Tim Butler

Social Capital, Gentrification and Neighbourhood Change in London: A Comparison of Three South London Neighbourhoods

Social capital has been used extensively in recent years to examine issues of social exclusion. Following Bourdieu, the concept is reintegrated into social theory alongside cultural and economic capital to examine the variations in the upgrading of gentrified areas of inner London. Three neighbourhoods in south London are compared and it is argued that their differences can, to a limited extent, be understood in terms of the differential deployment of cultural, social and economic capital by their middle-class residents. These neighbourhoods have acquired distinctive characters as a result and it is argued that the gentrification process in inner London is leading to heterogeneous middle-class neighbourhoods which contrasts with the perceived homogeneity of the traditional suburban area.

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.

Gentrification, Class, and Gender: Some Comments on Wardens ‘Gentrification as Consumption’

In this paper Wardes argument that gentrification is primarily an issue of gender is questioned. It is argued that class and gender are both important in understanding gentrification. Contra Warde, it is argued that gentrification is likely to be found in the distinctive locational patterns of particular fractions of the middle class, Evidence from a recent study of gentrification in northeast London suggests that gentrifiers are drawn disproportionately from the second-generation middle-class and that it is within this context that the role played by women in the gentrification process needs to be understood.

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.

School choice: a European perspective

It has long been the case for the North American middle classes that where you live is largely determined by whether you can afford to choose where to school your children. Only the most affluent will live in downtown Manhattan or Chicago’s Gold Coast because they know that implies educating children at an elite private school. Thus the natural habitat for the American middle class family is the suburbs where, crudely speaking, how much tax you are prepared to pay determines the quality of the public (state) schools. Unsurprisingly, many middle class parents then move once their children are through the education system to somewhere where the taxes are lower (because they don’t have to support a high quality educational infrastructure) and to escape the ‘soccer mom’ syndrome. Largely where you live tends to determine the kind of education you get, but where you live also determines how much you pay for that education. The trade off has been quite clear. In Europe, to varying degrees, it has also been the case that where you live will determine the quality of your children’s educational experience. However, for the most part local taxes are determined by the quality and size of your individual dwelling rather than the variable quality of the local education service, which is mostly funded out of general (direct) taxation. Even private schooling in many countries (such as France, Spain and Denmark) is largely funded from the public purse, further blunting the divide so sharp in North America and the UK. What determines a ‘good school’ in Europe is also rather more complex, for several other reasons: the existence in many countries of a national curriculum and a more homogeneous teaching force, as well as less social and ethnic segregation between schools. Nevertheless, both because of the increasing importance of educational qualifications and of the urban social and ethnic mix, parents’ decisions are increasingly based on the link they establish between school results and the number and proportion of pupils from advantaged social backgrounds in the school. To a greater or lesser extent this has encouraged ‘game playing’ by parents ambitious for their children but either unable or unwilling

Revisiting ‘social tectonics’: The middle classes and social mix in gentrifying neighbourhoods:

Studies of gentrification in London have shown that some groups of middle-class people have been attracted to poor and multi-ethnic areas of inner London in part because of their social and ethnic mix. However, the attraction has often not translated into everyday interaction. In an earlier account of gentrification in Brixton this de facto social segregation was typified as a process of ‘social tectonics’. In this paper we compare two ethnically and socially mixed neighbourhoods, Peckham and Brixton, that at different times have represented the ‘front line’ of gentrification in London. We examine the extent to which the gentrification of Brixton in the late 1990s is being mirrored by the gentrification that is occurring today in Peckham – a similarly mixed and counter-cultural area of South London. Whilst we identify continuities between the gentrification process in these two areas separated by a decade of boom and recession, we suggest that the Peckham example demonstrates the need for a more developed approach to the issue of social mixing than that implied by the social tectonics metaphor. Specifically, we argue that there is a need to explain how the presence of classed and ethnic ‘others’ can be central to the formation of identities within some middle-class fractions in such enclaves in the inner city, and how attitudes and neighbourhood practices can change over time.

Walking Backwards to the Future-Waking Up to Class and Gentrification in London

In this article, we consider briefly some of the arguments advanced by Tom Slater and others about the direction taken by gentrification research and, in particular, the arguments that the working class has been evicted from such research in favour of a perspective that is overly sympathetic to a middle-class view of the city. Whilst accepting some of the critique advanced by Slater and others, we refute his arguments about the nature of class and class change in contemporary cities. In particular, we argue that gentrification research needs to come to terms with a new urban class map in which the largest occupational grouping, by some distance, is the middle class and that the next largest group is often the economically inactive.

‘You Take What you are Given’: The Limits to Parental Choice in Education in East London

The paper discusses parental choice of secondary schooling, drawing on a recent study of east London. It is argued that the New Labour agenda of promoting choice of secondary school can, in practice, constrain choice as parents ‘play safe’. The paper reviews the working of educational choice across seven boroughs in east London, and then focuses on how it is working in one outer London borough. It is argued that when education and housing markets are considered together it is possible to identify several of what Ball et al have termed ‘circuits of schooling’. The paper concludes by suggesting that the ‘choice agenda’ may be creating a perception of failure and a sense of resentment amongst parents who do not succeed in getting their children into all but the most popular schools.

Re-classifying London: a growing middle class and increasing inequality

The paper is a response to Davidson and Wyly. While we agree with them that class and class conflict is an important element of cities, we disagree with many of their claims and assertions regarding our work. In particular, we argue that the growth of the middle class does not mean that we consider the working class unimportant or to have largely disappeared as they suggest. This is to muddle empirical findings and political agendas. The working class is still clearly present, even though it has shrunk. Nor does the growth of the middle class imply that inequality has become unimportant. On the contrary, we argue that the growth of the middle class is one of the key reasons why London has become more unequal. We take issue with their claim that the middle class does not exist, and we argue that their analysis of 2001 census data, while interesting, does not look at the changes which have taken place over time.