Wim Ostendorf

Neighbourhood effects and social mobility: a longitudinal analysis

What impact do neighbourhoods have on social mobility? For years, this question has received widespread international attention in scholarly debates and within society at large. This paper seeks to contribute to this discussion by presenting the results of an investigation into the relationship between household social mobility and the composition of the residential environment. The analyses are based on an extensive empirical longitudinal study conducted in the Netherlands. The most remarkable conclusion is that, in the Dutch context, the environment has only a modest influence on the social mobility of households with a weak economic position. It was found that the chance of a household living purely on welfare benefits at the beginning of the study period to escape the ‘welfare trap’ was barely dependent on the number of similarly challenged households in the immediate vicinity. Interestingly, the environment proved to have a more powerful effect on the social mobility of households with a stronger economic position. The probability that households with at least one paid job at the beginning of the research would still have a job at the end clearly decreases as the share of benefit-dependent households in the neighbourhood rises. A possible explanation for this is that for the first category (weak starting position) the negative effect of their own welfare situation is far more determinative for their future prospects than the compo sition of their environment. Because these negative individualistic conditions are absent for the second category (stronger starting position), environmental factors may play a relatively larger role. Another interpretation is that area-based policies are not just targeting the areas with bigger problems more intensively, but especially the long-term unemployed in these areas, and not so much the short-term unemployed (those who had a job at the start of the research period and lost the job afterwards).

Multi-ethnic metropolis : patterns and policies

Preface. 1. Ethnic Segregation and Policy: Introduction. 2. The Netherlands: Amsterdam and the Specification of the Conceptual Framework. 3. Belgium: Brussels. 4. Germany: Frankfurt am Main and Dusseldorf. 5. Great Britain: London and Manchester. 6. Sweden: Stockholm. 7. France: Paris. 8. Canada: Toronto. 9. Ethnic Segregation in Nine Metropolises. Interviewed. Appendices. Literature. About the Authors.

Integrated urban renewal in The Netherlands: a critical appraisal

Urban renewal policies in The Netherlands already have a long history, which is characterised by varying attention for either smaller-scale (neighbourhood) or larger-scale (city) issues, and for either physical, social or economic questions. These variations run parallel with more general discourses on urban dynamics and perceptions of processes in (urban) society at large. In this paper the recent history of urban renewal policies will be briefly sketched, including their main orientations. Recent Big Citie Policies, currently in the third generation, will receive special attention and the actual policy discourse will be critically evaluated and confronted with some essential empirical findings. In this process, the Dutch policy on integrated urban renewal shows clear parallels with the experience in other Western European countries, demonstrating that a Western European paradigm of urban policies is in the making: integrated, area-based, with involvement of both public and market partners and residents. Nevertheless, the Dutch case is more outspoken than the approaches in other Western European countries, by paying more attention to the issue of social cohesion or integration and to the promotion of social mix as a solution for a lack of social cohesion in neighbourhoods. At the same time it is clear that this new paradigm of urban policies shows the characteristics of a discourse that is not based on research and on empirical facts, but that develops its own momentum from shared beliefs regarding the nature of urban problems and the appropriate policy responses. This new paradigm needs reconsideration.

Disentangling neighbourhood problems: Area-based interventions in Western European cities

Urban policies in Western Europe have increasingly taken a territorial focus in addressing social problems through area-based initiatives (ABIs). Policy discourses emphasise the role of the residential environment in the social economic deprivation. However, a territorial focus that tackles both place-based issues and people-based problems would only make sense either when a ‘critical representation’ of the target population resides in several areas in an already divided city, or when neighbourhood effects take place. In the European context, the existence of either scenario is not a matter of fact. Our overview of four urban policies reveals that even though the rhetoric makes multiple allusions to the existence of the two scenarios, there is no convincing evidence. Moreover, in some cases the evidence refutes policy assumptions. This means that the policies are merely tackling unrelated problems: people-based social economic deprivation and place-based liveability and housing issues. In addition, urban policies stand against a backdrop of social and cultural integration debates. It is unknown what the territorial focus will do for integration, but it is unlikely that ABIs will be successful in effectively tackling social economic deprivation in European societies.

Residential Segregation and Integration in the Netherlands

In many Western European cities politicians express concerns about the lack of integration of immigrants from the so-called less-developed countries. A core issue in the debate is the relationship between the residential segregation of ethnic minorities and integration or assimilation processes. This paper deals with the relationship between segregation and integration in the context of two opposing visions in the debate in the Netherlands. Empirical evidence is presented on both the level of segregation and the indicators of integration as well as the relation between the two. A major conclusion is that the relationship between segregation and integration suffers from too much political and too little scholarly attention. Politicians focus too much on large-scale spatial social engineering projects. The empirical evidence shown in this paper provides support for more policy attention in the domains of education and labour market access. Policies in these fields have had much more positive effects in the past than many want us to believe. It is underlined that education appears to be a key factor for successful integration, both in socio-economic terms and in social and cultural terms.

International Migration and Ethnic Segregation: Impacts on Urban Areas-Introduction

Discusses the concept of ethnic segregation. How segregation has become a public debate issue; Negative connotation of segregation; Reasons why there are few ghettos in European cities.

Inequalities in European cities

The consequences of inequalities in European cities are a big fear for many governments at the state and urban levels. Journalists, as well as many scholars who are dealing with urban issues, express their fears about the development of social, ethnic, and spatial divisions. Population categories are distinguished from each other on the basis of social or ethnic characteristics, place of origin, or cultural differences. In this article, the focus is on the extent to which these population categories have to be regarded as being fragmented, or as proceeding into a state of fragmentation, in a European context. Because of the variety of contexts one may encounter in European metropolises, the focus is on inequality and its spatial manifestations, related to the contextual dimensions of urban territory. The analysis shows that different types of welfare states and local political and cultural histories impact on the levels of social and ethnic inequality, economic participation, and the spatial reflections in different European cities. These differences are the basis for a huge variety of daily urban realities and could also be a basis for a wide variety of policy reactions.

Social spaces and urban policies

Social area analysis of cities generally shows three dominant dimensions characterising urban neighbourhoods: socioeconomic differences (rich and poor), socio-demographic differences (families and other households), and sociocultural differences (differences in ethnicity or in religion). Most often these three dimensions can be clearly observed, but the dynamics in each of these three dimensions are remarkable. Processes of suburbanisation, immigration, downgrading, and upgrading or gentrification over the last 50 years have changed the picture considerably. Original work on the structure of social areas was mainly illustrated with examples from individual American cities such as Chicago and Boston. In this article, the changes that occur in social areas are illustrated with the social map of Amsterdam. Based on these findings, processes in other cities are also discussed, as well as the policy-reactions that these processes provoke.

The changing distribution of incomes in Dutch cities: myth and reality

Segregation is a central concept in the debate on urban issues, both in scientific literature and in society in general. The process of globalisation is particularly expected to increase polarisation and segregation in cities, resulting in the emergence of ‘ghettos’ or – as they are called in the Netherlands – ‘income neighbourhoods’. This paper tries to judge the situation in Dutch cities by studying changes over time; by looking at segregation within cities as well as between cities and the wider metropolitan area; and by comparing socio-economic differences with socio-cultural and socio-demographic characteristics. The analysis shows that the empirical facts are quite different from the ongoing debate. It establishes that socio-economic segregation is more moderate than segregation with respect to the other two dimensions. Contrary to suggestions from the vernacular debate, segregation within cities is scarcely increasing, but between cities and the surrounding area it is rising with respect to all three dimensions.

Amsterdam: Gender and poverty

Many words are used to point to poverty. Marginality and social exclusion are relatively new ones. Social exclusion is a contested concept. Generally unemployment is seen to be the most important element. However, social exclusion also relates to generalized disadvantage in terms of education, training, housing and financial resources. Social exclusion also relates to the extent and quality of social networks people are included in.