement or that displacement is the key cause of working-class decline. At the heart of Slater’s critique is that gentrification everywhere and always involves working-class displacement and anyone who denies or questions this is a neoliberal stooge. Thus, gentrification is necessarily reprehensible and must always be opposed. He argues that in recent years we have seen the de-radicalisation of gentrification research with a number of academics, myself included, allegedly backtracking on their previous work. Contrasting my early 1973 work on gentrification and improvement grants to my recent work he takes particular exception to my statement (Hamnett, 2003a) that:

Spatially Displaced Demand and the Changing Geography of House Prices in London, 1995–2006

This paper discusses the links between the growth of high incomes and gentrification in inner London on the homeownership market. It examines changes in average London house prices by borough using data from 1995 to 2006. It shows that while the top priced boroughs in 1995 were still at the top of the distribution in 2006, and the lowest priced boroughs were still at the bottom, there has been a catching up process with some of the highest rates of price inflation in the lowest priced boroughs, and vice versa. It considers various explanations for these changes and outlines the concept of spatially displaced demand from the expensive boroughs to help explain price rises in the cheaper boroughs.

Ethnicity, Class and Aspiration: Understanding London's New East End

Introduction The changing economy and social structure of London and history of East London Ethnic minorities and housing and perceptions of decline Ethnicity, segregation and education: aspirations and attainment The fallacy of choice: the difficulties in making decisions under conditions of limited choice Reputation and working the system Conclusions.

The Changing Ethnic Structure of Housing Tenures in London, 1991-2001

This paper examines the changing ethnic composition of housing tenures in London (inner and outer) from 1991 to 2001. The question that it addresses is the extent to which ethnic minorities have become increasingly concentrated in social and privately rented housing in the inner city, as much of the literature on other European and American cities suggests, and the extent to which some of them have been able to move outwards and upwards into suburban ownership. The period 1991—2001 is particularly important in London because it witnessed a major increase in the size and importance of its ethnic minority population and important changes in its tenure structure. The introduction of an ethnicity question in the 1991 census permits analysis over time. The paper shows both an increase in suburban ethnic minority ownership and a growing concentration of ethnic minority groups in social and privately rented housing.