Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Policies for ‘Mixed Communities’: A Critical Evaluation

Policies for ‘Mixed Communities’: A Critical Evaluation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 11|Likes:
Published by Markoff Chaney
This paper challenges the belief that mixed community policies can effectively tackle poverty or reduce income inequality, on the basis that residential segregation is essentially a consequence not a cause of income inequality. The ideal of mixed communities as a mechanism for achieving social equality is firmly established in policy. However, to show that mixed neighbourhoods can reduce poverty or improve individuals’ life chances, requires evidence that living in a deprived neighbourhood makes residents (and their children) materially worse off than they would otherwise have been over the long run, by restricting residents’ capacity to develop their talents, networks and employability, and thus increasing the risks of them becoming, or staying, poor. In fact, though, the research evidence suggests that an individual’s characteristics, economic outcomes and life chances are very insensitive to the neighbourhood in which they live. Neighbourhood characteristics are symptoms not causes of individual poverty. Planning for a more even residential mix of rich, poor and the middle mass could reduce measured spatial income disparities to some degree, but this would be merely a concealment of the underlying problem. It is also likely to cost substantial resources to maintain. Relieving poverty effectively means tackling the factors which make people poor – at an individual and family level - not moving poor people to more affluent neighbourhoods, or leavening poor neighbourhoods with more affluent residents.
This paper challenges the belief that mixed community policies can effectively tackle poverty or reduce income inequality, on the basis that residential segregation is essentially a consequence not a cause of income inequality. The ideal of mixed communities as a mechanism for achieving social equality is firmly established in policy. However, to show that mixed neighbourhoods can reduce poverty or improve individuals’ life chances, requires evidence that living in a deprived neighbourhood makes residents (and their children) materially worse off than they would otherwise have been over the long run, by restricting residents’ capacity to develop their talents, networks and employability, and thus increasing the risks of them becoming, or staying, poor. In fact, though, the research evidence suggests that an individual’s characteristics, economic outcomes and life chances are very insensitive to the neighbourhood in which they live. Neighbourhood characteristics are symptoms not causes of individual poverty. Planning for a more even residential mix of rich, poor and the middle mass could reduce measured spatial income disparities to some degree, but this would be merely a concealment of the underlying problem. It is also likely to cost substantial resources to maintain. Relieving poverty effectively means tackling the factors which make people poor – at an individual and family level - not moving poor people to more affluent neighbourhoods, or leavening poor neighbourhoods with more affluent residents.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Markoff Chaney on Aug 29, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
SERC POLICY PAPER 2
Policies for ‘Mixed Communities’:ACritical Evaluation
Paul Cheshire (SERC and LSE)Steve Gibbons (SERC and LSE)Ian Gordon (SERC and LSE)
June 2008
 
This work was part of the research programme of the independent UK SpatialEconomics Research Centre funded by the Economic and Social Research Council(ESRC), Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), theDepartment for Communities and Local Government (CLG), and the Welsh AssemblyGovernment. The support of the funders is acknowledged. The views expressed arethose of the authors and do not represent the views of the funders. © 
Paul Cheshire, Ste
phen
Gibbons and Ian Gordon
, submitted 2008
 
 
SERC Policy Paper 2
POLICIES FOR 'MIXED COMMUNITIES': A CRITICALEVALUATION
 Paul Cheshire (SERC and LSE)Steve Gibbons (SERC and LSE)Ian Gordon (SERC and LSE)June 2008
This paper challenges the belief that mixed community policies can effectively tackle poverty or reduce incomeinequality, on the basis that residential segregation is essentially a consequence not a cause of income inequality.The ideal of mixed communities as a mechanism for achieving social equality is firmly established in policy.However, to show that mixed neighbourhoods can reduce poverty or improve individuals’ life chances, requiresevidence that living in a deprived neighbourhood makes residents (and their children) materially worse off than theywould otherwise have been over the long run, by restricting residents’ capacity to develop their talents, networksand employability, and thus increasing the risks of them becoming, or staying, poor. In fact, though, the researchevidence suggests that an individual’s characteristics, economic outcomes and life chances are very insensitive tothe neighbourhood in which they live. Neighbourhood characteristics are symptoms not causes of individualpoverty. Planning for a more even residential mix of rich, poor and the middle mass could reduce measured spatialincome disparities to some degree, but this would be merely a concealment of the underlying problem. It is alsolikely to cost substantial resources to maintain. Relieving poverty effectively means tackling the factors which makepeople poor – at an individual and family level - not moving poor people to more affluent neighbourhoods, orleavening poor neighbourhoods with more affluent residents.
This work was part of the research programme of the independent UK Spatial Economics Research Centrefunded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Department for Business, Enterprise andRegulatory Reform, Communities and Local Government, and the Welsh Assembly Government. The support ofthe funders is acknowledged. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of thefunders

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Markoff Chaney added this note
The economics of rioting: http://spatial-economics.blogspot.com... - with link to Dipasquale and Glaeser's paper on the LA riots of 1992.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->