The Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration Final Report

Amsterdam Antwerp Berlin Birmingham Brussels Hamburg London Milan Naples Paris Rotterdam

URBEX series, No. 22

Sako Musterd and Alan Murie (Eds.)1

Fourth RTD Framework Programme Targeted Socio-Economic Research (TSER) URBEX URBEX is an acronym of the international research project The Spatial Dimensions of
1

This document is produced on the basis of the work, which was carried out by the entire URBEX research team and is documented in separate and detailed reports (see: http//www.frw.uva.nl/ame/urbex). The research is funded by the European Commissions 4th framework programme (Contract SOE2-CT98-3072) aimed at stimulating targeted socio-economic research. We are greatly indebted to the enthusiastic and driven participation of all team members.

Urban Social Exclusion and Integration: A European Comparison. The project is part of the 4th framework programme on Targeted Socio-Economic Research (TSER) of the European Union (contract: SOE2 CT98 3072) and started in January 1999. Coordination Prof.dr. Sako Musterd Amsterdam study centre for the Metropolitan Environment Department of Geography and Planning University of Amsterdam Cases Partners Amsterdam Dr. Wim Ostendorf and drs. Hans Blok (University of Amsterdam) Antwerp Prof.dr. Jan Vranken and Inge Van Nieuwenhuyze (University of Antwerp) Berlin Prof.dr. Hartmut Huermann, Andreas Kapphan, Ingo Siebert and Pamela Dorsch (Humboldt-University Berlin) Birmingham Prof. Alan Murie, dr. Peter Lee, and Riette Oosthuizen (University of Birmingham) Brussels Prof.dr. Christiaan Kesteloot, Fred Guldentops, Pascale Mistiaen and Heidi Vandenbroecke (University of Leuven) Hamburg Dr. Martin Kronauer and dr. Berthold Vogel (Georg-August University Gttingen) London Prof.dr. Chris Hamnett and dr. Justin Beaumont (Kings College London) Milan Prof.dr. Yuri Kazepov, dr. David Benassi and dott.ssa. Alberta Andreotti (Elaborando S.C.R.L.) Naples Dr. Enrica Morlicchio, dott. Catello Formisano, dott. Mattia Vitiello, dr. Dora Gambardella, and dott.ssa. Rosanna Costagliola (University of Naples) Paris Dr. Patrick Simon, Elise Palomares and Hakima Rabhi (INED Institut National dEtudes Demographiques) Rotterdam Dr. Ronald van Kempen and drs. Sjoukje Botman (Utrecht University) Management Drs. Dick van der Vaart Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences University of Amsterdam Website http://www.frw.uva.nl/ame/urbex Further information All publications in this series are published on the URBEX-website and on paper.
Amsterdam, January 2002

Contents
- Abstract 0 Introduction 1 Executive Summary 2 Objectives, Issues and Questions 3 Scientific Description: Theory, Methodology and Empirical Results 4 Conclusions and Policy Implications 5 Dissemination and/or exploitation of the results 6 Acknowledgements and references 7 Annexes 4 6 7 20 23 60 67 70 72

Abstract
URBEX: The Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration The URBEX programme that was carried out over the years 1999-2001 aimed at answering the following questions: How do different categories of socially excluded people cope with their situation and how do they try to participate or even integrate in the urban society in various neighbourhoods, in different urban, regional and state contexts? What are the relevant modes of economic integration that are available to them? How do they use the available opportunity structures? What are the strategies (and trajectories) of each of the targeted individuals or households and how do these relate to the available neighbourhood, city, and state resources? And particularly: How do different neighbourhoods impact upon the opportunities and perspectives of individuals and households? Are neighbourhood impacts conditioned by the state contexts, by the wider metropolitan structures and by the specific neighbourhood site and characteristics? These questions were addressed in an international comparative research programme and focused on respondents (people at risk) in two neighbourhoods per city (one centrally located mixed tenure, another peripherally located homogeneous public rental estates), in eleven cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels, Antwerp, London, Birmingham, Berlin, Hamburg, Milan, Naples and Paris) in six EU countries. Data on the types of welfare state, on the economic structure of cities and their metropolitan area, and on the social networks of people were obtained through various sources, including written documents and statistical data. The main sources of information were primary interview data obtained from over six hundred members of the target groups we identified (long term unemployed, unemployed immigrants, and single mothers without a job) and from several hundreds of key-actors in the field. Among the most important findings were: Strategies Strategies that were employed by respondents frequently were not optimal with regard to the specific opportunity structures that were available (the actual resources available at state, city and neighbourhood levels). Almost all respondents relied on some form of redistribution as a strategy to obtain resources, even though the opportunities actual benefits from redistribution differed substantially between cities. Social networks are declining in size and intensity, which implies reduced potential as a mode of integration. Increasingly, governments press to increase reliance on market exchange; but opportunities on the market not always coincide with strategies. Duration of unemployment relates negatively with labour market integration strategies. Former guest workers show reduced market orientations compared to others. Single mothers prioritise raising children first before other strategies. Long term unemployed males are in greater risk to become isolated socially; their social networks are weakest. Neighbourhood impact Neighbourhood types (central or peripheral) were valued differently; there is no clear sign that certain neighbourhood types offer better opportunities to integration than others. 4

The position and significance of the neighbourhood in the integration process is unstable. The context sensitivity of poverty implies that cities, states and neighbourhoods may learn from other situations, but should be cautious to copy policies and to accept best practice policies. There are big differences within Europe, as well as between Europe and other rich areas in the world. Differentiated and multi-scale context-sensitive types of intervention will produce better results.

General findings The research results highlight a variety of processes which require an appreciation of complex and dynamic processes. These processes are not simply associated with welfare systems, the local economy, location and housing, but also relate to the stage and process of demographic change and particularities of patterns of migration and residence. We cannot easily read off from one of the key variables what the nature of the processes and dynamics in the neighbourhood are. It would be inappropriate to assume that all outer estates or all inner estates or all areas with a culturally diverse population and so on have similar processes and dynamics. Per city and per neighbourhood differentiated policies are required to get to grip with social exclusion issues in small-scale areas. The assessment of the role of local, regional, state and European policy measures aimed at combating exclusion and increasing employment learned that a best practices type of policy orientation may be relevant, but only if the cases to be affected by policies are rather similar in terms of embeddedness in welfare state types, type of city and type of neighbourhood. In practice, relevant differences between neighbourhoods in cities, frequently due to different histories of the neighbourhoods and cities, will prevent the applicability of the best practices policies. What may be labelled as a neighbourhood solution in one context may cause neighbourhood problems in another! There appeared to be major sources of differences between the cases we investigated. These can be found in the fields of education, policy interventions at various levels over the past decades, economic structure at the metropolitan level and opportunities to cope with recent changes in the world economy, types and levels of welfare state interventions, and local and regional histories.

0. Introduction
The report, you are currently looking at is the final report of an extensive research effort by an international team of over thirty people, both senior scientists and juniors. The URBEX programme was a challenge for the reason that the research objectives and questions were intriguing and not easy to answer and required thorough research activities and the collection of lots of original material. The programme was also a challenge because we all had the ambition to establish a really comparative programme. With such a large team and so many different cities involved (eleven), so many different disciplines included, and so many different cultures and data-regimes present, this should also be mentioned a genuine challenge. However, the URBEX team managed to reach consensus about what should be done and what should be left out. The team did so in all meetings, frequently after vivid discussions. The team was also willing to stick to the schedules. Therefore, we not only managed to strictly follow the research proposal which was formulated at the start of the project, but we also managed to carry out a very interesting comparative project. The data collected were analysed and reported in approximately 2,500 pages of documents and many more to follow in the form of contributions to scientific journals. But even then the material is offering the opportunity to engage in follow up research. It seldom happens that an international dataset of over six hundred in-depth interviews, containing data that were gathered on the basis of a similar outline, comes available. Because of superb collaboration between the members of the URBEX team, this turned out to be possible. We all hope to get the opportunity to become part of the follow up researches. This report has been conducted on the basis of the guidelines of the European Commission. That implies, we followed the structure that was given to us. Apart from a separate abstract, the Commission also asked for an extensive executive summary (chapter 1). These two elements of the report had to be readable on their own as well; that is, without the other chapters the reader of this report will encounter, one should be able to know what the URBEX programme is about by just reading the abstract and/or chapter 1. For that reason, those who will read the entire final report will notice some repetition. Crucial texts, we considered of central significance to the research programme were put in the main body of the report as well as in the summary sections.

1. Executive Summary
Problematic The URBEX programme aimed for an innovative investigation of social exclusion and integration in European cities. It focused on spatial patterns of exclusion and the extent to which concentrations of deprivation add to the problems of developing effective policy responses. The research especially aimed at getting insight in the extent to which groups experiencing social exclusion experience negative or positive effects from their spatial position in an urban context. Is it true that certain neighbourhoods exacerbate exclusion and make the task of combating exclusion more difficult, or not? Finally it considered the impact of different policy initiatives designed to combat exclusion on areas where there are concentrated problems of deprivation and exclusion. Theory The analytic framework for the research refers to the three modes of economic integration through which households and communities gain access to resources. This framework draws on an established and developing literature (Polanyi 1944, Harvey 1973, Mingione 1991, Kesteloot, e.a. 1997) and refers to market exchange, redistribution and reciprocity. In most cities in the western world, access to resources is dominated by market exchange. Most households put their labour on the labour market. Others are self-employed and sell goods and services. The market generates stratification, and unequal access to resources based on strong or weak positions, for example in terms of education, language and other skills. The inequalities that arise are inherent in market exchange. They can be socially harmful since households whose labour is not needed have no access to resources and those whose skills command a low price or are not in short supply relative to demand command low or discontinuous returns. Some regard this to be a structural reason why inequalities generated through market exchange should be compensated for by (state) redistribution of goods, services and finances. Finally, reciprocity helps people to obtain resources through mutual exchange. The most evident networks are the household, the extended family and sometimes neighbourhood networks or networks within ethnic minority communities. But also networks that have their origin in labour market participation may be relevant. This framework provided a robust basis for rigorous comparative research which focused on the social trajectories of people, on the strategies they use to become integrated and on the impact of the neighbourhood people are living in. The comparison generated new perspectives on social exclusion and integration in the cities of Europe. The relevant literature and an expos on the theoretical basis have been described in URBEX report nr. 1. The research was carried out in twenty-two neighbourhoods in eleven cities in six EU member states. While building on existing material and the earlier research of an experienced research partnership, the research design involved four key elements. 1 First, we set out the wider context relating to each city and referring to the development of the city especially in recent years, the operation of the welfare state and how global economic trends and national policies have affected broad patterns of inequality and key social divisions in cities. The results are published in URBEX reports 2-7 (one per country) and summarised in report 8.

2 Second, we mapped the different dimensions of social exclusion in each of the cities included in the study. This included the clarification of concepts and the identification of suitable data for each of the cities involved (also URBEX reports 2-7). 3 Third, in each city, we selected two neighbourhoods that were identified as having concentrations of deprivation. These neighbourhoods were an inner city, mixed tenure neighbourhood and a peripheral neighbourhood, largely areas of state or not-for-profit housing. We analysed social trends, structures and processes in these neighbourhoods. The major activity, though, was the collection of original information based on interviews with local residents and key actors in order to develop a new understanding of how neighbourhood features and social networks as well as economic restructuring, changing welfare states and changing housing systems affect processes of social exclusion and integration. The focus was on trajectories and strategies of several population categories, which may be labelled at risk in terms of their social position in the urban society (longterm unemployed, unemployed single mothers and unemployed immigrants). On top of the description of trajectories and strategies, and in fact this was one of the key objectives of the study, we focused the attention on the possible impact of the neighbourhood types we just set out on the opportunities of members of the target groups we distinguished to participate in the urban society. The results of the fieldwork described and of the neighbourhood effect analyses that were carried out have been described in eleven city reports (URBEX reports 9-19) and a summary report of these eleven city reports (URBEX report 20). 4 Fourth, we examined the available evidence about the impact of general and specific local, national and European policies on areas with the greatest concentration of deprivation. The results of this phase have been published in URBEX report 21. Some elements in this project were particularly new. Specific attention was given to differences between European countries in terms of social exclusion and the role of economic restructuring processes, welfare states, housing markets and spatial segregation. Research on the significance of social segregation or concentrations of poverty tends to be too heavily based on American experience. Europe differs from North America in terms of labour market and housing market structures, and the nature of state intervention and regulation. Generally, European welfare states are more generous and redistributive than those of North America and patterns of spatial segregation of people with few prospects of improving their situation differ significantly. There was strong empirical evidence to suggest that spatial concentration is an important dimension of exclusion and adds to the problems and pressures faced by households and communities. However, there also was a need to review and compare this data in relation to different cities and member states in order to assess the most appropriate ways of addressing problems through European and national and local policies. The URBEX programme aimed at offering that insight. In order to do this effectively the programme was well grounded theoretically and adopted a coherent and robust explanatory framework. Building comparative research on this framework and referring to national, regional, municipal and neighbourhood scales involved an important innovative enterprise. Results first phase The statistical analyses in the URBEX-countries (the first phase of the programme) revealed fairly similar general societal trends in most of them. These trends included the economic restructuring towards a service economy, changing demographic and cultural spheres, and different and changing political and institutional contexts. More or less general trends also

include the rise of small households, the increase of dual income households, the ageing of the population, and the continuation and diversification of immigration. One of the changes going on, that will ultimately also affect social structures, involves shifts in housing tenure. The owner-occupied sector shows an increase, whereas the public and private rented sectors are declining. Furthermore, it was found that in many countries, politicians try to affect urban social processes via urban policy. The most recent urban policies tend to focus on so-called integrated area-based policies. The objective is to integrate the physical, economic and social renewal within a certain bounded jurisdiction. Alternative policies may deserve more attention, though, since the question can be raised whether the type and level of problems fits the type and level of the solution that is proposed. Developments on the country level also take place at the level of the metropolitan area. Sometimes these developments on a lower spatial level are a mirror of those on the country level, but often they diverge. In many cases developments on the metropolitan level are more outspoken. The shift from manufacturing towards a service-oriented economy is clear for each country, but even clearer for some metropolitan areas and some cities have a better starting position to cope with the changes than other cities do. Unemployment levels are generally higher in cities and their metropolitan areas, and the concentration in metropolitan areas and especially in the major cities of these areas of household types such as low-income households, single households, single-parent households and households of which at least one member belongs to an ethnic minority category is evident. Moreover, the housing stock of the urban areas generally differs from that of the country as a whole. Generally, the urban housing stock is at least on average older, less expensive, comprises more rental units and have fewer rooms. Of course these characteristics are related to each other. Because of an affordable housing stock, urban areas attract the household types mentioned above. And because of that a concentration of vulnerable groups is the logical result. The statistical comparison of the study already has taught us that, although some rather general processes affect cities, metropolitan areas as well as countries across the world, there are also major differences between them. We described the typical political, historical and institutional contexts in this respect. It is not difficult to imagine that such differences have major implications on the responses with regard to social questions. It is important to understand these different contexts and to include these in comparative research. On the other hand, the existence of differences between cities (and their metropolitan areas) and states, which perhaps can be ascribed to processes that are several hundreds of years old, does not imply that there are no similarities at all; neither does it mean that we cannot learn from the differences. If we refrain from presenting very detailed comparisons, we are able to classify the cities that were part of our research programme. We used two important dimensions, which were central in the research programme: first, the type of welfare state and secondly the historically grown economic structure. The third dimension that is regarded central in the URBEX programme, the position in social networks, will be dealt with later on, since that dimensions is supposed to be coupled to the neighbourhood level in particular. The resulting, though crude, classification of the URBEX cities is presented in table 1. All theoretical positions could be filled, which allowed us to make interesting comparisons between types of welfare state as well as types of cities and their metropolitan areas, controlling for the other relevant dimension. This was done in phase two of the URBEX programme, where we analysed the in-depth interviews with respondents living in designated neighbourhoods in each of the metropolitan areas.

Table 1

A crude classification of the URBEX cities (and their metropolitan areas) according to their urban economic structure (and history) and their being embedded in a welfare state type Corporatist (plus) Service London Manufacturing Rotterdam Antwerp Hamburg Service Amsterdam Brussels Berlin Paris Family Oriented Manufacturing Naples Service Milan

Liberal state Manufacturing Birmingham

Source: URBEX research team judgements

Results second phase In phase two we focused on trajectories and strategies of individuals of three target groups in two neighbourhoods per city. The target groups were all outside the labour market. The first category consists of immigrant households who are unable to get a job; the second one regards single mothers on benefits and the third group involves native male long-term unemployed. We also elaborated on the impact of the neighbourhood setting on the opportunities of members of our target groups. Here, a brief summary of the most important results will be given. Trajectories Frequently the respondent involved reported typical traumatic experiences, which caused early exclusion. Molest or abuse or major trouble as a child were frequently mentioned elements, as was leaving home very young, and these respondents usually did not get far in terms of education. Alcohol and drug abuse played an important negative role as well, as did having children at a very young age. Breakdown events also tend to be important. Breakdown events for women typically were related to the reciprocity sphere, such as the loss of a partner through death, divorce or separation, and the subsequent loss of income involved. Breakdown events for men were related to the market sphere (loss of a job due to economic restructuring, etc.). A third type of trajectory, called the biographical cumulative disadvantages, could also be found. Among the residents who belong to that type are those who manage to solve problems, but in such a way that it does not really result in an escape from them. It merely brings them in a new, slightly different problem soon after they have solved their former problem. Many just try to maintain a more or less precarious equilibrium. Strategies and opportunities The strategies people employed to escape from their vulnerable positions received substantial attention in the URBEX programme and offered several new insights. One of the main findings is that almost all residents who belong to our target groups have gained access to the redistribution opportunities that are available (through general or housing benefits, tax reductions, unemployment benefits, etc.). There are only a few exceptions. These refer to some immigrant households, namely those who did not yet receive similar citizen rights compared with native inhabitants and therefore cannot rely on redistribution (these immigrants could be found in Brussels and in Naples); but incidentally also others may have a weak welfare position, such as the single mothers and long-term unemployed in Naples.

10

However, from table 2 (an extension of table 1) we learn that redistributions vary greatly as to their significance. In some countries, generous and general benefits are available, such as in the Netherlands; in other countries, such as Italy, benefits are not only lower, but also regionally varying and group-specific. In these and similar contexts the (moderate) benefits tend to be reserved to the old, to those who have been active in the labour force before, to mothers with young children and to those who are unhealthy; in short, to what are considered the deserving poor (Wilson 1987). By implication, in these situations the young and healthy unemployed (the apparently undeserving poor) cannot expect to receive much financial support from the state. Consequently, other modes of economic integration have to be relied upon in contexts where general state redistribution schemes are hardly developed. However, even in the Italian cases, the strength of local networks is decreasing. This can be seen in the peripheral neighbourhood Scampia, in Naples. If that process continues, there soon will be hardly any significant safety net left at all. Apart from the fact that reliance on the labour market will become even more predominant, that will also give a stimulus to informal networks and activities, such as that of the Camorra. The loss of social network ties is not confined to the Italian case. In fact, we can label this as a second general phenomenon that shows up in many places across Europe. Whereas we started the programme with the hypothesis that social networks would only be weaker in peripheral estates (table 2), the actual situation (based on interview results) revealed that the weakening of social networks is a much more general phenomenon. Weakly developed social networks were found among immigrants in peripheral neighbourhoods in Dutch cities, in Milan, Hamburg, Brussels, Antwerp and London, but also in some central city neighbourhoods (in Berlin and Hamburg) social ties were weak. Similar conclusions could be drawn for single mothers and long-term unemployed. In short, the reports that are the basis for this text suggest that social networks are seldom strong and that they are declining, both in terms of extensiveness and in terms of intensity, even there where other modes of integration offer few opportunities either. Immigrants in Neuklln, Berlin, for example, show us they have weak social networks and few opportunities to rely on the market (they do not express much efforts to enter the market either). So, they have to rely on the welfare state. Temporary unemployed British born immigrants also showed us weak networks and surprisingly little efforts to enter the labour market, while that would offer best opportunities if we consider the theoretical opportunity structure with regard to the three modes of integration (again table 2). The reduction of family sizes, individualisation, a reduction of mutual dependency, and the geographically expanding spheres of daily life probably play a role in these processes of weakening social networks. There are a few exceptions though. Some social networks are still strong. These seem to be related to specific local cultures or specific cultures of origin. The ethnic German immigrants from Russia, who settled in Marzahn, appear to rely heavily on their own ethnic social network (so far). Aside from these findings with regard to the redistribution and social networks modes of integration, a third general finding refers to the strategies aimed at the third mode of integration: the labour market participation. There we find very different attitudes. It is remarkable that even in situations in which market opportunities are good or even excellent, people from our target groups are not always applying strategies to enter the market. Some immigrant categories in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels, Antwerp and Birmingham, cities where unemployment figures were relatively low or were rapidly declining during the period we did our research, showed that inactive behaviour. But also single mothers in Antwerp and London, as well as long-term unemployed in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels and London expressed weak labour market orientations. This may, of course, also be related to relatively higher incidences of illness or disabilities among these people due to former hard work.

11

Table 2

A classification of the theoretical opportunity structures in neighbourhoods in each of the eleven URBEX cities (and their metropolitan areas) in six welfare states Redistribution (welfare state*) Market exchange (unemployment**) + + + + + + + + ++ ++ + + ++ ++ Reciprocity (social network) + + + + + + + + + + -

Amsterdam Rotterdam

Landlust (c)***) Osdorp (p) Tarwewijk (c) Hoogvliet (p) Neuklln (c) Marzahn (p) St. Pauli (c) Mummelmansberg (p) Marollen (c) Beizegem (p) Dam (c) Silvertop (p) La Courneuve Montreuil

++ ++ ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + -----

Berlin Hamburg

Brussels Antwerp

Paris

London

Ethelred Estate (c) Clapham Park (p) Birmingham Sparkbrook (c) Pool Farm (p) Milan Naples Baggio (p) Ponte Lambro (p) Mercato-Pendino (c) Scampia (p)

*) redistribution at state level **) unemployment (1990s) at city level (based on country reports URBEX programme) ***) c: central p: peripheral redistribution: ++ + -soc. democratic, high levels of redistribution corporatist liberal family type, low levels

market exchange: ++ low unemployment, tight markets + moderate unemployment - relatively high unemployment reciprocity: + strong social networks (expected in central cities) - weak social networks (expected in peripheral neighbourhood

12

It may also be related to another finding in the research: the relation between duration of unemployment and labour market orientation: the longer people are unemployed, the higher the probability they will rely on redistribution and refrain from labour market activity. Neighbourhoods and neighbourhood impact One of the most central features of the URBEX programme has been to identify the neighbourhood dimension of social exclusion and integration. Therefore, in this section we will address the most relevant findings of the programme with a special focus on the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood-oriented discussion centres upon four linked research questions that were derived from the general questions. These are concerned with similarities and differences between deprived neighbourhoods. 1. are neighbourhoods with high concentrations of deprivation essentially similar with similar dynamics, processes and problems? 2. do deprived neighbourhoods fall into different clusters associated with the type of welfare state regime that they are within? 3. do deprived neighbourhoods fall into different clusters associated with their location within the metropolitan area and with their housing markets? 4. do deprived neighbourhoods have distinctive problems and processes associated with unique histories and legacies as well as wider influences? We have not sought here to quantify similarities and differences but rather to refer to key processes and dimensions of the functioning of neighbourhoods related to the three spheres of integration, which underpin the framework for this project. Welfare regimes: The URBEX research revealed that the nature and organisation of the welfare state is a fundamental influence upon patterns of neighbourhood difference. Consequently, the initial perspective on the way that neighbourhoods contribute to social exclusion is one that emphasises similarities between neighbourhoods within the same welfare state system. The processes and dynamics within different neighbourhoods, inner and outer, older and newer and so on, are similar. Rather than location in the city or the type of housing market being the determinant or distinguishing factor defining similarity in situations, there is a strong national level welfare state influence. The reason for this emphasis on national welfare state systems rather than the broad-brush categorisations of welfare state systems is to do with the limitations of the very generalised accounts of welfare systems and welfare regimes. These have not been designed to serve the purpose of categorisation to explain differences at the level we are concerned with here. The economies of cities: The overall conclusion from the URBEX research is that the underlying structure of the city economy and the pattern of change within that economy does impact upon neighbourhoods and neighbourhood processes but that, in this study, we are focusing upon neighbourhoods which are, to some extent, disconnected from the mainstream development of the city economy. Unless the national welfare state regime has limited inequalities we will have neighbourhoods which function as places of residence for people with the least resources and the least bargaining power. The essential conclusion is that irrespective of the trajectory of the citys economy, neighbourhood inequalities increase and are more pronounced. There is also then a process of reinforcement which may occur depending upon the resources available at a neighbourhood level. This reinforcement is most obviously associated with ideas of a

13

downward spiral - that once a neighbourhood begins to serve the function of housing those with most limited resources so the reputation and resources associated with the neighbourhood begins to further limit the opportunities and life chances of households living within it. Location and neighbourhood type: As outlined above, an underlying hypothesis in this study was that we would find a pattern in which there were very different processes and resources available in inner city, mixed tenure neighbourhoods compared with peripheral neighbourhoods, largely areas of state or not-forprofit housing. The results of the research do not show any such consistent pattern. The case which appears to conform most neatly to expectations is Birmingham where there are very different processes operating between the older, mixed tenure, inner city neighbourhood of Sparkbrook and the more recently built, peripheral, council housing estate of Pool Farm. The peripheral estate has been affected more dramatically by economic and demographic change and its relative isolation and remoteness from the city centre leaves it with a thinner infrastructure of service provision. Poor public transport and the reputation of the neighbourhood make it unattractive. Whilst Sparkbrook is equally deprived, the research suggests that there is a wider range of opportunities and a greater diversity and choice within the neighbourhood. What emerges from this is that location and housing market structure are less likely to be the key to differences between neighbourhoods than factors associated with their dynamics. Remoteness can be offset by strong transport links and social housing neighbourhoods, wherever they are located, do not always have weak networks or a thin infrastructure of neighbourhood and community facilities. The institutional thickness associated with neighbourhoods is not a product directly of location or housing market structure and is better understood in terms of the history and legacies of areas and the interaction between a variety of different factors. These include the operation of the housing market and location and connectedness to employment and a variety of facilities but they are not restricted to these factors. They do not determine whether a neighbourhood is likely to be rising or falling in reputation and attractiveness. There are different processes at work in inner city neighbourhoods and in outer city neighbourhoods and the variations between these neighbourhoods are greater than the similarities between them. While some of this relates back to the broader issues discussed in relation to the welfare state, some relate much more to the immediate circumstances of the neighbourhood. They relate to its history and development, patterns of demographic change and migration and the development of facilities within the neighbourhood. A reasonable hypothesis emerging from the URBEX programme is that they also relate to a stage in transition or a life cycle effect. The researchers in the programme see the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham as having moved on from a phase as a high turnover transitional neighbourhood towards one which is more stable and where institutions and resources have responded to the characteristics of the population in the area. Other neighbourhoods are at an earlier stage in transition with the changing population structure not yet having generated a significant change in the services and resources available in the neighbourhood. Consequently, in some neighbourhoods there is a greater mismatch between the needs of the community and its services and this mismatch relates to the layering and stages of change rather than to fixed characteristics. These kinds of considerations lead into a much more complex understanding of the trajectories of neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods, which may appear to be very similar from a snapshot assessment of them, are at different stages in development and the processes of

14

change are very different. The significance of this is brought out by other factors associated with the neighbourhoods. Not all of these neighbourhoods have experienced rising unemployment in recent years. Although they are all deprived neighbourhoods with concentrations of deprivation their immediate history of economic change is different. Similarly, the extent to which they have political support and priority varies. The results of the research highlight a variety of processes which require an appreciation of complex and dynamic processes. These processes are not simply associated with welfare systems, the local economy, location and housing. Other issues which are important in this situation relate to the stage and process of demographic change and particularities of patterns of migration and residence. In Marzahn in Berlin the in-migrant community has strong cultural links and a positive attitude towards the neighbourhood it is living in. There is considerable cultural homogeneity in Pool Farm. The neighbourhood is culturally homogeneous with a very limited non-white British population. However, the neighbourhood is unpopular and unattractive and lacks the strengths apparent in Marzahn. In other neighbourhoods the balance between an ageing population and a younger, incoming population and issues to do with cultural diversity are significant. In Sparkbrook the mixed heritage of a diverse population has begun to be reflected in a diverse pattern of neighbourhood facilities and resources. In Beizegem in Brussels cultural diversity in an outer city estate has not generated the range of voluntary and private sector services that are apparent in Sparkbrook and the infrastructure of community facilities is thin. Some neighbourhoods are particularly affected by declining standards of public services (Berlin, London, Birmingham) and the public transport system fails to prevent spatial mismatches in London, Birmingham and parts of Naples (Scampia), with some problems also apparent in Paris. There are important conclusions which emerge from this discussion of factors affecting neighbourhoods. Firstly, that we cannot easily read off from one of the key variables what the nature of the processes and dynamics in the neighbourhood are. It would be inappropriate to assume that all outer estates or all inner estates or all areas with a culturally diverse population and so on have similar processes and dynamics. The combinations of circumstances which determine what is happening in neighbourhoods are much more complex. Secondly, the variety of factors which impinge upon what is happening in the neighbourhoods is considerable. Results third phase The third phase of the project involved the policies dimension. There are a number of important themes emerging in the new policy approaches adopted in the cities and countries included in the URBEX programme. These particularly relate to the development of more integrated approaches to policy planning and service delivery, to new initiatives related to employment and training and to housing and community development. In this summary report examples are referred to under six headings: New strategies for policy integration New Neighbourhood initiatives Economic and Labour Market Policies Restructuring Housing and Residence Community Development Targeting Social Groups

15

New strategies for Policy Integration The most consistent theme in the new approaches emerging in different cities is the emphasis on better policy co-ordination and integration. The rethinking of policy and the emphasis on greater integration of policy planning and implementation has generated some important interventions at city as well as neighbourhood level. The task for integration differs according to the nature of urban governance. For example the complexity of arrangements in Brussels presents particular problems and new initiatives relate to both education and policing. In 1992 the Federal government decided to create security contracts with municipalities considered as being at risk. The aim of the programme was to improve police services and to react to the feeling of insecurity. These could be seen as problems of vertical integration - crossing administrative rather than disciplinary or service boundaries. In other cities a less fragmented administrative system means that the focus is more on departmental or disciplinary or service coordination. Other examples relate to both of these dimensions and the general concern is both with spatial boundaries and boundaries associated with disciplines, organisational cultures and finance. The most comprehensive approaches to policy integration exist where this has been identified as a key issue at a citywide level. New approaches in both the Netherlands and Germany are good examples. New Neighbourhood Initiatives The new strategic approaches outlined above all place considerable emphasis on the neighbourhood and the need for improved integration of policy at this level. An increased emphasis on neighbourhood is a consistent element in attempts to achieve greater integration of policy. While neighbourhood policies have relatively long histories in the UK, France and the Netherlands they are newer in other countries. Where neighbourhood policies are long established they have generally been revised. In the Netherlands the Big Cities Policy includes an important neighbourhood dimension with intensive contact and co-operation between residents, various government bodies (police, social welfare organisations), housing corporations and local employers. Where neighbourhood approaches have not been well established they involve a considerable change in professional practice. For example planners used to operating at a city wide level may not be at home with the neighbourhood level. In Italy for example the focus of planning has been on new development and there has been limited attention and powers in relation to urban renewal problems. In Naples this has involved a transitory measure to save the remaining non built-up areas until the establishment of a new overall town plan and the intention to set up plans for improving the city. In Italy it is argued that there is still no real national policy able to develop an articulated and co-ordinated strategy of intervention in the urban distressed areas. However the gap between Europe and Italy is diminishing as a result of the work of volunteers associations, municipalities, public agencies and different organisations. Since the early 1990s, Italy has been characterised by institutional innovation and co-operation between public bodies that generated experiment in the regeneration process. Economic and Labour Market Policies Labour market policies are generally seen to be the key elements which will prevent long term dependency on benefits and ensure that strategies are effective and sustainable. The approach adopted in Germany is typical of a move to more tailored welfare policies. As it has been realised that traditional economic policy could not solve the problems of increasing unemployment, in the last years employment policy has been increasingly transferred from the national level to the municipalities to adapt general programmes and benefits to local 16

contexts and to reach the specific target groups more effectively. On the one hand this means a re-evaluation of the local level, but on the other hand it also means to shuffle off problems caused by unemployment and forces the local authorities to develop their own local solutions. The areas of responsibility are: carrying out and complementary financing of employment schemes, adaptation of programmes to local features, adjustment of municipal educational institutions to the current needs of the labour market and the establishment of a second labour market. Municipal employment companies and offices for planning, co-ordination and consultation, as well as efforts to connect employment and social policies on the local level can be seen as institutional innovations. But this also means that welfare offices are loaded with additional tasks of employment exchange, without being better equipped with financial and personnel resources for this task. Thus, a stronger local focus facilitates employment policies that concentrate on the development of the local workforce and are more oriented towards the needs of local firms. This is also seen as a move from an active to a welfare employment policy. Restructuring Housing and Residence The housing dimension is rarely the central element in the new policies emerging in recent years. However it remains an important element in some cities. Naples is the Italian urban territory where the housing problem is most acute. It is the third largest city in Italy in terms of population but the fourth in terms of the number of homes available. In recent decades housing development in Naples has not followed a consistent or clearly designed policy but has been incremental and often guided by emergency considerations and private interests. Housing policy in the Neapolitan area has particularly responded to the effects of the earthquake, the great expansion of illegal occupation (squatting), and the unauthorised construction of houses and flats. In the Netherlands post war housing estates are prominent in recent policy developments. The reason for the government taking action, and formulating a new policy of urban renewal for post war estates, was because of the spatial concentrations of low-income households. The Netherlands Ministry of Housing considered that the only way of preventing low-rent housing districts from becoming low-income areas was by a radical restructuring of the housing stock of these post war estates. Policies in the UK have a similar thrust to those of the Netherlands but a very different background. In the UK the residualisation of social housing and the degree of concentration of lower income households both in social housing estates and in some mixed tenure areas is more pronounced than in the rest of Europe. These areas are also ones where dilapidation and disrepair and the unpopularity of housing are important factors in the role of the neighbourhood. Consequently restructuring the housing sector is a necessary response to failing neighbourhoods. Issues related to the structure of the housing market have been prominent in Berlin especially because of the reunification of the city. Until the reunification, Berlin had been a divided city with divided urban development policy and planning. In the last ten years Berlin has quickly caught up with the development of other European cities: de-industrialisation, suburbanisation and socio-spatial polarisation are key words. Berlin has developed from two cities to one city. At the beginning of the 1990s Berlin had a high share of rented housing (more than 80%), as well as a high share of publicly assisted housing and relatively low average rents. In WestBerlin rents had been controlled until the end of the 1980s and in East-Berlin rents had been fixed by the government until reunification. After reunification the de-regulation of the housing market started in Berlin as a whole: subsidised housing was largely eliminated and the public-owned housing stock has decreased as rent and allocation control for most subsidised housing has run out and public housing companies have been privatised. Housing

17

policy has concentrated mainly on promoting new housing and the modernisation of the housing stock in the inner-city areas and big housing estates in East-Berlin. In contrast to these examples in Belgium changing housing allocation policies has been an important element in new approaches to policy - necessary to demonstrate that the much smaller public housing sector is responding to and meeting need. The possible consequence of this in increasing residualisation is not yet the concern that it is in the Netherlands. Community Development A major element in the policy approaches relating to neighbourhoods with a concentration of problems is developing stronger resident and community involvement. Building stronger links with residents and supporting resident organisations is an important component of the approach developed at a neighbourhood level. In Brussels, in the Dam neighbourhood a Regional Institute for Community Building (RISO) has located several initiatives in the neighbourhood. They run the neighbourhood centre and organise activities like meals and parties. The main aim is to try and bring local residents together, create networks and find common solutions for their common problems. In Amsterdam an initiative called Capabel was set up in 1991 to stimulate the socialisation of all youngsters (0 to 18) growing up in the city district, thereby creating better opportunities for them when they are older. Most youngsters in the city district targeted are of Turkish or Moroccan origin. The focus is on prevention and its approach is longitudinal (duration of 18 years). Targeting Social Groups Most of the new approaches referred to above involve an explicit concern to reach particular sections of the population that are not well served by existing policies. The labour market policies referred to have strong casework elements and are tailored for groups with different needs and resources. However there are other examples of specific targeting. Policies targeting minority ethnic groups are a particularly strong element in Belgium and the Netherlands. In Belgium (Brussels) the fragmentation of governance makes targeting by group more feasible than targeting by area. The Federal level reacted to the first youth riots in Brussels in 1991 by creating an Impetus Fund for Migrant Policy (IMB/FIPI) to improve the integration of immigrants. Schemes to encourage ethnic entrepreneurship and selfemployment are evident in a number of cities. Conclusion The URBEX programme has generated new data on social exclusion and integration and combined small-scale data in combination with existing statistics on information that is relevant for higher scales and political jurisdictions. The URBEX team feels that the multidimensional and multi-scale approach has generated new evidence and perspectives on segregation and social exclusion. The programme resulted in a new understanding of social exclusion and of the significance of changes in patterns of social segregation in European cities. Among the most relevant outcomes is the statement that per city and per neighbourhood differentiated policies are required to get to grip with social exclusion issues in small-scale areas. The assessment of the role of local, regional, state and European policy measures aimed at combating exclusion and increasing employment learned that a best practices type of policy orientation may be relevant, but only if the cases to be affected by policies are rather similar in terms of embeddedness in welfare state types, type of city and type of neighbourhood. In practice, relevant differences between neighbourhoods in cities, frequently due to different histories of the neighbourhoods and cities, will prevent the applicability of the best practices policies. What may be labelled as a neighbourhood solution 18

in one context may cause neighbourhood problems in another! There appeared to be major sources of differences between the cases we investigated. These can be found in the fields of education, policy interventions at various levels over the past decades, economic structure at the metropolitan level and opportunities to cope with recent changes in the world economy, types and levels of welfare state interventions, and local and regional histories. Among the remarkable other outcomes are findings that indicate that individuals, whom we labelled as at risk, did not always try to develop re-integration strategies that corresponded with the available opportunity structures. Perhaps there is a lack of insight in the various opportunities that are available. Measures could be taken to improve the knowledge of the opportunity structure. Due to all kinds of forces the opportunity structure may drastically change over time. Many current strategy attitudes of people at risk, but perhaps also the attitudes of those workers who are supposed to help them to re-integrate, are perhaps developed during other circumstances (for example in times of high unemployment) and not be appropriate in current circumstances (in some cases very low unemployment figures were shown). Other findings involved the weakening social networks. Many interviews pointed out that social networks declined in size and intensity. The consequence of such a finding is that one of the three modes of economic integration tends to loose its position. As a result people have to rely upon both of the other modes of integration much more: redistribution through the welfare state and the labour market exchange mode of integration.

19

2. Objectives, Issues and Questions

Objectives The URBEX research programme has been build on four objectives. These objectives revealed the intentions of the research team, their focus on integration and social exclusion, their wish to compare cases in various circumstances at different scales, their special interest in investigating the neighbourhood effects on integration and their interest in policy responses. The four objectives are: to reach a new understanding of the nature of social exclusion in European cities and of how different factors (market exchange, redistribution and reciprocity) affect integration and exclusion. to assess the ways in which economic and labour market change, political participation, changing welfare states and housing systems and changing household structures and social networks determine the different patterns of spatial segregation and concentration of poverty in different European cities and determine the impacts of such concentrations on integration and exclusion. to assess how spatial patterns of social exclusion should be taken into account in strategies to enhance social integration, combat exclusion and reduce unemployment and to assess the respective roles for policies operating at the European level or at the level of states or regions within Europe. to refer directly to ethnic minority and other social groups particularly affected by processes of exclusion and assess the factors most relevant to their situations. Issues The understanding and reduction of social exclusion and improving integration are a continuous challenge to politicians and scientists perhaps across the world, but certainly in the European realm. In fact it is more than a challenge; it is a necessity. Lack of integration, or even disintegration and fragmentation of social relations not only prevent people from participating in society, but also often are regarded to be potential seedbeds for inter-group tension and anti-social behaviour. Social exclusion refers to the compound nature of the disadvantage, which creates exclusion; its persistence over time; its concentration on population groups or areas; and its apparent resistance to existing or traditional policy solutions. In combination, these elements amount to an apparently insurmountable barrier between the most disadvantaged people and the majority (see Robbins 1992). Social exclusion remains a contested concept, but unemployment is generally seen to be either the most important element or a major component. However, social exclusion also relates to generalized disadvantage in terms of education, training, housing, financial resources and other factors which persistently reduce the chances of gaining access to the major social institutions which distribute services and finances that affect life chances (Room 1990). Social exclusion also relates to the extent and quality of social networks people are included in. The multi-dimensionality of the concept encompassing labour market participation, governmental or related intervention in education, housing, finances, etc., and a persons position in social networks was also clearly expressed in the Commission of the European Communities paper, The Communitys Battle Against Social Exclusion (4/1992): Poverty is a complex, heterogeneous phenomenon and cannot be defined solely in terms of low income levels. As many studies have shown, the deprivation suffered by the poorest classes extends to many fields employment, housing, health, education, social life, etc. The European Community and several of its Member States now

20

consequently tend to define poverty in terms of social exclusion, a definition that encompasses both the processes of exclusion and the resultant situations. It also serves to emphasize the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon and the multiplicity and diversity of the factors that combine to exclude individuals, groups or even regions from those exchanges, activities and social rights, which are an inherent part of social integration. If social exclusion implies being completely cut off from mainstream society, the opportunities for social mobility, through additional education, getting a (new) job, or an improved housing situation, are absent. This in turn may add to problems of deprivation and marginalisation. Many of these problems appear to be most manifest in large metropolitan areas frequently in large housing estates such as the post-war medium or high rise flats, grands ensembles, or in private rented poor quality 19th century inner urban areas where concentrations of the unemployed, low-skilled, the poor and the homeless can be large. Problems of social exclusion are not new, but some argue that in the last two decades they have become more severe in many cities. Many researchers and politicians pointed to the increase of social polarization between well-educated people included in the labour market and society and under-educated people often excluded from that market and society; or between people with and people without a well-paid job; or between people with voting rights and political power and those without. Several studies appeared in which dual or divided cities, polarized societies and the urban underclass were the central themes (Wilson 1987, Marcuse 1989, Sassen 1991, Fainstein et al. 1992, Castells 1993). Within such a context of polarization, duality or division, it is not social polarization or segregation as such which is a source of concern but the view that these patterns make the problem more intransigent and involve some threat of social conflict. Also in the past decade these conflicts have sometimes ended in urban riots as for example in South Central (Los Angeles), Vaulx-en-Velin (Lyon), Bradford and Leeds (UK) and elsewhere. The increase in the number of supporters of extreme right-wing parties, which can be seen in several places, is also often regarded as indicative of an increase in social problems. It should be stressed though that some scientists have argued not to accept the idea of a general increase in social polarisation and related socio-spatial problems in our major cities too automatically. Depending on the context other social processes may be predominant (e.g. Hamnett 1994, Musterd et al. 1999). However, that does not prevent many from assuming that not only social polarisation, but also the spatial concentration of poor people has increased in recent years and that such circumstances of spatial concentration exacerbate the problems of people living in these areas. For example it is argued (e.g. Taylor 1995) that in areas within cities there is a spiral through which lack of skills, qualifications and work experience limits access to jobs and income. This results in lack of choice in the housing market and in a funnelling into particular neighbourhoods and parts of the housing market. These areas may become marked by a concentration of lowincome households. Frequently, these local communities lack political clout and are unlikely to provide a market for viable businesses, either as employers or in the shape of shops, transport and other local facilities. Jobs are scarce, shops are expensive or difficult to reach, and public services are under severe pressure because of high levels of demand and declining budgets. As a result local employment opportunities are limited. Long-term unemployment contributes to already high levels of ill health. Schools struggle with low motivation and underachievement. All of these problems place pressure on family and community life and problems of racial harassment, crime and the fear of crime are evident. In some cases selfesteem is affected and more generally the residents of such areas are subject to adverse stereotyping which even further limits their chances of obtaining employment. The

21

cumulative process of social exclusion may then be at its worst where place of residence adds to other factors involved. This kind of perspective is widely accepted. However it has not been explored through comparisons in Europe. We know that patterns of segregation and exclusion are not the same throughout Europe (e.g. Murie and Musterd 1996) but there has been no systematic attempt to compare and evaluate differences between European cities and to take stock of the implications of differences for policy. To be able to respond in an effective way we stressed the need to a full understanding of the processes of social exclusion in cities based on a clear conceptual and theoretical framework and relevant empirical material. Through this, we aimed to contribute to the development of new policy responses. Questions If we stress the integration objective (what are the modes of integration available?), if we consider that there are different categories of socially excluded, and if we express our special interests into the effects of place of residence and context (on various scales) on integration opportunities, the search for new policy tools requires answers to a series of questions. In our URBEX programme we adopted a twofold approach with two separate types of questions. The first type focused on the individual or individual household, with questions such as: How do different categories of socially excluded people cope with their situation and how do they try to participate or even integrate in the urban society in various neighbourhoods, in different urban, regional and state contexts? What are the relevant target groups? What are the relevant modes of integration that are available to them? What are the strategies (and trajectories) of each of the targeted individuals or households and how do these relate to the available neighbourhood, city, and state resources? The second type focused on the neighbourhood differentiation in particular and their effects on integration, with questions such as: How do different neighbourhoods impact upon the opportunities and perspectives of individuals and households? Are neighbourhood impacts conditioned by the state contexts, by the wider metropolitan structures and by the specific neighbourhood histories? These pragmatic questions were the central questions we addressed in the URBEX research programme. The programme was carried out in eleven European cities over the past two years: Amsterdam, Antwerp, Berlin, Birmingham, Brussels, Hamburg, London, Milan, Naples, Paris and Rotterdam.

22

3. Scientific Description: Theory, Methodology and Empirical Results

Theory Modes of integration To understand the processes of social exclusion and inclusion, it is important to consider several interrelated explanatory dimensions, operating at different levels. This research is based on an explanatory framework, which identifies three spheres of social relations that determine household and sometimes also neighbourhood resources. It is these social relations that are crucial in processes of exclusion and in determining whether households share in the rights and activities generally available within society. The resources, which are necessary for full participation in society, are supposed to be produced and distributed through three mechanisms (see Polanyi 1944; Mingione 1993; Kesteloot et al. 1997): market exchange, redistribution, and reciprocity. It is the position in relation to these mechanisms and the way they interact which determine the extent to which households, and perhaps also communities, can be integrated socially and economically or are excluded from the mainstream. They are also addressed as modes of (economic) integration (figure 1).
Spheres of economic integration, poverty and territorial policies
MARKET social utility SPHERE OF INTEGRATION access condition

ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING limited a ccess to labour market ethnic entrepreneurship enterprise centers

CAUSES OF POVERTY weaknesses of deprived neighbourhoods territorial policies

social economy

socio-professional integration

CHANGES IN HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL NETWORKS social isolation strengthening of social networks school community development

DISMANTLING OF THE WELFARE STATE limited access to state redistribution political rights for immigrants urban renewal

RECIPROCITY affiliation

REDISTRIBUTION citizenship

C. KESTELOOT, H. MEERT & P. MISTIAEN ISEG KULeuven, 1997

Social exclusion is mostly associated with economic restructuring, changes in the welfare state and the weakening of social networks and solidarity (see e.g. Mingione 1996) and the three spheres provide a framework for its analysis. The modes of integration should be regarded as ways of addressing how far cohesion or inclusion is achieved. In most cities in the western world, access to resources is dominated by market exchange. Individuals and households must produce goods or services needed by others. This gives them an income that allows them to buy the goods and services they need but cannot produce for themselves. Most households put their labour on the labour market. Others are self-employed and sell goods and services. The market generates stratification, and unequal access to

23

resources based on strong or weak positions, for example in terms of education, language and other skills. These inequalities can be socially harmful since households whose labour is not needed have no access to resources and those whose skills command a low price or are not in short supply relative to demand command low or discontinuous returns. Some regard this to be a structural reason why inequalities generated through market exchange should be compensated for by (state) redistribution of goods, services and finances. The slow but steady development of the welfare state from the first social legislation in the nineteenth century, via social housing that developed from that period too, and until the development of a comprehensive social security system after World War II, created massive redistribution in substantial parts of Western Europe, mainly through taxes and social security contributions. The redistribution was both positive (from rich to poor) and horizontal between different types of household within income strata. While taking part in redistribution is largely available only to those participating in the labour market (revealing strong links between the modes of integration too), it differs from the other ways of economic integration as the only one that can guarantee access to basic resources for everybody without exception. Finally, reciprocity helps people to obtain resources through mutual exchange. It implies a capacity to produce some resources for each of the participants and a social network with symmetric links between each member and the rest of the network. Everything (goods and services) that is brought into the system by someone is given back by the other members, generally in the form of different goods and services, and usually not at the same time. These features of the exchange process involve mutual trust between the members of an exchange network and lasting ties of each member to that network. The most evident networks are the household, the extended family and sometimes neighbourhood networks or networks within ethnic minority communities. But also networks that have their origin in labour market participation may be relevant. Contexts The application mix of the modes of integration is related to the type of welfare state context that is involved. Esping-Andersen (1990) refers to three different regimes of welfare, social democratic, liberal and corporatist conservative. In social-democratic regimes redistribution is dominant; in liberal welfare regimes market exchange is emphasised and minimal redistribution is designed to strengthen market procedures; conservative regimes favour reciprocity. Others have added a fourth type, which is the family oriented welfare state. Within the EU the organisation and extent of welfare state provision varies considerably with different regime types. This is an important element in patterns of social exclusion and spatial concentration of poverty. We should also keep in mind that within one state context also local welfare regimes exist. Neighbourhoods will differ from each other in terms of combinations of access conditions to resources in the market redistribution and reciprocity spheres. Housing and patterns of residence, although not addressed by Esping-Andersen, may play a key role at both the state and the local levels and are dealt with differently within the different models. Many state that market mechanisms have never succeeded in providing decent housing for all households in the city. There has always been a quantitative or qualitative problem of housing. This market failure, linked to the durable character of housing, has resulted in intervention in housing and state redistribution. However the methods of intervention and their impacts are complex and advantage some groups, among those experiencing poor housing, more than others. In relation to housing and other services state intervention may take the form of direct provision or involve subsidy to (quasi) nongovernmental initiatives. This applies in policies related to the unhealthy, youngsters, elderly persons, unskilled and unemployed. They open possibilities for resource collection strategies

24

to poor households, aimed at maximising the aid received from such agencies. What is important, though, is that these strategies may ultimately limit the effectiveness of these initiatives. In short, the three modes of integration are operating respectively through market mechanisms, welfare state provisions and redistribution, and/or social networks. Households, cities and states will experience different opportunities in these respects. To address these differences was a vital element in the research that was carried out. Crucial to the understanding also is that different geographic levels of processes of social exclusion can be distinguished: thus changes in the welfare regimes refer to national/regional processes, with different outcomes depending on the local variation of the share of the population that is eligible for welfare provisions; economic restructuring refers to world scale processes with different outcomes at the local metropolitan level due to different urban histories and the regional level at which labour markets function; and social networks predominantly refer to local processes. The neighbourhood impact A special context that is frequently mentioned in theoretical debates on social exclusion, and which might be seen as impacting upon the opportunities to integrate in the urban society is the neighbourhood in which people live. The opportunities (opportunity structures) available to deprived households in inner city, suburban or peripheral areas may be very different (see Herlyn & Lettko 1991 on opportunities for the poor in Hanover; Morlicchio, Cerase & Span 1991 on experience of unemployment in Naples and Kesteloot et al. 1997 on survival strategies of marginal households in Brussels). Those in peripheral locations poorly served by mass transport may be unable to access job opportunities. Those in central locations may, in some cities be better placed. Inner city poor neighbourhoods often relate in a paradoxical way with market exchange. On the one hand, the growing marginalisation of these neighbourhoods results from the polarisation of the labour market. On the other hand, the inhabitants systematically use (a part of) the market and its mechanisms in developing new businesses (including those associated with ethnic minorities). Some ethnic minority businesses have a double function in deprived neighbourhoods. They may provide income for households hit by job loss, low skills or exclusion from mainstream employment and at the same time they provide an important asset for the neighbourhood in providing cheap products and employment. Notwithstanding the general trend that the concentration of poor households generates less market exchange, there are also opportunities for the development of particular niches in the sphere of market exchange. These assets seem to be weakened in peripheral deprived neighbourhoods. Different viewpoints on the relations between the modes of integration In debates on integration there appear to be different views concerning the type of relationship between the modes of integration. Governments usually adopt a kind of substitution thinking. Welfare states can, via redistribution, substitute the labour market to provide an income and vice versa. The valuation of the substitution that occurs differs between different welfare regimes and between different political views. Also the actual economic situation plays a role. When labour market opportunities improve, the tendency to push people to the labour market becomes stronger. The current discourse in Europe seems to reflect a fairly general objective of many governments to reduce the level of redistribution and thus enhance substitution thinking. Yet major differences between actors views can be detected. One view favours moderate substitution; in their opinion welfare provisions should be maintained in order to keep the safety nets for periods of economic decline. Their view supports the idea that a strong connection between the market and welfare provisions may result in smooth transitions

25

between situations of having a job, becoming unemployed, getting welfare, and getting a new job again. Such sequences may not even be noticed by others and thus have weak negative effects on the level of integration in the urban society. Others, on the other hand, prefer more rigorous substitution, assuming that a fierce reduction of welfare provision and redistribution will result in better opportunities for the market, which will eventually result in more employment and ultimately create better conditions to participate in society at large. Both views frequently refer to the poverty trap: many people on welfare benefits would not be highly interested to accept a job that pays them almost as much as they receive when they stay on benefits. Household categories at risk: three target groups All households may get into a situation that could be labelled at risk to become socially excluded. Economic restructuring may result in demand-supply mismatches in the labour market and subsequently produce unemployment. Revised government intervention or a continuation of never well-developed welfare provisions may imply that the road to redistribution is (virtually) being cut off. And finally, a lack of conditions to develop strong social networks or strong local communities will prevent people to rely on reciprocity modes of integration. Combinations of these developments and situations may differ between states and between cities and produce very different population categories at risk (that may become or are socially excluded). Some may be unemployed, but still receive generous benefits and be part of a strong social network, while others may be long-term unemployed, not receiving serious benefits and be totally isolated socially. All kinds of variations may be possible in between these extremes. A households capacity to make use of various strategies to cope with the situation and at least partially become included in the urban society clearly depends on the economic situation and on the character of economic restructuring, on the type and transformation of the welfare state involved, on demographic and on cultural (including lifestyle) characteristics and change that are affecting social networks and also on the type and location of the neighbourhood involved. It depends on the position in these domains whether some household categories get at greater risk than others. In our research we focused on three categories in particular. These are all outside employment. We thus argue that the labour market is regarded the most important mode of integration in the Western world. People who have no or limited access to the labour market are more vulnerable and more in danger to become socially excluded than others. They often will lack the means and social environments to sufficiently participate in society. The first category consists of immigrant households who are unable to get a job. Many of them are handicapped in the domain of integration through the market (because of discrimination, or lack of skills). Redistribution will not be a viable alternative in many cases, because of a lack of citizen rights or because of the type of welfare state they live in, which may be one that strongly relates welfare provisions to peoples labour history. The absence of political rights, in some places, means exclusion from direct participation in the decisions about what is redistributed and according to which rules. In case of a spatial concentration of such immigrants a collective dimension is added to their incomplete citizenship. Where they are not represented on municipal councils, their neighbourhoods and all collective infrastructure and services (from schools, sports and cultural facilities to street cleaning and security) are likely to be neglected by the ruling political regime. For some immigrant categories, those with strong social networks, sometimes reciprocity networks may offer a solution. However, where atomised ethnic groups live together with single persons and oneparent families reciprocity will less likely produce the resources that are required. Single mothers on benefits are a second category. They tend to have weaker social ties and run a greater risk to experience social isolation and weakening of local community life and thus

26

have less reciprocity opportunities. Their dependency on one income, in case of unemployment usually provided by the state, and their reduced opportunities to rely on reciprocity via social networks, contributes to the probability to become classified as a risk category. On the other hand, we should not rule out the potential significance of the role of their children in activating their social networks. The third category refers to the native male long-term unemployed, perhaps the classic example of the socially excluded, with often other political rights and opportunities compared to immigrants and possibly also compared to single mothers. This category of long-term unemployed, we should not forget, may be most heterogeneous. Methodology The URBEX research programme involved an international comparative research effort in which the researchers aimed at applying a common methodology referring to a common theoretical and explanatory framework, referring to similar strategies to obtain statistical as well as individual primary data through face-to-face and in-depth interviews with a similar set of key persons and members of predefined target groups. The aim was also to include national, metropolitan and neighbourhood information on crucial dimensions the research team agreed upon in an early stage of the programme. Through this we assembled a series of directly comparable city perspectives. The application of a common methodology and referring to different spatial scales from the national to the neighbourhood represents an important innovative ambition. In order to answer the research questions, the research design involved the following elements: First of all a description of the wider context of each city as well as a description of the urban development in recent years was obtained, including the welfare state context and the economic structure and dynamics of the city and metropolitan area. Also national policies for broad patterns of inequality and key social divisions were described. Reports 2-7, and summary report 8 provided the outcomes of analyses in this context. Secondly, different dimensions of social exclusion in each of the cities included in the study were mapped. This required clarification of concepts and the identification of suitable data for each of the cities involved (also reports 2-8). The third element regards the selection of two neighbourhoods per city, having concentrations of deprivation. Processes in these neighbourhoods were analysed at the individual level. This involved original research and interviews with local residents and other key actors in order to develop a new understanding of how neighbourhood features and social networks as well as economic restructuring, changing welfare states and changing housing systems affect processes of social exclusion and integration. Reports 9-19 and summary report 20 provide the results of this phase. Finally, we examined the available evidence about the impact of general and specific local, national and European policies on areas with the greatest concentration of deprivation. Report 21 shows us the variety of local and national policies that were developed. The first two elements of the programme involve statistical analysis of economic restructuring, changes in employment and unemployment and the development of new occupational structures at national, regional (i.e. the selected city regions) and local scales. For each selected neighbourhood, a survey of the housing situation, infrastructure, collective consumption and political representation was conducted. Moreover, available aggregate data, relevant to concentrations of social exclusion were collected and analysed. These data included comparisons of change related to changes at the city level, especially in relation to

27

data which are sensitive to upward or downward social spirals (e.g. demographic data concerning starters on the housing market, ethnic composition of the population, education level, housing improvement, etc. The latter included an analysis of the spatial patterning of social exclusion in the selected cities. We tried to develop longitudinal profiles for the eighties and nineties, using the most nearly comparable data for different countries, cities and neighbourhoods and to develop a critical awareness of how to interpret different statistics sensitively. Local participants worked on the local datasets based on a common outline which was worked out in detail at an early stage of the project. The third element was the cornerstone of the research design. To get a proper understanding of target group strategies to cope with their situation and to be able to consider the relevance of context effects at several geographical levels, with a special focus on the neighbourhood, we decided to carry out in depth interviews among the target groups we identified (long term unemployed, unemployed immigrants, and single mothers without a job). We did that in two neighbourhoods per city, in eleven cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels, Antwerp, London, Birmingham, Berlin, Hamburg, Milan, Naples and Paris) in six EU countries. in six countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and United Kingdom)2. The main sources of information were primary interview data obtained from over six hundred members of the target groups and from several hundreds of key-actors in the field. The neighbourhoods were selected in two different urban settings in order to highlight the spatial effect on social exclusion. One neighbourhood would be a nineteenth century inner city area mainly consisting of private housing, the other a post-war peripheral neighbourhood mainly consisting of social rented housing. The areas would also be selected to include those communities and groups which are most subject to processes of social exclusion. The on average over 30 persons per neighbourhood, which were interviewed, were selected through available channels (like public and private welfare workers, schools, etc.). Semi-structured open interviews were recorded and transcribed to reveal their social position, their strategies to obtain the consumables that are required as well as their efforts to reintegrate. The information included items to assess the relevance of the spatial dimension with regard to their position and strategies. Additional interviews on the selected neighbourhood were carried out with key officials and urban managers (such as local government officials, police, estate agents, financial agencies and with community and advice agencies and employers). All interviews were conducted on the basis of a common outline, which was aimed at optimising comparability. The fourth element in the programme involved an assessment of the impact of mainstream public programmes on the selected neighbourhoods based on a survey of past and present initiatives and on the survey mentioned above. In addition all past and present local, territorial based policies aimed at combating social exclusion were analysed and assessed in terms of their effect on one of more of the three modes of economic integration. Empirical results The actual opportunity structure: the context of state, city and neighbourhood Before we will describe the strategies that were applied by people belonging to the three target groups and before we go into a more specific analysis of the role of the type of
2

The country selection was aimed at the inclusion of different welfare regimes and housing market structures; we preferred large cities, since social problems will show up most clearly in larger cities; we also aimed at a mixture of cities in terms of their function; the presence of two cities in almost all countries aimed to test effects of intra-national variation. We aimed at selecting one city with a relatively strong (historically grown) manufacturing (or harbour) industry profile; and one city with a relatively strong services industry profile in each of the selected countries.

28

neighbourhood, we will pay some attention to the actual contexts at different geographical levels first. On the basis of the statistical analysis and some theoretical ideas, we classified the neighbourhoods in eleven cities on three dimensions: a welfare state dimension, relevant for the redistribution opportunities, an urban economic history dimension that is important for the labour market position and a neighbourhood dimension that is regarded relevant in terms of social networks (reciprocity) opportunities. Although several trends in society could be found with a fairly similar direction in various spatial contexts (such as the economic restructuring towards a service economy, changing demographic and cultural spheres, and different and changing political and institutional contexts, but also the rise of small households, the increase of dual income households, the ageing of the population, and the continuation and diversification of immigration, as well as shifts towards the owner-occupied sector and in the policy spheres (with increasing preference for integrated area based policies)), there are also major differences between neighbourhoods, cities and countries, both in terms of structure and in terms of process. We described the typical political, historical and institutional contexts in this respect. It is not difficult to imagine that such differences have major implications on the responses with regard to social questions. Some of these differences can be ascribed to processes that are several hundreds of years old. This, however, does not imply that there are no similarities at all; neither does it mean that we cannot learn from the differences. If we refrain from presenting very detailed comparisons, we are able to classify the cities that were part of our research programme. Two classifications were presented in our programme as a framework within which we were able to interpret our interview data. In table 1, cities are classified according to their position in terms of the welfare state involved as well as in terms of their urban economic history. The first dimension is related to the sphere of redistribution; the second dimension provides the starting position from which cities have to try to cope with the current economic transitions. It is expected that cities with a relatively strong service profile that was developed over the past, were in a better position to offer market exchange opportunities to people at risk compared with cities with a weaker service profile. In table 2 we refined this table and added an extra dimension, which is related to the type of neighbourhood and the third mode of integration: social networks. We assumed that central city neighbourhoods, with a mixed profile in terms of tenure and many other aspects, would offer better opportunities for the development of strong social networks compared to peripherally located tenure homogeneous neighbourhoods. The classifications in tables 1 and 2 should not be interpreted as absolute schemes, but as rough instruments to help to provide the proper framework of opportunities for dealing with the case studies. The welfare regimes we distinguished are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Liberal states, for example will stress the use of market mechanisms as instruments to integrate people and tend to be reluctant to provide welfare support. These types are, however, not always averse to redistribution schemes. Corporatist states provide welfare for some and not for others, but are relying on the market too and stimulate social networks. Social Democratic types of states tend to pay more attention to universal welfare provisions and redistribution schemes but also rely on the market. Family oriented types of welfare regimes will promote the family support systems, but will also have a strong orientation on the market domain. So, the differences between the contexts should be regarded as relative differences. On the basis of the universality and level of welfare support, we assume that the highest levels of redistribution will be reached in social democratic welfare states, followed by the corporatist states; liberal states are regarded to follow at the third place and family oriented welfare states are supposed to provide the lowest levels of welfare and redistribution. The city level reflects the various labour market opportunities. We present the differences between labour market opportunities of cities in table 2 by looking at the unemployment

29

figures. We should keep in mind though that the differences between these cities are far from absolute. The neighbourhood differences that have been distinguished here are between central city and peripheral neighbourhoods. As a start we follow the assumption that conditions for social networks are best in central, mixed neighbourhoods. We should keep in mind, though, that alternative assumptions might also receive support. Moreover, the classification can, of course, be elaborated. Local redistribution and sub-local market exchange opportunities are not considered here, but can be very important. Here, the actual resources available at state, city and neighbourhood levels are shown. In Landlust, Amsterdam, for example, inhabitants will, we assume, experience relatively good opportunities in the redistribution sphere. They will have reasonably good opportunities on the labour market. They might also experience fairly good opportunities in the sphere of social networks. On the other hand, inhabitants of Baggio have excellent opportunities on the labour market, but not much to expect from redistribution spheres; also social networks are supposed to be relatively weak. In Scampia, Naples, there does not seem to be any opportunity structure at all. The deductive classification presented above was confronted with the actual individual strategies that are applied by the target group inhabitants. It will become clear that the wider contexts are conditioning the strategies households can apply. But also, in almost all cases we met in the URBEX research programme, the life stories and trajectories appeared to be quite influential in shaping the attitudes to certain strategies to the modes of integration, such as work and benefits. Here, we will just touch upon them very briefly, before we move on to the strategies that are developed. Trajectories Frequently the respondent involved reported typical traumatic experiences, which caused early exclusion. Molest or abuse or major trouble as a child were frequently mentioned elements, as was leaving home very young, and these respondents usually did not get far in terms of education. Alcohol and drug abuse played an important negative role as well, as did having children at a very young age. Breakdown events also tend to be important. Kazepov and Benassi (1995), who developed the typology of trajectories we refer to here, found out that these events differed between men and women. Breakdown events for women typically were related to the reciprocity sphere, such as the loss of a partner through death, divorce or separation, and the subsequent loss of income involved. Breakdown events for men were related to the market sphere (loss of a job due to economic restructuring, etc.). The situation of unemployed older immigrant men who came as guest workers to cities as Berlin, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Paris, Brussels and Antwerp, fits into that type. A third type of trajectory, called the biographical cumulative disadvantages, could also be found. Among the residents who belong to that type are those who manage to solve problems, but in such a way that it does not really result in an escape from them. It merely brings them in a new, slightly different problem soon after they have solved their former problem. Many just try to maintain a more or less precarious equilibrium. Single mothers in St. Pauli, Hamburg fit that type most clearly, but many single mothers in other cities show similar behaviour. Strategies and opportunities But let us return to the main subject of this report: the strategies residents applied and their relation with the actual (theoretically) available resources (table 2). The attention will be focused on the dominant strategies the target groups apply in their efforts to integrate in society. Tables 3-5 provide a most general and crude picture of the strategies for each of the three target groups. The confrontation between these strategies and the actual opportunities, which were summarised in table 2, allow for some preliminary conclusions.

30

Table 3

Generalised strategies to cope with their situation: immigrants Strategies to cope with the situation: redistribution market reciprocity Notes3 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -/+ + + -/+ + -/+ -/+ + -/+ + + -/+ + -/+ -/+ + -/+ -/+ + -/+ -/+ -/+ 1 2 3 4

City and neighbourhood subgroup Amsterdam Landlust Osdorp-M guest workers young immigrants guest workers young immigrants

Rotterdam

Tarwewijk Hoogvliet N. (new peripheral) Neuklln Marzahn (peripheral) St Pauli (inner city) Mmmelmansberg (peripheral) Marollen (inner city) Beizegem (peripheral) Silvertop (peripheral) La Courneuve Montreuil Ethelred Estate (60s, 70s) Clapham Park (30s, 50s)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Berlin

Hamburg

Brussels

Antwerp Paris

London

Birmingham Sparkbrook Temporary unemployed non-British born Temporary unemployed British born Long-term non-British born Long-term British born Milan Naples Baggio and Ponte Lambro Mercato Pendino

+ + + + + --

-/+ -/+

+ -/+ + -/+ -/+

17 18 19 20 21 22

Notes: 1 Even older guest workers, many of whom got unemployed or disabled, appeared to get into a situation where social networks play a smaller role; state redistribution (disability and social welfare benefits) is extremely important for them. 2 Young immigrants express a strong orientation to the market exchange mode of integration. 3 No strong labour market orientation because of labour disability 4 As 3.

The plusses and minuses have been assigned on the basis of the authors analyses of the underlying individual city reports, all of them extensive studies based on qualitative interview data. The assignments have been checked and discussed with the individual team members. Their significance is not absolute. The notes, which refer to specific comments, underline that rigid generalisation is impossible.

31

5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21

22

The ethnic groups get the benefits they have right to, but make no further use of additional opportunities. Reciprocity networks are not well developed, but if they exist, they can be found in the neighbourhood. The long-term unemployed Turkish immigrants did show weak ties in their ethnic community and reported loose acquaintances in the neighbourhood. They apply for jobs, but most of them are rather sure they will not get one. Ethnic Germans without a job have strong social networks within their own ethnic group (still?). Almost all try hard to get a job. All try hard to get a job. The social network (mainly family) is important to most but not all of them. Most of them, except from the old guest worker type, try hard to get a job; there is some social (kinship) support. There is some use of ethnic networks to gain some income; informal jobs are also frequently mentioned. Access to benefits depends on duration of stay, permits and work history. Efforts to enter the labour market are age dependent. Silvertop: social support (also financially) comes from family. Support from friends is confined to emotional support; there is hardly any material support. Market orientations clearly prevail, but current positions are weak. Redistribution is important; almost all try to get a job; reciprocity weak. Strong dependency on benefits; several also try to access labour market, weak social networks. See 10, plus: social networks are weak and affected by the individualist UK culture. There is a strong tendency to accept the goals of society as well as the means to get there (conformism); that does not imply actual opportunities and means are available to achieve these goals. Social networks vary. Strong social networks in families. Six out of seven were essentially dependent on the welfare state. Relatively moderate family support. Relatively strong family support. Immigrant women have a stronger orientation to the labour market (part time, low paid); they are not excluded from the labour market, but marginalized; reliance of immigrant men on reciprocity can only be for a short period of time. Immigrants, especially from Latin America, get direct access to redistribution via charitable organisations, such as the Centro Vincenziano. Immigrants cannot rely on redistribution, except for some charity organisations.

32

Table 4

Generalised strategies to cope with their situation: single mothers Strategies to cope with the situation: redistribution market reciprocity Notes + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -/+ -/+ + -/+ + -/+ -/+ -/+ -/+ -/+ + -/+ --/+ -/+ -/+ -/+ -/+ + -/+ + -/+ -/+ -/+ + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

City and neighbourhood Amsterdam Landlust and Osdorp-Midden Rotterdam Tarwewijk (inner city) Hoogvliet (peripheral) Neuklln (pre-war) Marzahn (peripheral) St. Pauli (central) Mmmelmansberg (peripheral) Marollen Beizegem Dam and Silvertop La Courneuve Montreuil

Berlin

Hamburg

Brussels

Antwerp Paris

London

Ethelred (more central) Clapham Park (isolated geographically)

Birmingham Sparkbrook (central) Pool Farm (peripheral) Milan Naples Baggio and Ponte Lambro Mercato-Pendino (c) Scampia (p)

Notes: 1 Labour market orientation is strong; childcare facilities are prohibitive, though. 2 Some search for a job, some have some job, so they are not totally detached from the labour market. Social contacts (although mostly emotionally supportive only) are not located in the neighbourhood (as was the case in Hoogvliet). 3 More than half were from Surinam or the Antilles. Few were involved in the market sphere through voluntary jobs; incidentally school is attended. Almost all single mothers experienced some support from (albeit small) social networks, mostly in the neighbourhood. 4 Most are part of not so strong social networks; neighbours play no role and child care through social networks is not regarded a viable option because friends lifestyles do not fit that option. Most of them look for work, but not against any price. 5 Most try to improve their situation searching for access to the labour market. Integration in social networks is instable. 6 One out of two single mothers does not make any effort to re-enter the labour market; some do some legally paid work; social networks are reported to be large and strong, friend oriented (not family). Support is emotional and material.

33

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18

All say they search for a job, but in practice there is quite some strategic calculated behaviour, temporary withdrawal and (for a third) even definitive withdrawal. One out of two receives support from personal networks, mostly family oriented. Just on minimum income; there are no signs of strong reliance on social networks. Those with older children hope to re-access the labour market. There is some material support from parents. Primarily redistribution and to a lesser extent market exchange; no strong reciprocity Their ideal is getting a job, but this is difficult due to conditions; therefore welfare dependent; social networks weak (family for emergencies) They tend to be calculators; accepting the goals, but not the means to get there. Few try to get a job. Family support networks were, in instances, regarded to be important resources. Many express the importance of work and some apply strategies to re-enter the labour market. Some were actively preparing for re-entry in the job market. Few family relations; but friendship relations were important. Some were actively preparing to join for the job market. Reciprocity is mainly identified with kinship networks, expressing the family centred nature of Italian welfare. Single mothers who got there because of misbehaviour of the husband did not ask for public support (for fear of losing the children), but received the support anyway because social services had been forced by intervention of the Court of Justice. The informal economy is relatively well developed

34

Table 5

Generalised strategies to cope with their situation: long-term unemployed native Strategies to cope with the situation: redistribution market reciprocity Notes + + + + + + + + + + -/+ + + + + + + ---/+ -/+ + -/+ -/+ + -/+ -/+ + --/+ -/+ + -/+ -/+ -/+ + + -/+ -/+ -/+ -/+ + 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

City and neighbourhood Amsterdam Landlust Osdorp-M Rotterdam Tarwewijk (central) Hoogvliet (peripheral) Neuklln (pre-war) Marzahn St. Pauli (central) Mmmelmansberg (peripheral) Marollen and Beizegem Dam and Silvertop La Courneuve Montreuil

Berlin

Hamburg

Brussels Antwerp Paris

London

Ethelred (more central) Clapham Park (isolated geographically)

Birmingham Sparkbrook (central) Pool Farm (peripheral) Milan Naples Baggio and Ponte Lambro Mercato-Pendino (c) Scampia (p)

Notes: 1 High reliance on welfare, some are not wiling to accept job offers. 2 Mental illness and drug addiction problems are crucial here. 3 Most tend to be very isolated, some mention some family contacts. 4 Labour market orientation is absent due to physical or mental illness. There are few friends, but there is some family support. 5 Family social networks are important for a few residents, but friends are more important. In general, social networks are not very well developed. Job search generally is not very intensive and subject to conditions put by themselves. Many try to improve their labour market chances, but most expect no improvement of their situation. Some have casual work or are moonlighting. 6 Almost all of them actively try to find a regular job. 7 A third looks selectively for work; a third does not currently apply for a job; a third has resigned. Reciprocity networks exist (mutual support) with friends, not family, and not in the neighbourhood. 8 Moderate labour market search activity only, as well as some illegal work. Some mutual support from family (not friends). 9 Local native born Belgian long-term unemployed. Hardly any material support; just emotional. 10 Have lost hope of finding a job; fairly extended networks 11 Express strategies on all dimensions; large social networks

35

12 13 14 15 16

Various individual coping strategies were predominant. Although some form of support network existed for some, the dominant strategy for all is resignation. Few were actively preparing for re-entry in the job market. Labour market orientation dependent on factors like age, duration of unemployment, qualification and being a parent or not. Reciprocity mostly in emotional term Fragile relations with the market. They have relations with public services and private charities, but these are weak and although helpful do not bring them to the labour market. Social networks take different forms and can be strong or weak. Strategies depend on the trajectories they have had. Again high reliance on informal economy.

36

These are to be regarded as hypotheses. Most of them are still open to debate and many of them require further research. It must also be stressed that the information in these tables hardly does justice to the extensive research reports that formed the basis of them (the reports 9-19 together contain approximately 1500 pages of condensed analyses of the detailed material we collected, per city; these reports are also available on the URBEX website). All sorts of complicated nuances and interesting analyses (on consumption strategies, among other things) had to be left out. Still, some generalisations can be presented and ideas of substitution between the modes of integration can be evaluated. Some general findings will be presented first. One finding is that almost all residents who belong to our target groups have gained access to the redistribution opportunities that are available (through general or housing benefits, tax reductions, unemployment benefits, etc.). There are only few exceptions. These refer to some immigrant households, namely those who did not yet receive similar citizen rights compared with native inhabitants and therefore cannot rely on redistribution (these immigrants could be found in Brussels and in Naples inner city neighbourhood of Mercato Pendino, for example); but incidentally also others may have a weak welfare position, such as the single mothers and long-term unemployed in Naples. However, from table 2 we learn that redistributions vary greatly as to their significance. In some countries, generous and general benefits are available, such as in the Netherlands (in 2001, welfare benefits, the safety net of last resort in the Netherlands, were 1,052 per month for couples; single mothers received 736; and singles 526); in other countries, such as Italy, benefits are not only lower, but also regionally varying and group-specific. In these and similar contexts the (moderate) benefits tend to be reserved to the old, to those who have been active in the labour force before, to mothers with young children and to those who are unhealthy; in short, to what are considered the deserving poor (Wilson 1987). By implication, in these situations the young and healthy unemployed (the apparently undeserving poor) cannot expect to receive much financial support from the state. Consequently, other modes of integration have to be relied upon in contexts where general state redistribution schemes are hardly developed, as is expressed in the following quote from the Milanese case study: voluntary solidarity (mainly kinship networks) by all categories, which is partly a necessary alternative to the inadequacy of a structured network of basic protection and welfare services (Saraceno et al. 1999). However, even in the Italian cases, the strength of local networks is decreasing, as can be seen in the peripheral neighbourhood Scampia, in Naples. If that process continues, there soon will be hardly any significant safety net left at all. Apart from the fact that reliance on the labour market will become even more predominant, that will also give a stimulus to informal networks and activities, such as that of the Camorra. The loss of social network ties is not confined to the Italian case. In fact, we can label this as a second general phenomenon that shows up in many places across Europe. Weakly developed social networks were found among immigrants in peripheral neighbourhoods in Dutch cities, in Milan, Hamburg, Brussels, Antwerp and London. Also in some central city neighbourhoods (in Berlin and Hamburg) social ties were weak. Similar conclusions could be drawn for single mothers and long-term unemployed. In short, the reports that are the basis for this text suggest that social networks are seldom strong and that they are declining, both in terms of extensiveness and in terms of intensity, even there where other modes of integration offer few opportunities either. Immigrants in Neuklln, Berlin, for example, show us they have weak social networks and few opportunities to rely on the market (they do not express much efforts to enter the market

37

either). So, they have to rely on the welfare state. Temporary unemployed British born immigrants also showed us weak networks and surprisingly little efforts to enter the labour market, while that would offer best opportunities (according to table 2). We could list plenty of statements that illustrate the weakening social ties: a couple of Amsterdam Moroccan males, for example, stated that: everyone is busy with his own affairs. In the past it was different. I do not visit neighbours and they do not visit me. It just does not exist anymore. The reduction of family sizes, individualisation, a reduction of mutual dependency, and the geographically expanding spheres of daily life probably play a role in these processes. There are a few exceptions though. Some social networks are still strong. These seem to be related to specific local cultures or specific cultures of origin. The ethnic German immigrants from Russia, who settled in Marzahn, appear to rely heavily on their own ethnic social network (so far). Aside from these findings with regard to the redistribution and social networks modes of integration, a third general finding refers to the strategies aimed at the third mode of integration: the labour market participation. There we find very different attitudes. It is remarkable that even in situations in which market opportunities are good or even excellent, people from our target groups are not always applying strategies to enter the market. Some immigrant categories in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels, Antwerp and Birmingham, cities where unemployment figures are relatively low or were rapidly declining during the period we did our research, showed that inactive behaviour. But also single mothers in Antwerp and London, as well as long-term unemployed in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels and London expressed weak labour market orientations. This may, of course, also be related to relatively higher incidences of illness or disabilities among these people due to former hard work. It may also be related to another finding in the research: the relation between duration of unemployment and labour market orientation: the longer people are unemployed, the higher the probability they will rely on redistribution and refrain from labour market activity. A relevant question in this context is whether we can or cannot find any substitution behaviour of the respondents too (between the modes of integration)? So, the focus is on substitution from the point of view of the respondents instead of the state. Many respondents tended to rely on one or two modes only. Others, however, show us they simultaneously make use of their social networks, receive a benefit and employ some activity on the (informal) labour market simultaneously; clear examples are immigrants in Marzahn, Berlin and single mothers in Milan. The first example implies a high risk of getting frustrated since a strong labour market orientation strategy coincides with few labour market opportunities. The second example is a special one too. In the Milanese context almost everyone has at least a small job, but the single mothers also belong to the as defined by the Italian authorities deserving poor and therefore are often entitled to albeit small benefits. In case of single mothers family networks are still providing additional income if required. Immigrants in St. Pauli, Hamburg and both neighbourhoods in London provide somewhat less clear examples of these strategies (two plusses and a plus minus in tables 3-5; implying that at least part of the respondents followed such a multiple strategy). Single mothers in Marzahn, Berlin also fit in that category. Incidentally, there are cases with three minuses in a row too. It refers to those who gave it all up, in fact retreated. They do not expect to be able to change their situation anymore. They usually just try to secure their living on a minimum level. Among these city-dwellers are drug addicts or mentally ill people; frequently they are highly isolated; occasionally they do not only reject the goals of society, but also the means society offers to keep belonging to it, to say it in Mertons terms. They sometimes even refuse to accept their benefits and frequently end in a totally isolated position. Long-term unemployed

38

males, living in the periphery seem to run the greatest risk in this regard. In Scampia, Naples, such an extreme situation does occur indeed, but surprisingly also for single mothers. Yet, many cases can be shown in which clear plusses combine with clear minuses in one row, providing signs of substitution indeed. (Informal) market orientations, for example, are better developed in cases where significant redistribution mechanisms are hardly developed, and vice versa: there are also situations in which redistribution appears to be well-developed and labour market and/or reciprocity strategies tended to be hardly developed. Examples of the first situation refer to those immigrants in the Marollen in Brussels, who have to rely on the labour market since they have no entitlements to welfare benefits (and thus score a minus there); examples of the second situation refer to immigrant guest workers in the Dutch neighbourhoods Landlust and Osdorp-Midden in Amsterdam and in Neuklln in Berlin. These households receive generous unemployment or social benefits. Many of them hardly show any activity aimed at re-integration in the labour market anymore. Another example refers to single mothers in the post-war neighbourhoods in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Berlin and Hamburg. Generally the objective to raise ones child comes first and therefore labour market orientation comes second, also due to difficult time-budgets. With that in mind, and considering that unemployment is higher in the German cities, it is strange to notice that single mothers in the German cities were as active to get a job as the Dutch single mothers (with much better labour market opportunities) were. Labour market orientation may be linked to the level of benefits that they actually receive. In the Dutch cities that is at least 736 per month, compared to Berlin: at least 440. A cultural difference explanation may also be relevant. It must be said too that inner city single mothers express a more urban oriented lifestyle, with a somewhat stronger orientation towards urban life and the labour market compared to single mothers who express family-oriented lifestyles in peripheral neighbourhoods (Marzahn-North being the exception, see below). Additional findings per target group Some additional findings are worth mentioning. The Amsterdam case revealed that even for those immigrant households whose orientation on the labour market was low, the reliance on social networks decreased rapidly. Even for immigrant households, who originated from a region in which reliance on social networks was highly predominant before they entered the Dutch capital, social networks declined. One of the crucial findings for unemployed single mothers is that they give priority, and sometimes also have the legal opportunities, for raising their children first instead of looking for a job, even in situations where the labour market is extremely important for them as a resource. That is expressed frequently and felt as a good situation: I am better off than most people that I know. Specially those people who are working I am extremely well off (respondent in Pool Farm, Birmingham). For those single parents that choose to search for a job after their children have reached school age, opportunities are often limited, though, since they have been disconnected from the labour market for quite a while then. The match between work hours and school hours appears to be decisive and to constrain time space behaviour of single mothers rigorously. These constraints are aggravated by the residential locations of most of the single mothers when they live in post-war social housing estates, often far away from labour opportunities (Marzahn North, Berlin; Hoogvliet North, Rotterdam; Pool Farm, Birmingham; Beizegem, Brussels, for example). The role of children in single mothers lives appears to be different between central city (urban oriented) neighbourhoods and peripheral neighbourhoods. In the latter case they are a

39

more determining factor in peoples lives (compare the market orientations of single mothers in Hoogvliet and Tarwewijk, Rotterdam with St.Pauli and Mmmelmansberg, Hamburg). Native citizens who are unemployed for a long time generally have weak labour market orientations and also fairly weak social networks, even in central city neighbourhoods and in cities with fairly good labour market opportunities. Examples are Tarwewijk, Rotterdam; neighbourhoods in Brussels and Ethelred, London. For many, social benefits are the only means, which offers them some opportunities to integrate in society, but not always sufficient ones. The clearly different situations in Marzahn, Berlin and in Pool Farm, Birmingham may indicate that other dimensions are also relevant. The labour market orientation of ethnic Germans from Russia and of the majority of long-term unemployed (in Marzahn) appeared to be very strong (classic, as our German researchers said), but the chance of success was low due to few opportunities on the labour market. In Birmingham, long-term unemployment was not necessarily associated with weak social networks. A hypothetical explanation is that unemployment was regarded rather normal in Birmingham during the economic restructuring. Neighbourhoods and neighbourhood impact Questions and perspectives One of the most central features of the URBEX programme has been to identify the neighbourhood dimension of social exclusion and integration. Therefore, in this section we will address the relevant findings of the programme with a special focus on the neighbourhood. As one can see, we again will refer to the modes of integration we dealt with in the sections before. However, here the angle from which we look at the integration issue will be the neighbourhood itself. While much of the literature about social exclusion and the traditional debate concerning poverty focuses upon the individual and the household, there is a long-established debate about the tendency for social segregation and polarisation within cities. The distribution of low-income households, the elderly, the unemployed, or lone parents, is not even or random but involves significant concentrations in particular parts of cities and regions. Neighbourhoods and populations are not unrelated. Lifestyles and site and situation are linked to each other in a fairly strict way. Identities of people and of places play a significant role, as do choice and lack of choice. In that respect there also are specific relations between neighbourhoods and each of our three target groups, or subgroups. The spatial sifting and sorting of households based on their needs and abilities and on the characteristics of the places they could live in, implies that some places are stronger linked to some households and other places to others. Without having the intention to supergeneralise about these relations, it can be shown that these exist. The concentration of single men in St. Pauli, Hamburg, the almost absence of single parents in Sparkbrook, Birmingham as opposed to the concentration of single mothers in Mmmelmannsbergs, Hamburg and Hoogvliet, Rotterdam can be used as examples. There is a well-established literature discussing the processes, which lead to these population concentrations, and identifying social, economic, demographic and cultural influences. At the same time there has been a growing literature, which discusses how far such concentration effects directly contribute to the experience and process of social exclusion. The review of the literature carried out as part of this study highlighted the fact that much of this literature, with its emphasis on segregation, derives from American experience. The nature and extent of segregation and the processes contributing to segregation in America are very different from Europe. Europe differs from North America in terms of demographic processes, labour market and housing market structures and the nature of state intervention

40

and regulation. Generally, European welfare states are more generous and redistributive than those of North America and patterns of spatial segregation of people with few prospects of improving their situation differ significantly. Although there are concentrations of deprived households in European cities, these concentrations are not as strong as in North America and measures such as segregation indices suggest a very different and less dramatic pattern of concentration. Nevertheless, it is apparent that concentration effects exist in Europe and it seems likely that they have been growing in most cities. For European countries, there is an independent literature, which addresses increasing segregation and the ways in which concentrations of poverty are themselves an important contributor to exclusion. Much of this literature argues that concentrations of deprived households add to the problems and pressures faced by residents and communities and makes the task of combating exclusion more difficult. It is apparent that area-based programmes are increasingly common in the policy approaches adopted in different cities and countries throughout Europe. In addition to the more general welfare state and employment policies developed by countries, area targeting is seen as a necessary complementary element to combat social exclusion. The design of the URBEX research programme was specifically developed in order to enable engagement with debates about concentrations of deprivation, neighbourhood effects and policy responses. The researchers had a specific spatial dimension focusing down from national to city and to neighbourhood levels. The neighbourhoods selected for the research are ones that have high levels of deprivation. They are neighbourhoods which have this in common and which could be expected to demonstrate the way in which a neighbourhood effect impacts on social exclusion. The neighbourhood-oriented discussions centred upon four linked research questions that were derived from the general questions. These are concerned with similarities and differences between deprived neighbourhoods. 1. are neighbourhoods with high concentrations of deprivation essentially similar with similar dynamics, processes and problems? 2. do deprived neighbourhoods fall into different clusters associated with the type of welfare state regime that they are within? 3. do deprived neighbourhoods fall into different clusters associated with their location within the metropolitan area and with their housing markets? 4. do deprived neighbourhoods have distinctive problems and processes associated with unique histories and legacies as well as wider influences? The first of these questions arises from an expectation that we would find enormous similarities between all of the neighbourhoods selected - because they are neighbourhoods with high concentrations of deprivation. The factors underlying this and the processes which emerge as a consequence of this would be very similar. Such a hypothesis would lead towards identification of best practice and the transfer of experience in dealing with similar kinds of problems in different cities and regions within Europe. The second question reflects a key theme in recent urban analysis. It reflects the literature which emphasises the importance of different welfare state regimes for patterns of deprivation and for the experience of households living in deprived neighbourhoods. The explanation for what is going on within neighbourhoods does not solely relate to local and neighbourhood factors. The overall research design for this project explicitly drew attention to the national and city-level impacts on neighbourhoods. While much of the North American literature suggests that global economic change directly leads to increased segregation and polarisation, the European literature has consistently stressed that the extent to which global economic

41

change translates into segregation will be mitigated by a variety of factors. These factors relate to the spheres of integration which have provided the framework for this research. The redistribution activities carried out by the state and the operation of family, kinship and other networks in reciprocity significantly affect how global economic change impacts upon cities, neighbourhoods and households. On this basis we would expect the groupings of deprived neighbourhoods to relate to common or similar welfare regimes rather than to their location or housing market structure. We would expect, for example, those countries which had more corporate welfare state systems to have similar patterns of neighbourhood difference and the experience of households living within these welfare systems would be more similar to one another than they would be to the experience of households living in different types of welfare state systems. Again, the assumption would be that not all deprived neighbourhoods would be the same, but rather than location or housing market system being the key factor in identifying similarities, it would be the national welfare state system or factors associated with reciprocity. The third question, which was built into the design of the study and grows out of the established literature, is that we would not expect all deprived neighbourhoods to have similar patterns and processes associated with them. The existing literature refers, for example, to differences between older, inner city neighbourhoods and peripheral estates. The older neighbourhoods have been affected by major changes in population and in the local economy and have problems of high density housing and dilapidation. The more recently developed peripheral estates are often built to lower densities and include different types of dwelling but experience various problems associated with local economic change, demographic change and housing market change. The design of the research study involved, where appropriate, the selection of an inner city and an outer city location in the cities included in the study and we consciously selected neighbourhoods which generally have different housing markets and housing tenure structures. The inner city neighbourhoods are more likely to be ones of mixed tenure with a proportion of private sector housing, whereas the outer city areas are more likely to have high proportions of public sector housing or to have been developed by the public sector. The underlying hypothesis here is that rather than finding that all deprived estates have similar problems, processes and consequences for people living in them, we would find that such neighbourhoods fall into two or three different categories associated with their location and the structure of the local housing market. We would find that inner city estates in different countries and regions had similar problems and that peripheral estates were also similar. This kind of hypothesis would imply that the differences between deprived neighbourhoods in different locations in one country or one city were greater than the differences between particular types of estates in different countries. The experience of deprivation would be different and where you lived would add to or limit the effects of deprivation. Again, the implications of this for the policy debate and the transferability of experience would be profound. The final question stated above addresses the importance of the specific histories and legacies associated with different neighbourhoods. These may have a much more powerful impact on the characteristics and dynamics of neighbourhoods than any of the elements referred to above: welfare state regimes, location, housing markets. This would suggest that the neighbourhood has a powerful, independent effect. The neighbourhood is not simply the location in which different processes interact, but rather is a location with specific attributes which affect the way in which these other processes interact. The history of the neighbourhood, its past reputation, its association with different waves of migration, of economic change and of residential development all involve the accumulation of influences which impact upon the way in which contemporary processes of economic change, the operation of the welfare state and social relations occur.

42

There is a great danger in research of this type that the methodologies adopted will emphasise difference rather than similarity. Different research teams have different disciplinary backgrounds and work with different assumptions. Their expectations and previous experience influences what they look for and what they see. The inevitable outcome is that different research teams emphasise different factors. In order to reduce this risk, the present research project adopted a design which selected deprived neighbourhoods in particular locations of the city and sought to understand the nature and processes of exclusion in these areas through interviews with similar groups of households. By looking at neighbourhoods and social exclusion through the window of similar types of households we have sought to minimise the extent to which the results of the research reflect differences in preconceptions and approaches. The results of the research have been discussed in terms of key social groups in the population, but we are also able to draw conclusions about neighbourhood effects from these and other data collected through the project. The conclusions that are drawn relate particularly to the hypotheses set out above. The remainder of this section of the report draws together the perspectives on the neighbourhoods which were the subject of study in this project. These are perspectives identified by the research teams which enable us to assess similarities and differences between neighbourhoods. We are not seeking here to quantify similarities and differences but rather to refer to key processes and dimensions of the functioning of neighbourhoods related to the three spheres of integration which underpin the framework for this project. With reference to the questions just stated, we initially refer to a number of key influences and then draw conclusions at a later stage. Welfare regimes As referred to in the discussion above, one of our expectations in this project was that the impact of welfare state regimes would have an important role in mediating between global economic change and consequences at a neighbourhood or small area level. In considering the patterns emerging from the study there is clearly a very strong influence associated with the nature of the welfare state. The existing analysis of welfare state regimes has focussed on their origins and the political coalitions associated with the development of welfare systems. The resulting regime types are often not adequate for the agenda which is being focused upon in this study. For example, the broad regime categories identified by Esping Andersen, and adopted by others, are deficient in two particular ways. Firstly, they are not sufficiently sensitive to some welfare traditions. In Italy, for example, the welfare state may be better categorised as familistic or concerned to maintain and work around the role of the family rather than being classified as corporate and with the implication that it is similar to the corporate regimes in other parts of Europe. In a different way, the welfare state system in the United Kingdom has been argued to be hybrid in its nature. While the social security system, which was the central focus of Esping Andersens analysis, is less generous than elsewhere in Europe and earns the label liberal the nature of state intervention in health, education and housing makes it inappropriate to categorise the British welfare state generally in this way. The second fundamental problem with existing categorisations of the welfare state relates to their treatment of the poorest sections of the community and the poorest neighbourhoods. For the discussion which is central to this research we need a categorisation of welfare state regimes which refers to how they deal with ethnic minorities, new in-migrants, non-citizens, non-family households and others. Rather than how the welfare state treats the mass of the population, we need a categorisation which relates to how the welfare state treats the

43

undeserving poor, poor outsiders or the lowest quartile or quintile in terms of incomes and wealth. We also need a discussion of the welfare state which refers to more than benefits. The conclusions from our research, and taking these points into account, are that the nature and organisation of the welfare state is a fundamental influence upon patterns of neighbourhood difference. Consequently, the initial perspective on the way that neighbourhoods contribute to social exclusion is one which emphasises similarities between neighbourhoods within the same welfare state system. The processes and dynamics within different neighbourhoods, inner and outer, older and newer and so on, are similar. Rather than location in the city or the type of housing market being the determinant or distinguishing factor defining similarity in situations, there is a strong national level welfare state influence. The reason for this emphasis on national welfare state systems rather than the broad brush categorisations of welfare state systems is to do with the limitations of the very generalised accounts of welfare systems and welfare regimes. These have not been designed to serve the purpose of categorisation to explain differences at the level we are concerned with here. Following the discussion above, the welfare state systems in the Netherlands (social democratic), Italy (familistic) and U.K. (hybrid or liberal) are best treated as in separate and distinct categories. Consequently we would expect neighbourhoods affected by these different regimes to differ. It is within the corporate welfare state systems associated with Germany, Belgium and France that we might expect to see similarities between neighbourhoods cross cutting national boundaries. However there are key differences within this group of countries and cities as well: for example, in Paris and increasingly in Berlin there is a working poor which is much more similar to the situations in Britain or Italy than it is to circumstances in Hamburg or in Belgium. The particular impacts of German reunification on Berlin create distinctiveness within the corporate welfare state systems. A further, important example in this context relates to the operation of the educational system. There are considerable neighbourhood variations in relation to the numbers of people who leave the educational system without qualifications. However, the cities fall into two categories which do not relate directly to their welfare state regimes. In these terms the successful educational systems are not just associated with the social democratic regime operating in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, but are also associated with Hamburg, Antwerp, Paris and Milan. The less successful educational regimes are associated with particular neighbourhoods in Berlin, Brussels, London, Birmingham and Naples. What can we say then from this about the relationship between welfare state systems and neighbourhood differences? Firstly, the cities which show the least independent effect deriving from neighbourhood factors are Amsterdam and Rotterdam and the reason for this can be associated with the strength of the welfare state system in the Netherlands. The evidence does not imply that there are no sources of inequality deriving from the neighbourhood, but rather that the strength of the welfare state system sufficiently moderates these differences to mean that they are smaller in their net effect. The combination of generous and inclusive benefits, the national collective wages agreement and a successful educational system means that income inequalities are less and there is no significant working poor in the neighbourhoods that are identified. As well as an effective and generous welfare state system which limits neighbourhood effects there are active area-based policies which appear to be effective for those people whose daily life is strongly attached to the neighbourhood itself. At the same time the way that the welfare state operates does not significantly restrict the mobility of households and the entrapment within particular

44

neighbourhoods arising from the interaction between wages, benefits and housing systems is not marked. In the countries with the least generous benefit systems and the greatest inequality in incomes amongst those in work (Britain and Italy) these factors do not in themselves define the nature of neighbourhood differences. These weaker welfare state systems have different features and the legacy of neighbourhoods means that there is a variation between neighbourhoods within these systems. The implications of this is that although a strong welfare state system minimises neighbourhood difference, a weak welfare state does not have the same effect but rather lends itself to a greater variation in neighbourhood circumstances. Some of this variation is likely to reflect neighbourhood and city-level influences. However, there are some differences which derive from the nature of the national welfare state. Although the social security system in Britain does not provide generous levels of benefit compared with those in other countries in Europe the benefit system is relatively inclusive and with the exception of refugees and asylum seekers, the groups included in the present study were treated in a broadly similar way with access to income support and other means-tested benefits not being affected by citizenship, length of residence or other factors. In contrast in Italy and in many of the corporate welfare state systems in which benefit levels are generally more generous, the treatment of individuals and groups of households among the three categories focused upon in this study varies. Some are entitled to more generous benefits than others. When we look at the corporate welfare state regimes the variation is considerable and the differences within this family of systems is marked. In general these systems do not treat the three groups of households we have focused upon in this study in the same way. There are differences between them in terms of whether there is a low income community in employment, the nature of the educational system, the impact of the welfare state on residential mobility and the extent to which there are area-based policies. The variations within this family of corporate welfare state systems is greater than the similarities within the family. The different experience of neighbourhoods relates more to national policy differences related to welfare and regulation than it does to some over-arching grouping of welfare systems. With the exception of the Netherlands, the welfare state regimes leave considerable scope for neighbourhood variation and suggest that neighbourhood effects have a significant impact. In some systems these are mitigated by area-based policies and other interventions. It is important to note, however, that area-based policies do not have a strong record in terms of compensating for neighbourhood differences. The evidence would suggest that a strong welfare state system which limits the extent of inequality in the first place is the most effective way of limiting the extent to which spatial concentrations of disadvantage add to exclusionary processes. Attempts to compensate once inequalities have emerged through area targeting are not as effective. The economies of cities The cities which have been included in this study differ in a variety of ways. Some are global or world cities or cities with strong international links, some are regional and essentially European cities. Some are cities with a strong history of manufacturing and some of services. Some are in periods of substantial economic growth and others in periods of serious restructuring, especially as manufacturing declines. Finally, some cities have been affected by major political changes and are still experiencing these impacts (Berlin). The nature and dynamics of neighbourhood effects do relate to these broader economic circumstances. There are differences between neighbourhoods affected by the decline of local industries and the restructuring of economies and those which are in more stable service-based economies.

45

These differences then cross-cut welfare state systems or the national welfare systems referred to above. The difference between Birmingham and London or Naples and Milan are the most striking examples of this. Although each of these two cities operates within the same welfare regime, the tensions associated with very different economies, different levels of demand for labour and different levels of affluence are reflected in the dynamics of the neighbourhoods in these cities. In general, the cities included in this study are already ones where their economy is servicebased or the replacement of manufacturing with service employment is well-advanced. Consequently the differences in this respect are not as dramatic as could be expected. At the same time it is also evident that within systems that have considerable inequality a booming city economy does not mean that there will not be concentrations of deprivation. There is no effective trickle-down process that ensures that the effects of economic boom are felt in all neighbourhoods. Again, this is less apparent in the Netherlands where the institutional arrangements which limit inequality are much stronger. Even in the Netherlands, however, there are differences between the circumstances of households in different neighbourhoods and the trickle-down effect is limited. In other cities we have neighbourhoods which appear to be by-passed by the benefits of economic change. Rising unemployment suggests that some of these neighbourhoods are locally disconnected either as a result of locational factors or because of the skills and characteristics of the households within these neighbourhoods. Again, there are also examples of other factors which complicate this, most notably the circumstances applying in Berlin. The overall conclusion from this is that the underlying structure of the city economy and the pattern of change within that economy does impact upon neighbourhoods and neighbourhood processes but that, in this study, we are focusing upon neighbourhoods which are, to some extent, disconnected from the mainstream development of the city economy. Unless the national welfare state regime has limited inequalities we will have neighbourhoods which function as places of residence for people with the least resources and the least bargaining power. The essential conclusion is that irrespective of the trajectory of the citys economy, neighbourhood inequalities increase and are more pronounced. There is also then a process of reinforcement which may occur depending upon the resources available at a neighbourhood level. This reinforcement is most obviously associated with ideas of a downward spiral - that once a neighbourhood begins to serve the function of housing those with most limited resources so the reputation and resources associated with the neighbourhood begins to further limit the opportunities and life chances of households living within it. Location and neighbourhood type As outlined above, an underlying hypothesis in this study was that we would find a pattern in which there were very different processes and resources available in inner city, mixed tenure neighbourhoods compared with peripheral neighbourhoods and those which were largely areas of state or not-for-profit housing. The results of the research do not show any such consistent pattern. The case which appears to conform most neatly to expectations is Birmingham where there are very different processes operating between the older, mixed tenure, inner city neighbourhood of Sparkbrook and the more recently built, peripheral, council housing estate of Pool Farm. The peripheral estate has been affected more dramatically by economic and demographic change and its relative isolation and remoteness from the city centre leaves it with a thinner infrastructure of service provision. Poor public transport and the reputation of the neighbourhood make it unattractive. Whilst Sparkbrook is equally deprived, the research suggests that there is a wider range of opportunities and a greater diversity and choice within the neighbourhood.

46

This pattern, however, is not repeated in other cities. In Berlin, for example, the position almost appears to be reversed. The inner city neighbourhood of Neuklln and the peripheral estate of Marzahn are superficially very similar to Sparkbrook and Pool Farm. Their location and housing tenure structure are similar. However Marzahn is not isolated and remote and disconnected to the same extent that Pool Farm is and Neuklln does not have the same strength of local services and is seen as relatively unattractive. The difference between the two deprived neighbourhoods in Berlin is less striking and to some extent the opportunities and circumstances in Marzahn are superior to those in Neuklln. Marzahn in particular has stronger political support. In Paris the inner city neighbourhood of Montreuil has some similar features to Neuklln. Both areas have a higher turnover than Sparkbrook and are undergoing change more rapidly. However, the standing of Montreuil is improving whereas that of Neuklln is falling and local networks are stronger in Montreuil. Tarwewijk in inner city Rotterdam and Landlust in inner city Amsterdam have similar features to Neuklln although the standing of Landlust is not felt to have fallen to the same extent. The St. Pauli district in inner city Hamburg has a similar pattern although its standing in the city has been rising. Marollen in inner city Brussels is very similar to Montreuil. In Antwerp the Dam district is very similar to Tarwewijk except that the transition and turnover of population is not so marked. The two London estates are predominantly of public sector housing and their circumstances are more similar to the Pool Farm council housing estate in Birmingham. The Mercato Pendino district of Naples is very similar to the Tarwewijk district except that neighbourhood facilities are much more limited and restricted. The entire set of (dis)similarities is summarized in table 6 (see Annexes). What emerges from this is that location and housing market structure are less likely to be the key to differences between neighbourhoods than factors associated with their dynamics. Remoteness can be offset by strong transport links and social housing neighbourhoods, wherever they are located, do not always have weak networks or a thin infrastructure of neighbourhood and community facilities. The institutional thickness associated with neighbourhoods is not a product directly of location or housing market structure and is better understood in terms of the history and legacies of areas and the interaction between a variety of different factors. These include the operation of the housing market and location and connectedness to employment and a variety of facilities but they are not restricted to these factors. They do not determine whether a neighbourhood is likely to be rising or falling in reputation and attractiveness. There are different processes at work in inner city neighbourhoods and in outer city neighbourhoods and the variations between these neighbourhoods are greater than the similarities between them. While some of this relates back to the broader issues discussed in relation to the welfare state, some relate much more to the immediate circumstances of the neighbourhood. They relate to its history and development, patterns of demographic change and migration and the development of facilities within the neighbourhood. A reasonable hypothesis emerging from the URBEX programme is that they also relate to a stage in transition or a life cycle effect. The researchers see the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham as having moved on from a phase as a high turnover transitional neighbourhood towards one which is more stable and where institutions and resources have responded to the characteristics of the population in the area. Other neighbourhoods are at an earlier stage in transition with the changing population structure not yet having generated a significant change in the services and resources available in the neighbourhood. Consequently, in some neighbourhoods there is a greater mismatch between the needs of the community and its services and this mismatch relates to the layering and stages of change rather than to fixed characteristics.

47

These kinds of considerations lead into a much more complex understanding of the trajectories of neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods which may appear to be very similar from a snapshot assessment of them are at different stages in development and the processes of change are very different. The significance of this is brought out by other factors associated with the neighbourhoods. Not all of these neighbourhoods have experienced rising unemployment in recent years. Although they are all deprived neighbourhoods with concentrations of deprivation their immediate history of economic change is different. Similarly, the extent to which they have political support and priority varies. The results of the research highlight a variety of processes which require an appreciation of complex and dynamic processes. These processes are not simply associated with welfare systems, the local economy, location and housing. Other issues which are important in this situation relate to the stage and process of demographic change and particularities of patterns of migration and residence. In Marzahn in Berlin the in-migrant community has strong cultural links and a positive attitude towards the neighbourhood it is living in. There is considerable cultural homogeneity in Pool Farm. The neighbourhood is culturally homogeneous with a very limited non-white British population. However, the neighbourhood is unpopular and unattractive and lacks the strengths apparent in Marzahn. In other neighbourhoods the balance between an ageing population and a younger, incoming population and issues to do with cultural diversity are significant. In Sparkbrook the mixed heritage of a diverse population has begun to be reflected in a diverse pattern of neighbourhood facilities and resources. In Beizegem in Brussels cultural diversity in an outer city estate has not generated the range of voluntary and private sector services that are apparent in Sparkbrook and the infrastructure of community facilities is thin. Some neighbourhoods are particularly affected by declining standards of public services (Berlin, London, Birmingham) and the public transport system fails to prevent spatial mismatches in London, Birmingham and parts of Naples (Scampia), with some problems also apparent in Paris. In considering the different processes and changes affecting neighbourhoods it is important to acknowledge a final element local policy interventions. The nature and extent of such interventions relates directly to political processes in each city and cannot be attributed to other factors referred to above. All of the neighbourhoods included in this study are neighbourhoods which, because of the concentration of poverty in them, are potential targets for policy action. Almost all of the neighbourhoods included in this study are currently being affected by major economic and property development activities. This most commonly includes substantial demolition of existing housing (both neighbourhoods in Rotterdam and Antwerp; La Courneuve in Paris, Scampia in Naples). Both neighbourhoods in Amsterdam were the subject of major restructuring plans and new projects were being introduced in Montreuil in Paris, in Pool Farm in Birmingham, in Mercato Pendino in Naples and in both neighbourhoods in Milan. This level of policy led activity emphasises the extent to which these are neighbourhoods of change and the significance of public policy both in responding to and generating change (see next section). There are important conclusions which emerge from this discussion of factors affecting neighbourhoods. Firstly, that we cannot easily read off from one of the key variables what the nature of the processes and dynamics in the neighbourhood are. It would be inappropriate to assume that all outer estates or all inner estates or all areas with a culturally diverse population and so on have similar processes and dynamics. The combinations of circumstances which determine what is happening in neighbourhoods are much more

48

complex. Secondly, the variety of factors which impinge upon what is happening in the neighbourhoods is considerable.

Urban territorial policies and their effects at the neighbourhood level The aim of the URBEX project was to consider the nature and dynamics of social exclusion and the importance of neighbourhood factors in different European cities. The differences identified are the consequence of a range of demographic, social and economic factors and of policy interventions. Although the URBEX programme did not focus the attention on the analyses of policy interventions, we did carry out a small survey to get insight in the major interventions related to the URBEX theme. The results are presented in URBEX report 21. Here, in this final report, we present a summary of the findings. This contribution offers a commentary on the main thrust of policy development and illustrates major issues and innovations in different cities. Some reference is made to particular policy instruments and changes which indicate the range and types of responses emerging. There are a number of important themes emerging in the new policy approaches adopted in the cities and countries included in the URBEX project. These particularly relate to the development of more integrated approaches to policy planning and service delivery, to new initiatives related to employment and training and to housing and community development. In this summary report examples are referred to under six headings: New strategies for policy integration New Neighbourhood initiatives Economic and Labour Market Policies Restructuring Housing and Residence Community Development Targeting Social Groups

New strategies for Policy Integration The most consistent theme in the new approaches emerging in different cities is the emphasis on better policy co-ordination and integration. The rethinking of policy and the emphasis on greater integration of policy planning and implementation has generated some important interventions at city as well as neighbourhood level. The task for integration differs according to the nature of urban governance. For example the complexity of arrangements in Brussels presents particular problems and new initiatives relate to both education and policing. In 1992 the Federal government decided to create Security contracts with municipalities considered as being at risk. The aim of the programme was to improve police services and to react to the feeling of insecurity. These could be seen as problems of vertical integration - crossing administrative rather than disciplinary or service boundaries. In other cities a less fragmented administrative system means that the focus is more on departmental or disciplinary or service coordination. Other examples relate to both of these dimensions and the general concern is both with spatial boundaries and boundaries associated with disciplines, organisational cultures and finance. The most comprehensive approaches to policy integration exist where this has been identified as a key issue at a citywide level. New approaches in both the Netherlands and Germany are good examples. In the Netherlands the Big Cities Policy has emerged from the general concern about 49

segregation and has involved important innovations. The Policy is both curative and preventative and is designed to improve the physical environment and the quality of urban space, to create more jobs in the city and in specific neighbourhoods, to stimulate the local economy, and to cultivate socially sustainable living environments with residents who want to spend a large part of their lives there. The targets of the Big Cities Policy are the most vulnerable groups in the population including the chronically unemployed, those who suffer from social isolation, ethnic minorities, low-income older people, physically disabled persons, the homeless, drug addicts, ex-psychiatric patients and others. At another level, the policy is concerned with the most vulnerable neighbourhoods in the cities. A neighbourhood approach (wijkaanpak) should lead to long-term economic, physical and social improvements at the local level. The Dutch Big Cities Policy is an integrative policy and departs from previous policies in Covenants agreed between the minister and the cities and the setting of real targets. The most recent covenants, signed on 20 December 1999, are based on development programmes formulated by the cities themselves. The impetus for these new contracts comes from a stipulation that each city should make its own arrangements with the minister. This allows each city to develop the strategy they feel is most appropriate. For example, if drugs are a serious problem, a city might choose to devote more attention (and thus more money) to this issue than to combating unemployment. The policy is to a large degree integrated with urban restructuring policy and has absorbed many policy initiatives that existed already. The Big Cities Policy rests on three pillars: (1) the economy and employment, (2) physical infrastructure and (3) social infrastructure. The agreed covenants include targets for each of the three pillars. The main objective of the Big Cities Policy is to make the cities complete. A city is said to be complete if it has a strong economic, physical and social structure. This definition indicates the range of problems with which cities in the Netherlands have to cope although the aims of the policy are formulated in positive terms rather than in terms of these problems. One of the innovations of this policy is that the cities themselves have a say in the whole policy process, from setting goals to implementing measures. They are even involved in the evaluation of policy and are required to conduct a self-evaluation of its effects. This corresponds with present trends, as deregulation and de-concentration of the powers of central government are the order of the day. A third feature is that no single organisation is in charge; all partners in the process confer, collaborate, and hammer out best practices and best solutions together. The equivalent of the Dutch Big cities Policy in Germany is the national-state programme of Social City. In comparison to other European countries, integrated programmes for disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Germany are relatively new. Only since the first half of the 1990s have some states developed a new orientation in their urban development policy. The focal point has changed from structural improvement measures and the classic tools of social policy towards integrated area-based strategies of development. The pilot programme to fight against poverty in Hamburg influenced this development. The measures of this programme were aimed to improve the living conditions and to develop employment opportunities in disadvantaged areas. Two important innovations were: (1) Finance for the improvement of living conditions was targeted on particular areas. The development of specific area-based measures and the distribution of financial means were based on the results of a scientific report. (2) The programme was realised by intermediary organisations, not by the city administration. This was based on concepts that had been developed in other European countries, especially in the Netherlands, France and Great Britain, where experiences with independent organisations in neighbourhood management

50

already existed. Since 1996, when the council of ministers of the German states started a joint initiative Social City, the approach of integrated area-based policies has been adopted in other regions of Germany as well as Hamburg. In 1999 the government initiated the national-state programme Social City. This could be seen as the beginning of a nationally co-ordinated policy against poverty in Germany. All 16 states have selected a total of 161 neighbourhoods in 123 cities for the implementation of this program. The particular innovation of this programme is the requirement to develop cross-departmental and institutional forms of organisation and co-operation at the national and municipal level. This means two challenges for urban policy: Firstly, financial and personnel resources have to be bundled together to administer an integrated policy, leaving the tight departmental organisation behind. Secondly, this programme has formulated the aim of co-operation with civic organisations; in accordance with the principle of an activating state, the state, semi-state and private organisations work together. In Germany the main tasks of municipal social planning are welfare and help for children and young people. Since the 1990s services for children and young people are increasingly organised through neighbourhood-related planning. Besides the welfare and the youth office, local social policy is carried out and influenced by independent non-profit organisations: following the principal of subsidiarity and ideas to modernise administration, public service tasks are transferred to them and they get municipal funding. In Berlin the impetus and challenge for policy has been further associated with unification. The particular circumstances mean that the main influence on innovation has come from within the city. The approach adopted emphasises urban integration, partnership and contracts fixing priorities for neighbourhood management. The development of contracts and compacts within a city wide framework is a striking feature in different cities. In Flanders (Belgium), following election results in 1995 the new Flemish government appointed its first minister for the cities, making urban revitalisation one of its top five priorities and new legislation to establish a social impulse fund (SIF) linked poverty policy and urban policy. The SIF commenced in 1996 and targets specific neighbourhoods and population groups: young people, unemployed, poor people and ethnic minorities. It involves public authorities (the municipality and the Public Centre for Social Welfare), social partners (labour unions and employers associations), local entrepreneurs and NGOs (migrants organisations, women and youth associations, neighbourhood committees) at regional and local level. It also relates to housing, education, employment, culture and infrastructure. The aim of SIF is to support municipal policy in restoring the quality of urban life and its environment, in combating poverty, and in the promotion of well-being. One innovatory aspect of SIF is an impulse logic. This implies using long-term plans, covenants between the regional and the higher policy levels, and the inclusion into the combating of poverty of all sectors of society. This co-operation between soft and hard sectors is considered to be crucial in realising a structural and inclusive policy. It allows among other things the strengthening or the reconstruction of the economic base of the cities. A key feature of the approach is area development to integrate a structural approach with local action. Long-term policy documents worked out by the municipality form the basis of a covenant with the Flemish government. These policy documents specify the objectives, the specific actions, a time schedule, and directions for measuring results. Obtaining money from the SIF is conditional on a positive evaluation of these documents. In this context the Flemish administration of SIF developed the concept strategic planning involving the analysis of the spatial and social context, a mission statement, strategic objectives such as the formulation of policy results and policy indicators, operational objectives including the formulation of results and indicators at the management level, and a step-to-step plan.

51

After the elections in 1999 in Belgium, the new federal government decided to set up a policy for large cities and created a Commissioner for large cities policy (he became Minister of Economic affairs and kept his responsibilities for urban policy). The aim of the Minister is to propose fiscal measures that would revitalise the inner cities. Meanwhile the urban policy budget is devoted to contracts with the five largest cities (seven central municipalities in Brussels), concerning the improvement of public space (street cleaning, creation of playgrounds, appointment of park guards, creation of neighbourhood centres), the improvement of living conditions (city and neighbourhood stewards and social workers on the street, cultural events and participation), the improvement of security and the strenghtening of local economic activities. The total yearly budget is 38 million Euro and about 30 per cent is allocated to the Brussels municipalities. The largest share is for the purchase and renewal of buildings for the creation of neighbourhood centres. In the UK a succession of policies have consistently emphasised better planning and policy integration. The New Deal for Communities is targeted on a small number of neighbourhoods but the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal involves the establishment of local (local authority level) strategic partnerships and strategies to address neighbourhood differences through main programmes as well as new resources. In the UK central government has been the principal orchestrator of new neighbourhood initiatives - especially through financial provision. A number of area-based initiatives have been associated with particular services (e.g. Health Action Zones, Education Action Zones) and a more general strategy has been developed through the Social Exclusion Unit. The governments current objectives for neighbourhood renewal are set out in the National Strategy Action Plan A New Commitment for Neighbourhood Renewal, published in January 2001. This document identifies five key domains for which Public Service Agreement targets have been defined: Employment and economies; Crime; Education and skills; Health; Poor housing and physical environment. The vehicle for developing an integrated response to neighbourhood renewal (and, more generally, Community Planning) is the Local Strategic Partnership. The development of local partnerships has been a priority of area regeneration policies in England since the early 1990s. Many of the local partnerships established in the past decade were formed in response to resource procurement opportunities (e.g. under the earlier Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)). The Department of Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) has published a number of policy documents, including those for urban regeneration, such as the New Deal for Communities (NDC) which aims to turn around deprived communities through genuine partnership and a recognisable neighbourhood approach. The important policy document Bringing Britain Together the first report of the newly formed Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) published in 1998 provides a number of social economy case studies dealing with problems of poverty and social exclusion. Pertaining to various policies including area-based initiatives like the New Deal for Communities, SRB, Sure Start and the Health, Education and Employment Action Zones this report exemplifies the governments commitment to joined-up thinking. There are examples of more local initiatives drawing on (more limited) local funds. In Birmingham for example the Local Initiative Local Action programme is designed to enable local residents to determine priorities for spending at a ward level. Urban policies in Italy have traditionally been characterised by fragmented, non co-ordinated and voluntary actions. They have, for a long time, mainly been oriented to improving housing

52

conditions without paying attention to the urban externalities linked to social exclusion in more deprived neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, following the European example, the last two decades have seen a major shift in Italian urban policies towards more integrated actions and a variety of interventions. Territorial compacts have developed in Italy with the introduction of Patti territoriali. These pacts involve banks, citizens, interest groups and local entities to support the growth of under-developed areas, mainly at the infrastructure level; a variety of interventions supporting job placement activities or the creation of new jobs, the fight against poverty and social alienation. These involve various ministries including those of Labour, Social Affairs, and the Interior and were also oriented toward training programmes supported and co-financed by FSE (European Social Fund), focused particularly to fight youth unemployment. After 1992, development programmes have involved urban regeneration of abandoned industrial sites and actions to fight social exclusion. These include for example the Programma di riqualificazione urbana (Urban regeneration programme) in 1994; Contratti di quartiere (Neighbourhood contracts) introduced in 1997; Programmi di recupero urbano e sviluppo sostenibile (Urban regeneration and sustainable development programmes) in 1998, Iniziativa comunitaria Urban PIC Italia in the period 1994-1999. The implementation of urban policies is conditioned by the great differences between north and south in relation to urban hardship and decay. The northern cities are still in a de-urbanisation phase and in an acceptable context of socio-economic positive evolution, while the condition of southern cities is characterised by a profound economic, social and infrastructure problems. Among the recent projects of urban renewal in Milan are interventions to increase cultural resources in the peripheral neighbourhoods, through the regeneration of former industrial sites. There has been a shift from the housing policies focus to fight social exclusion towards a more iconographic transformation of Milan in terms of lay out and international image of the city. A number of projects of this kind of urban renewal all follow the plan of integrated interventions for the city provided by the rules of Progetti Strategici DPFER 2000-2002 of Regione Lombardia. The main actions include financing integrated interventions for the renewal of degraded areas, the preservation of monuments and the elimination of urban barriers and the development of a sustainability framework and the realisation of a Permanent Observatory on Unused Areas (Osservatorio permanente sulle aree dismesse). The Observatory aims to contribute to improving the combined work of the local administration through a central census archive. New Neighbourhood Initiatives The new strategic approaches outlined above all place considerable emphasis on the neighbourhood and the need for improved integration of policy at this level. An increased emphasis on neighbourhood is a consistent element in attempts to achieve greater integration of policy. While neighbourhood policies have relatively long histories in the UK, France and the Netherlands they are newer in other countries. Where neighbourhood policies are long established they have generally been revised. In the Netherlands the Big Cities Policy includes an important neighbourhood dimension with intensive contact and co-operation between residents, various government bodies (police, social welfare organisations), housing corporations and local employers. Where neighbourhood approaches have not been well established they involve a considerable change in professional practice. For example planners used to operating at a city wide level may not be at home with the neighbourhood level. In Italy for example the focus of planning has been on new development and there has been limited attention and powers in relation to urban renewal problems. In Naples this has involved a transitory measure to save the remaining non built-up areas until the establishment of a new overall town plan and the intention to set up plans for improving the city. In Italy it is argued that there is still no real

53

national policy able to develop an articulated and co-ordinated strategy of intervention in the urban distressed areas. However the gap between Europe and Italy is diminishing as a result of the work of volunteers associations, municipalities, public agencies and different organisations. Since the early 1990s, Italy has been characterised by institutional innovation and co-operation between public bodies that generated experiment in the regeneration process. The fragmented nature of social policy and lack of co-ordination and planning in Brussels means that many initiatives come from inventive and dynamic private associations, which show a great willingness to struggle against exclusion and poverty. To some extent, their proposals are inserted in policy programmes related different services. For a number of years public bodies have steadily increased their support for projects developed by the associations and the schools. Most of these projects concern the deprived neighbourhoods in the centre of the city where the concentration of poor people, predominantly migrants, are highest. Political changes increased the support for territorial based policies and generated new institutions and associations that could be networked to provide an alternative to the traditional catholic welfare and charity organisations. In addition the departure of the middle class population from Brussels, the deterioration in central neighbourhoods and the failure of the labour migrant integration policy encouraged the development of policies at neighbourhood level. A large spectrum of programmes promotes integration of local communities or disadvantaged people. Most of these policies concern the deprived neighbourhoods in Brussels and consequently they are often directed to young migrant people. In most cases the municipalities are responsible for the implementation of the programmes at the local level but in some cases they have to set up their own policy projects and submit them to the Regional or Federal programme in order to get finance. Many associations and voluntary organisations are working as local partners in policy programmes, and also in submitting proposals to be financed by the regional, federal and even European authorities. The main policy programme set up by the Brussels Capital Region in order to revitalise deprived areas in the city are the neighbourhood contracts (1994). The contracts concern a precise neighbourhood and involve the region, the municipality and the private sector. Each contract runs for four years and aims at revitalising the neighbourhoods through renovation and building of housing and public space. Each contract has five components: the building of housing by the municipality for low budget households; the use of available land for private development of middle class income housing; leasing of part of these dwellings by the municipality and subletting to low income households; improvement of public space and promotion of social and economic integration of the inhabitants in the project. In the first round (1994-1998), six neighbourhoods were selected. Four more neighbourhoods were added in 1997, four again in 1999 and five in 2000. After riots in 1997, the Regional Government reacted with an additional emergency programme called initiative neighbourhoods (1998) and the purpose was to rapidly improve the living environment (improving public space and buildings and creation of neighbourhood facilities). The kind of approach being developed under the national Big Cities Policy in the Netherlands can be illustrated through the Hoogvliet-Noord neighbourhood of Rotterdam. The area is associated with various social problems: high unemployment, a very low education level, low income and employability, empty premises associated with failing shops, unlawful activities (drugs dealing). Against this background the Big Cities Policy provides the framework for an area-based approach called the Strategische Wijkaanpak (Strategic Neighbourhood Approach). This aims at: Creating a better economy in the area

54

Creating better dwellings, not only for people with low incomes Creating a better and safe living environment where children can play Creating a mixed population composition Creating education facilities that give chances for everybody Creating systems of care for all kinds of people who need them Creating a situation in which inhabitants, economic actors, and local policy makers work together to reach the goals that are important for the neighbourhood (coproduction of policy). In addition Hoogvliet-Noord is included in the country-wide pilot project Heel de Buurt (The Whole Neighbourhood) which is running in 10 cities and involves a partnership of housing corporations, the police, social work and inhabitants. The aim is to improve social cohesion in the neighbourhood. In Hoogvliet, five tasks have been formulated in this framework: Improving the participation of young people in all kinds of social activities Improving the participation of ethnic minorities Assisting the relocation of the Brede School (see above) Monitoring the liveability of the neighbourhood during the demolition process Evaluation of market parties in the area (how do they work?) Economic and Labour Market Policies Labour market policies are generally seen to be the key elements which will prevent long term dependency on benefits and ensure that strategies are effective and sustainable. The approach adopted in Germany is typical of a move to more tailored welfare policies. As it has been realised that traditional economic policy could not solve the problems of increasing unemployment, in the last years employment policy has been increasingly transferred from the national level to the municipalities to adapt general programmes and benefits to local contexts and to reach the specific target groups more effectively. On the one hand this means a re-evaluation of the local level, but on the other hand it also means to shuffle off problems caused by unemployment and forces the local authorities to develop their own local solutions. The areas of responsibility are: carrying out and complementary financing of employment schemes, adaptation of programmes to local features, adjustment of municipal educational institutions to the current needs of the labour market and the establishment of a second labour market. Municipal employment companies and offices for planning, co-ordination and consultation, as well as efforts to connect employment and social policies on the local level can be seen as institutional innovations. But this also means that welfare offices are loaded with additional tasks of employment exchange, without being better equipped with financial and personnel resources for this task. Thus, a stronger local focus facilitates employment policies that concentrate on the development of the local workforce and are more oriented towards the needs of local firms. This is also seen as a move from an active to a welfare employment policy. Labour market policy in Hamburg is formed in relation to a number of local labour markets with different types of business and employment. The responses to the specific mixture of services, craft, and industry and the mixture of skills demanded is a tailoring of measures in the interest of local companies and unemployed persons. In this sense, labour market policy is only one element of an over-all strategy that comprises economic support, education policy and neighbourhood development. Local promotion of trade and industry, community development and labour market policy are intended to be more closely linked in the future. Policies take account of structural changes in the labour market involving changes in qualifications demanded and in forms of employment. Local labour market policy is designed to increase the employability of people who are currently unemployed. The approach 55

includes better information about job vacancies, the provision of education outside the work place and opportunities for work experience for unemployed persons. At the centre of labour market policy is the development of a reintegration plan for each unemployed person and job orientation plans to prevent unemployment among young people who have obvious difficulties finding work or work training because of their performance at school. The framework for increased participation of women in gainful labour includes sufficient childcare offers, vocational training and flexible working time models. Measures have also been developed to improve the integration of foreign workers in the labour market. In the UK changes in tax and benefits (including the introduction of the working families tax credit and the National Minimum Wage) have altered the environment for labour market policy, addressing the poverty trap and improving incentives to enter employment. These general changes have been accompanied by targeted New Deal programmes for selected groups including young people and lone parents and a strong individual case work element is included in these. The Department of Social Security (DSS) has sought to reduce long-term dependency on benefits both by altering benefit systems and increasing opportunities for training and employment. Welfare reform has included the Welfare to Work proposals, including the New Deal for the Unemployed (NDU) which involves a recasting of rights and duties and a strong pressure to enter paid employment. Unemployment rates have continued to fall in the UK since the mid 1990s and employment has risen even more rapidly with increasing participation of women in the labour force and an increasing number of two earner households. In Amsterdam labour market and education projects that are area-based (or neighbourhood focused) and integrated (combining different spheres of action) have been a key development and the significance of the approach can be illustrated. Key words of the new approach are case management and area-based. In the old system, clients had to go to the social welfare bureau for their benefits, to the Labour Office for education and work trajectories, and to other agencies for problems such as debt settlement. In the new approach clients can go to one bureau (in their own neighbourhood and not longer outside it) for all these services and have contacts with only one counsellor. Restructuring Housing and Residence The housing dimension is rarely the central element in the new policies emerging in recent years. However it remains an important element in some cities. Naples is the Italian urban territory where the housing problem is most acute. It is the third largest city in Italy in terms of population but the fourth in terms of the number of homes available. In recent decades housing development in Naples has not followed a consistent or clearly designed policy but has been incremental and often guided by emergency considerations and private interests. Housing policy in the Neapolitan area has particularly responded to the effects of the earthquake, the great expansion of illegal occupation (squatting), and the unauthorised construction of houses and flats. In the Netherlands post war housing estates are prominent in recent policy developments. The reason for the government taking action, and formulating a new policy of urban renewal for post war estates, was because of the spatial concentrations of low-income households. The Netherlands Ministry of Housing considered that the only way of preventing low-rent housing districts from becoming low-income areas was by a radical restructuring of the housing stock of these post war estates. Adding more expensive dwellings for higher-income households is regarded as the best response and because these areas have few vacant dwellings, this almost

56

automatically implies removing inexpensive (rented) dwellings. That could involve the demolition, upgrading, or selling off of rented dwellings. The white paper on urban renewal in 1997 (Ministry VROM, 1997) concentrated primarily on urban districts with a high share of social rented dwellings. Housing associations and local governments are becoming increasingly concerned about the future of these districts. In a relaxed housing market the problem is mostly one of being able to let these dwellings. In a tighter housing market, such as the urban areas of Amsterdam and Utrecht, the greatest fear is that these districts will experience an increasing concentration of disadvantaged households. In these districts concern centres on the multi-storey buildings, small dwellings, relatively inexpensive dwellings of austere quality in an environment showing little variety and too often felt to be socially insecure. It can be expected that in the future the restructured districts will house a larger share of households with a middle and probably even a relatively high income. The Ministry of Housing wishes to bring about that effect, although achieving it is far from a foregone conclusion. As an example urban restructuring in the Tarwewijk neighbourhood of Rotterdam aims to achieve more differentiation in the housing stock in order to enable local residents to pursue a housing career within the neighbourhood. Policies in the UK have a similar thrust to those of the Netherlands but a very different background. In the UK the residualisation of social housing and the degree of concentration of lower income households both in social housing estates and in some mixed tenure areas is more pronounced than in the rest of Europe. These areas are also ones where dilapidation and disrepair and the unpopularity of housing are important factors in the role of the neighbourhood. Consequently restructuring the housing sector is a necessary response to failing neighbourhoods. Where the approach in the Netherlands is about prevention of segregation in the UK it is more about rescue and reduction of concentrations of deprivation that have already progressed. Similar elements in terms of social and tenure mix are key features of the approach in these neighbourhoods but compared with previous periods the housing elements in strategies are more strongly supported by a variety of social and economic policies. Issues related to the structure of the housing market have been prominent in Berlin especially because of the reunification of the city. Until the reunification, Berlin had been a divided city with divided urban development policy and planning. In the last ten years Berlin has quickly caught up with the development of other European cities: de-industrialisation, suburbanisation and socio-spatial polarisation are key words. Berlin has developed from two cities to one city. At the beginning of the 1990s Berlin had a high share of rented housing (more than 80%), as well as a high share of publicly assisted housing and relatively low average rents. In WestBerlin rents had been controlled until the end of the 1980s and in East-Berlin rents had been fixed by the government until reunification. After reunification the de-regulation of the housing market started in Berlin as a whole: subsidised housing was largely eliminated and the public-owned housing stock has decreased as rent and allocation control for most subsidised housing has run out and public housing companies have been privatised. Housing policy has concentrated mainly on promoting new housing and the modernisation of the housing stock in the inner-city areas and big housing estates in East-Berlin. The segment of cheap, privately financed housing has diminished (through the renewal of the older housing stock, the annulment of rent control in subsidised housing and the privatisation of public housing), and rents have increased by up to 50%. Besides programmes for renewal of the older housing stock in inner-city areas, inner-city planning work has been developed to support re-urbanising and re-vitalising of the historical centre and the City-West area. The

57

revaluation of inner-city areas caused by these measures initiated a debate in the mid 1990s about the displacement of residents with low income from the inner city, and about the necessity for socially compatible urban planning. As a consequence of this debate about displacement, in 1997 the City Administration for Urban Development, Environment and Technology requested a report about the socio-spatial development of Berlin since the re-unification to identify problematic areas. The report Social Urban Development showed that the main problem is not the displacement of poor groups but their concentration in particular inner-city neighbourhoods. Six inner-city neighbourhoods in the Western part of the city were categorised as particularly problematic areas because there was a high turnover of residents, high shares of migrants, unemployed and welfare dependent households, an increasing out-migration of employed people and families with children and a strong in-migration of new migrants. The report also showed areas at risk in the inner city of East-Berlin and in the big housing estates on the Eastern periphery. The report was concerned that in these areas either former residents would be displaced as a result of renewal and modernisation; or there would be further deterioration of the housing stock and similar processes of out-migration and concentration of poverty, as had occurred in the inner-city areas in the Western part. Big housing estates were also at risk from development because of strong out-migration, even though the expected problems in these areas did not occur after re-unification because of investment in renewal, modernisation and environmental improvements. In contrast to these examples in Belgium changing housing allocation policies has been an important element in new approaches to policy - necessary to demonstrate that the much smaller public housing sector is responding to and meeting need. The possible consequence of this in increasing residualisation is not yet the concern that it is in the Netherlands. Community Development A major element in the policy approaches relating to neighbourhoods with a concentration of problems is developing stronger resident and community involvement. Building stronger links with residents and supporting resident organisations is an important component of the approach developed at a neighbourhood level. In Brussels, in the Dam neighbourhood a Regional Institute for Community Building (RISO) has located several initiatives in the neighbourhood. They run the neighbourhood centre and organise activities like meals and parties. The main aim is to try and bring local residents together, create networks and find common solutions for their common problems. They focus on deprived people, with homework assistance for the children, a mother-group, a hairdresser, a sewing class, and percussion lessons. The Recht-Op project is an organisation for the next generation of poor families, trying to support them on the micro-level through family guidance and group work, and on the macro-level by lobbying for structural amelioration and integration. Community work is working on bigger projects such as the railway yard. The Silvertop complex (the second Antwerp neighbourhood incorporated in the URBEX programme) was the setting for a pilot project around community work and social work. This pioneering work could be done because the housing company was very willing to co-operate. Some of the ideas (like flat surveillance and community workers) are spreading to other complexes as well. Other initiatives in Kiel can be found, like the neighbourhood surveillance, the local city administration, and the neighbourhood development company. The co-ordination is well organised, agreements between the organisations are made in order not to hamper each other and to refer residents to the appropriate address. These projects have focused on the liveability problems of the complex, both in a short and long-term perspective. Maintaining or improving social cohesion is an important aim as well with projects to

58

stimulate and encourage responsibility, communication and social control. Rather than looking for solutions from the housing company, passing over the individual and group responsibility the aim is now for community and social workers to enhance the feeling of belonging and residents own initiative. The housing company and volunteers have cleaned up the cellars and the surroundings, dragging away lots of litter, A better system of garbage collection has been organised, and the greenery was cut back to enhance the feeling of safety. More social control was needed and found through flat surveillance. Residents organisations, intercultural activities, gatherings with the housing company, an annual feast between the blocks are other examples. The area is felt to have changed a lot in these two or three years: the surroundings are far cleaner, regular consultative meetings with the tenants are organised and people are found to participate voluntarily on various initiatives. The tenants can exert more pressure. The dealing and using of drugs has disappeared, due to more control and collaboration with the police. In Amsterdam an initiative called Capabel was set up in 1991 to stimulate the socialisation of all youngsters (0 to 18) growing up in the city district, thereby creating better opportunities for them when they are older. Most youngsters in the city district targeted are of Turkish or Moroccan origin. The focus is on prevention and its approach is longitudinal (duration of 18 years). In the first 4-year-period the focus was on youngsters in the age group 0 to 4, in the second period the focus was on the age group 4 to 8, and currently the focus is on children between 8 and 12 years. In the last phase the focus will be on 12 to 18 year old youngsters. Since 1991 a large number of projects, all related to primary school education in the neighbourhood have been set up. After normal school hours children voluntarily can make use of these projects. The scheme also offers opportunities for parents (e.g. Dutch language courses, health courses, advice child care). Another development is the formation of a Brede School (Broad School). This concept can be characterised as a normal primary school with extra services (not necessarily in the same building). The Brede School is promoted by the national government, but the initiative to set up such schools is the responsibility of local governments. A Brede School is a school that offers more functions than education. The aim is to create an institution that can be seen as the heart of the neighbourhood, accessible not only for children of that school during school hours, but for everybody in the neighbourhood, old and young from 7 in the morning until 10 in the evening. The school, social work and the police participate in this project. The aim is to improve all kinds of social participation in the neighbourhood and to reduce criminality. Targeting Social Groups Most of the new approaches referred to above involve an explicit concern to reach particular sections of the population that are not well served by existing policies. The labour market policies referred to have strong case work elements and are tailored for groups with different needs and resources. However there are other examples of specific targeting. Policies targeting minority ethnic groups are a particularly strong element in Belgium and the Netherlands. In Belgium (Brussels) the fragmentation of governance makes targeting by group more feasible than targeting by area. The Federal level reacted to the first youth riots in Brussels in 1991 by creating an Impetus Fund for Migrant Policy (IMB/FIPI) to improve the integration of immigrants. Schemes to encourage ethnic entrepreneurship and self employment are evident in a number of cities.

59

4.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Conclusions This study has been focusing on three types of socially excluded households and on the modes of integration they apply in their orientations and strategies to include themselves in society. The research was carried out in a multidimensional context framework, in which we considered differences between welfare states, between cities as far as their economic profiles are concerned, and between neighbourhoods that might offer different opportunity structures for their inhabitants. Two aims of our wider research programme received special attention in this summary report. The first aim was to analyse the actual strategies different population categories developed and to confront these strategies with the actual situation in various contexts in which they applied these strategies. The second aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that mixed, inner city neighbourhoods offer better opportunities to poor people than the mono-functional housing estates in the periphery, also considering impacts of different welfare regimes and different economic structures. In this concluding section, we will focus the attention on the most important findings in this regard. In the section on policy implications, the policy relevance of the results will be dealt with. Strategies Three general conclusions refer to each of the three modes of integration we put central in our analyses. First, we noticed that almost everywhere unemployed people could rely on some form of redistribution. Even many illegal immigrants could rely on some form of charity in most cases. However, it is clear that these immigrants had serious problems in trying to get the resources they required, let alone integrate in the urban societies. The general orientation on redistribution however may or may not result in a situation in which one can rely upon that mode of integration. Many countries only provide modest support to those in greatest need. So, frequently people simply had to rely on other modes of integration as well. However, we concluded that generally, the relevance of social networks that are indispensable for reciprocity strategies is reduced due to smaller households and wider spheres of life. That will ultimately drive people to the labour market sphere. We must realise that in situations where redistribution is moderately developed and social networks are dwindling, the labour market is the only mode that can be used to integrate. Then, from time to time, fluctuations in the labour market that can be caused by business cycles or economic restructuring will produce serious problems, which cannot all be solved immediately by education and labour market access. There are also contexts in which the redistribution sphere is well developed. That seems to offer the opportunity not to focus the attention to the labour market sphere too much, even though frequently good opportunities are available, due to moderate unemployment figures. One possible explanation is that many people are state dependent for too long already. A clear relation between the duration of unemployment and thus state dependency on the one hand and inactivity as far as labour market integration is concerned, was proposed as an explanation. From our research, we found some evidence that some people target some modes and because of that deliberately do not target other modes of integration. But we also found evidence that a lot of people rely on all modes together as much as possible. Group specific findings refer to the former guest workers in several cities, who showed us reduced market orientations after economic restructuring; or to the single mothers, many of whom prioritised raising children first and temporary reduced their market orientation; or to the long term unemployed males, who tended to become most isolated socially. A relevant

60

finding though was also that many special situations occurred. Because of that it is extremely difficult to generalise. Careful consideration of different situations and context is clearly required. Neighbourhood impact Frequently, the two neighbourhood types we distinguished were just valued differently, not better or worse. Inner city neighbourhoods tend to be appealing for its social life, close contact to friends, mutual understanding and a we-feeling, without contacting the inhabitants that much. The inner city also offers niches for those who want to (re-) gain access to the labour market, both informal and formal. But the inner city also offers drugs, insecurity and other negatively judged things. Peripheral neighbourhoods, on the other hand, are said to be weak socially, are often stigmatised and seem to express indifference. They also have to deal with problems of drugs and insecurity. However, many people that live there are close to their families (who give support) which was regarded to be most relevant, living in good quality housing, close to the countryside. Many differences that are expressed about the neighbourhoods are also a function of the different household types (more urban versus less urban); many households even those who are not very powerful have been able to match their demand with the available housing supply, both in terms of site and situation. In short, one cannot say that one (mixed, inner city) type of neighbourhood is more favourable than the other (mono-functional housing estate). Instead, each provides different opportunities to different categories of poor people. Inner city neighbourhoods may provide assets for urban oriented immigrants, for example, who find good opportunities there to establish their own businesses. Local available forward and backward linkages that suit their business may be best developed there. But social homogeneity may provide an (temporary) asset for a peripheral neighbourhood. Properly targeted public and private services, as well as social networks for those (the unemployed) who have to rely on the neighbourhood, are all served by some homogeneity. The advantages of such homogeneous situations were reported in Marzahn, Berlin and in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam, for example. It may be true that in cases where groups are relatively more marginal, and welfare provisions (for these groups) are only moderate, neighbourhood characteristics are more important. That may be a reason that (not fully entitled) immigrants in Brussels are better off in the inner city (where more market exchange opportunities are available), as are immigrants and asylum seekers in Birmingham; few of them could be found in the peripheral flats; many could be found in the inner city area, where more diversity may offer better opportunities for those who cannot fully rely on the welfare state. In Naples similar arguments can be given. Policy implications It has become clear from the programme we carried out, that governments should be extremely prudent to accept best practice policies and to implement these policies, which perhaps were successful elsewhere, in their own contexts. The context sensitivity implies that cities and states may learn from other situations, but should be cautious to copy policies. Our general feeling is that a much more differentiated and context-sensitive type of intervention will produce the best results. Self-will may ultimately appear to be the best. When we draw together the evidence from this research to assess the spatial dimensions of urban social exclusion in European cities included in this study, it is evident that there is no single defining characteristic which enables us to group neighbourhoods or generate a

61

typology. The research has confirmed the importance of overall welfare state systems in mitigating the extent of neighbourhood difference and affecting the dynamics of neighbourhoods. But even the strongest welfare state systems do not eliminate neighbourhood difference and booming economies do not prevent widening neighbourhood differentiation. Patterns of neighbourhood difference and the processes of social exclusion associated with neighbourhoods are fundamentally affected by welfare state institutions. The differences between European and North American situations and differences between the countries analysed in this study do relate to the structure of the welfare state. However, a framework based on the characteristics of the welfare state is insufficient to provide the basis for the development of policy responses to social exclusion or insufficiently detailed to enable more than a very broad distinction to be made between different national systems. If we are seeking a finer-grained understanding of differences between neighbourhoods in order to inform more effective policies, we would need to refer to additional factors. Some of the factors which most readily occur, those related to the structure and development of the city economy, those related to the location of neighbourhoods and their housing markets, do not provide the key to understanding or grouping different neighbourhoods. If we assumed that neighbourhoods which are in similar locations or had similar housing markets or were in cities with different economic structures had similar types of problems and would benefit from similar policy interventions, we would be making a serious mistake. We would be treating neighbourhoods which are in the same categories on these variables in the same way even though in terms of much more significant influences on the experience of deprivation they are very different. There would be a temptation, again following the American literature, to subsume these factors under a heading such as social capital. However, there are some grounds for caution in adopting this approach. We need a dynamic concept of social capital taking into account the trajectories of neighbourhood, stages in development and understanding the direction and influences on change. We also need to recognise that the influences which emerge from this study are not all to do with the richness of association, linkages, social relations and social networks. The influences also relate directly to public policy and services such as transport, local educational and leisure facilities, street cleaning and neighbourhood maintenance. They relate also to market processes which are wider than simply inclusion with the labour market but relate to accessibility to the city centre and services and facilities available there and to the availability of local retail shops and services and the price of commodities within these. Some areas are much more richly served by a wide range of low-priced market provision than others. It is not just social networks or not-for-profit services which provide the glue within communities but also the diversity and choice provided within the market. Finally, compared with American cities, the issues around cultural diversity and ethnicity require some further attention. Different ethnic minority groups have different periods of residence and different associations with the country they are living in. There are in some cases language differences, in other cases people are refugees or asylum seekers. All of these imply a diversity within the ethnic minority communities in these cities. While that is also true of American cities, patterns of segregation are not as strong and the politics of race are different. There is a need for further work to understand the particular nature of ethnic diversity and neighbourhood difference in these cities and how processes and patterns differ from those in North America. This takes us into a debate about a complex interaction between a variety of historical and contemporary influences upon the trajectories of different neighbourhoods. The factors that have emerged from the research include issues to do with social networks and the make up of

62

the population in terms of age and cultural diversity and patterns of migration. They also refer to the nature of market provision in employment and in services and facilities. They also refer to the quality and standards and accessibility of public services. The variety of factors involved and the interaction between them means that each of the neighbourhoods considered have important distinctive features. If policies are developed which do not take account of these distinctive features, they are less likely to be effective. There is a danger in conclusions of this type that it appears that we are saying that everywhere is different and there are no patterns which can be observed. While it is important to emphasise that the dynamics and processes and stages of development in these neighbourhoods are different, we are still able to identify some continuities and patterns which are important for policy development. One of the ways of articulating these is in terms of the different elements which put neighbourhoods at risk, or which impose greater disadvantage and risk on households and individuals living within neighbourhoods. We could identify these in the following way: 1. Where these neighbourhoods are within weak welfare state systems they are more likely to involve elements of greater inequality and crisis and there is a greater likelihood that households will have difficulty in coping with the circumstances which are experienced. 2. Where the economy is undergoing major change and transition, perhaps with losses of employment and declining job opportunities there is a greater risk and insecurity experienced in the neighbourhood and by its inhabitants. 3. Where there is a restricted range of market opportunities appropriate for lower income households (employment, retail and other facilities) there is a greater risk associated with a limited range of alternatives for people to cope with deprivation. 4. Where the quality and availability of public sector services, including housing, are limited the risk in an area is increased. 5. Where the strength of social networks and the patterns of support between individuals and families are limited there is a greater risk. None of these factors should be seen in a static sense. One of the key findings of the research is the extent to which we are observing neighbourhoods of change. These are not simply deprived neighbourhoods but are areas which are undergoing adaptation to changing environments. Changes in the welfare state and the quality of public services or changes in the structure of the local economy and employment opportunities have an impact on the development of other services. They may damage the development of those other services or they may facilitate the growth of alternative provision. A key element is the strength of the local adaptation to changing circumstances. How far do neighbourhood and community services develop in response to the needs of the local community? Again, some of this will be influenced by direct intervention by the state or by voluntary organisations, but some relates to local community action. In this context, one of the influences on the development of responses to the changing needs of the local community takes us back to the welfare state and back to area policies and new public policy plans and projects. The emerging questions relate to how far the welfare state is itself adapting to the newly emerging circumstances and needs in particular neighbourhoods and parts of the city.

63

One of the key questions is about how far the welfare state in these cities and the range of policies which have traditionally operated are sufficiently developing and adjusting to the changes which are being experienced. For the cities and countries involved and for the European Union the framework through which discussion of the neighbourhood effects of social exclusion should be developed is less about identifying a typology of neighbourhoods or suggesting that certain policies are appropriate in certain circumstances. It is rather about developing a dialogue around the adaptation and adjustment of a range of institutions, public, private and not-for-profit, to newly emerging combinations of circumstances within the neighbourhoods of European cities. There needs to be a dialogue which is sensitive to a variety of distinctive influences and to cities and neighbourhoods which are at different stages in a process of development and adaptation. Policy interventions which are not sensitive to these differences may become part of the problem rather than the solution and we need a debate about strategies for neighbourhoods in transition and neighbourhoods re-positioning themselves within the city. This involves an agenda concerned with the management of change at a neighbourhood level. The approach needs to be built on an understanding of different trajectories as well as different characteristics and circumstances at one point in time. It also needs to grapple with the distinctive legacies of cities and to include within its remit concerns about different demographic structures. Returning to the original theme of this research project, it is apparent that patterns of deprivation, segregation and polarisation in European cities are different to those in North America and the processes, organisational structures and heritages associated with European cities are very different than those in America. We are talking about increased neighbourhood differentiation within more advanced welfare state systems which have different patterns of demographic change and cultural diversity. A dialogue and exchange of experience between European cities in relation to these issues will help to develop effective context-specific policies and facilitate the transfer of experience where it is relevant and appropriate. In this way it will be possible for the development of policy to be based upon a learning across European cities and neighbourhoods without imposing inappropriate assumptions about types of neighbourhood or precise categories which would benefit from the same policy intervention. The focus is on developing and exchanging experience in managing change in urban neighbourhoods rather than suggesting policy packages deemed to be suitable for all deprived neighbourhoods or for particular categories of neighbourhood. The research carried out under the URBEX programme refers to neighbourhoods and households involved in processes of urban social exclusion. As the other reports from this research programme emphasise, however, particular demographic and social groups including the different unemployed groups targeted in the study - engage with different legal and institutional arrangements in different countries and cities. In particular we have emphasised the different structure of the welfare state in different countries - differences in eligibility for different benefits and differences in the adequacy of these benefits in the long and short term; and differences in the quality of other public services including education, transport and health. The local and national welfare state and the way that it operates is one of the determinants of exclusion and a key influence on the experience, for example, of unemployment. This is of fundamental importance to any discussion of policy responses. The different starting points in policy systems are an important factor influencing policy

64

responses. There are four areas where this is most apparent: Responses which reflect differences in national welfare state regimes and modifications to provide a more effective indirect framework to deal with social exclusion. Some changes (for example the development of measures such as the minimum wage in the UK) involve a levelling up of these arrangements. Responses which reflect differences in systems of governance and the politics of scale. These relate both to the degree of centralisation and the operation of the system of government (and the capacity of local administrations to initiate action) and to the extent and nature of fragmentation of local governance. Responses which reflect particular crises or events which are not evident elsewhere. For example urban disturbances have influenced policy development in most cities but have occurred at different times and focused attention on different issues. In Brussels many of the new programmes developed in the 1990s came as a reaction to an upsurge of social tensions (riots in 1991, 1994 and 1997). In Naples the massive intervention by the public sector in the 1981-91 decade was partly a response to earthquake damage. In Berlin the unification of the city has been a key factor. Responses which reflect differences in local welfare state systems and a fuller development of a neighbourhood dimension to these arrangements where such do not exist. While neighbourhood offices and services have been long established in some systems they are only associated with social work or a limited range of services in others.

These different starting points and the interaction between them mean that it would be surprising to find the same policy developments everywhere. However the discussion above has identified common themes: a concern with better policy integration at different spatial levels; the adoption of contracts and compacts as a flexible, longer term basis for policy which takes account of the priorities identified by different partners in the policy process; new neighbourhood initiatives; and a concern with sustainability reflected in the emphasis on employment, restructuring neighbourhoods and social mix and community development.

These apparent similarities can be misleading. The uneven policy and governance traditions mean that even if the new approaches being developed were the same the outcomes would be very different. In practice the new developments are not the same but continue to reflect political and organisational and other differences. The transferability of experience is not straightforward and there is an unequal concern about issues of segregation and the neighbourhood dimension of social exclusion. Notwithstanding these important differences there is sufficient common ground and sufficient evidence of interest in the same kinds of innovation to suggest scope for a valuable exchange of experience and learning across cities and countries. The wide interest in contracts and compacts has been stimulated by the French system of Contracts de Ville and there is scope for continuing exchange of experience. While 65

considerable research and policy attention has been given to national welfare state systems less attention has been given to the local welfare state and its operation and effectiveness. Yet the innovations identified in this study suggest an important shift towards this level. It is at the local and neighbourhood levels that innovation is most pronounced and there is most advantage in sharing experience. There are a range of important questions related to the politics of scale and equity between territories; the flexibility and accountability of decentralised policy; targeting and tailoring of policy to local needs; issues associated with the level of resources and the capacity to change the trajectories of areas; issues related to minority ethnic groups, young people and community and community development projects; and issues related to the seamless delivery of services. There are also differences in practice and experience related to community involvement and time scales and scope for the comparison and exchange of experience in relation to these. How is the agenda around competitive and successful city economies and the restructuring of neighbourhoods most effectively reconciled with greater involvement of local communities in real choices about the future of areas; and what is the experience of different cities in this respect?

66

5. Dissemination and/or exploitation of the results

Dissemination Reports The URBEX research has been published in a total of 22 reports. The relevant literature and an expos on the theoretical basis have been described in URBEX report nr. 1. The rest of the publications followed the four phases that were involved in the research design: - First, analysing the wider context relating to each city and referring to the development of the city especially in recent years, the operation of the welfare state and how global economic trends and national policies have affected broad patterns of inequality and key social divisions in cities. The results are published in URBEX reports 2-7 (one per country) and summarised in report 8. - Second, the mapping of different dimensions of social exclusion in each of the cities included in the study, including the clarification of concepts and the identification of suitable data for each of the cities involved. These results were also published in URBEX reports 2-7. - Third, in each city, social trends, structures and processes in the selected neighbourhoods were analysed. The major activity, though, was the collection of original information based on interviews with local residents and key actors in order to develop a new understanding of how neighbourhood features and social networks as well as economic restructuring, changing welfare states and changing housing systems affect processes of social exclusion and integration. The focus was on trajectories and strategies of several population categories, which may be labelled at risk in terms of their social position in the urban society (long-term unemployed, unemployed single mothers and unemployed immigrants). On top of the description of trajectories and strategies, and in fact this was one of the key objectives of the study, we focused the attention on the possible impact of the neighbourhood types we just set out on the opportunities of members of the target groups we distinguished to participate in the urban society. The results of the fieldwork described and of the neighbourhood effect analyses that were carried out have been described in eleven city reports - URBEX reports 9-19 - and a summary report of these eleven city reports, URBEX report 20. - Fourth, examining the available evidence about the impact of general and specific local, national and European policies on areas with the greatest concentration of deprivation. The results of this phase have been published in URBEX report 21. Website Right from the start of the URBEX research a website (see: http//www.frw.uva.nl/ame/urbex) was developed at which all project results, as soon as available, were published. In this manner, every phase of the programme from individual country reports and a comparative country report, through city reports and an integrated city report, to a report on policy issues, and a final report could be monitored. Furthermore, the website gives visitors detailed information about the basic ideas of the research project, its targets, its research participants and a picture review of the two neighbourhoods of each of the eleven cities. Especially for the participating researchers a toolbox was available with a timetable, guidelines and information

67

on several meetings that were held during the research period, as well as a draft section where preliminary study results and reports could be examined. So, both public visitors and research participants could (and still can) make use of the URBEX website.

Conference On the 18th of May 2001, an international policy conference was organised in Amsterdam to discuss the URBEX programme results so far and to discuss policy recommendations resulting from the project. The conference was hosted by the Amsterdam Municipality with special support of the Alderman responsible for Big City Policies and was attended by some 150 people, scientists and policy makers from the local to the European policy levels. Alongside international policymakers (such as the Minister of urban development of the city of Hamburg and others from cities and countries that participated in the programme), Dutch policymakers and researchers, and the URBEX researchers, a group of speakers was invited to shed their light over the subject of social exclusion and integration in European cities. The Dutch Ministry of Big Cities Policies presented their views, as did the Mayor of the municipality of Amsterdam. The programme co-ordinator presented the preliminary results of the programme, together with one of the team members, who focused on policy implications in particular. Comments were obtained from outside, since we invited professor Susan Fainstein and professor Jack Burgers to comment upon the programme results from the point of view of an American and a Dutchman respectively. The findings of the conference have been written down in two documents and are also available on the URBEX website. From this website a link is made to the website of the municipality of Amsterdam. Here, visitors can find some additional information about the Conference and the URBEX research.

Mayors house lectures Strongly related to the findings and progress of the URBEX programme were a series of socalled mayor-house-lectures. The municipality of Amsterdam invited members of the URBEX team from Italy, UK and Belgium to lecture about integration policy (approximately 100 people attending each time) and to discuss the ideas with the top of administration, police, ministries and politicians (approximately 25 persons per session) in the mansion of the mayor of Amsterdam. The results of these events were written down as lessons from Milan, Birmingham and Brussels, for Amsterdam. These lessons were drawn by the alderman responsible for urban social integration and by the coordinator of URBEX and put on the website of the municipality: http://www.amsterdam.nl/urbex/. Articles and books Several integrated, comparative publications are produced (reports 8, 20, 21 and this report) and several will be produced. Some of these will be in a book format. Articles in scientific journals will also result from the project. The scientific journals will include major international journals in the spheres of geography, urban studies, housing studies, public policy and economics. These journals have already shown their interest in the new understanding of social exclusion. The reports may also play a role in sectoral policy, for example in the field of housing policy or social policy in Europe, since the participants in this project are in a position to channel the results of the research to local and national policy and planning agencies.

68

Data The project has also generated new data on social exclusion and integration. Not all of the information available has been used so far. In the years to come several team members will continue to work on the data that were gathered. One new initiative has already been taken to keep the group together. The Brussels member of URBEX has gathered funds to bring the group together to try to continue our efforts in the field.

69

6. Acknowledgements and references

Acknowledgements The URBEX team gratefully acknowledges the EU-officials related to the 4th framework programme (TSER), particularly Fadilla Boughanemie, who efficiently and friendly guided our programme through the channels we had to go through. We would also like to thank the board of the municipality of Amsterdam. Mayor and eldermen have played a substantial role in making the final policy conference a success. They also illustrated the policy relevance of the programme, among other things through the organisation of mayor house lectures, and the production of lessons from the participating cities in the URBEX programme, as well as the creation of a website under their umbrella. Finally, the URBEX team would like to thank all those who participated in the programme, via interviews (key-persons, respondents of target groups) or in other ways. The programme could not have been carried out without their contributions.

References Castells, M. (1993) European Cities, the Informational Society and the Global Economy, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 84, 4: 247-57. Commission of the European Communities (1992) The Communitys Battle Against Social Exclusion. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fainstein, S., I. Gordon and M. Harloe (eds.) (1992) Divided cities: New York and London in the contemporary world, Oxford: Blackwell. Hamnett, C. (1994) Social Polarisation in Global Cities: Theory and Evidence. Urban Studies 31, pp. 401-424. Herlyn, U. and Lettko, B. (1991) Armut und Milieu. Basel usw.: Birkhaeuser. Kesteloot, C., H. Meert, P. Mistiaen, S. Savenberg and H. Van der Haegen (1997) De geografische dimensie van de dualisering in de maatschappij, overlevingsstrategien in twee Brusselse wijken. Federale Diensten voor Wetenschappelijke, Technische en Culturele Aangelegenheden, Programma Maatschappelijk Onderzoek. Brussel. Marcuse, P. (1989) Dual city; a muddy metaphor for a quartered city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13, pp. 697-708. Mingione, E. (1993) The New Urban Poverty and the Urban Underclass. Special Issue of the International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 17, 3. Morlicchio E., Cerase F. and Span A. (1991) Disoccupati e disoccupate a Napoli. Napoli: Cuen. Murie, A. and Musterd, S. (1996) Social segregation, housing tenure and social change in Dutch cities in the late 1980s, Urban Studies 3, 495-516. Musterd S., Chr. Kesteloot, A. Murie and W. Ostendorf (1999) Urban Social Exclusion and Modes of Integration; Literature Review. URBEX Series, No. 1 Amsterdam: AME. Musterd, S. and R. van Kempen (2000) The spatial dimensions of urban social exclusion and integration: a European comparison; Comparative Framework Based on Analysis at National and Metropolitan Level. URBEX Series, No. 8, Amsterdam: AME. Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation. New York: Rinehart. Robbins, D. (1992) Social exclusion 1990-1992, The United Kingdom EC Observatory on Policies to Combat Social Exclusion Commission of the European Communities DGV.

70

Room, G. (1992) Second annul report of the European Community Observatory on National Policies to Combat Social Exclusion. Lille: A&R Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Taylor, M. (1995) Unleashing the Potential. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Wilson, W.J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged, the Inner City, the Underclass and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

71

7. Annexes
List of Project Deliverables 1999 Kazepov Y. (1999a) La povert urbana in Italia: modelli, istituzioni e tendenze, in G. Martinotti (a cura di), La dimensione metropolitana: sviluppo e governo della nuova citt, Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 241-271. Kazepov Y. (1999b) La povert a Milano: politiche sociali e metodi dindagine, with D. Benassi and F. Zajczyk, in E. Mingione (ed.) Le sfide dellesclusione: metodi, luoghi, soggetti, Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 83-115. Benassi, D. (1999) La povert a Milano: politiche sociali e metodi dindagine, with Y. Kazepov and F. Zajczyk, in E. Mingione (ed.) Le sfide dellesclusione: metodi, luoghi, soggetti, Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 83-115. 2000 Musterd, S., C. Kesteloot, A. Murie and W. Ostendorf (2000) Urban Social Exclusion and Modes of Integration. Literature Review. URBEX report n0. 1. Amsterdam: AME Ellen de Clercq, Fred Guldentops, Chris Kesteloot, Pascale Mistiaen, Inge van Nieuwenhuyze & Jan Vranken (2000) Comparative statistical analysis at national, metropolitan, local and neighbourhood level. Belgium: Brussels and Antwerp. URBEX report no. 2. Amsterdam: AME. Denise Arbonville, Elise Palomares & Patrick Simon (2000) Comparative statistical analysis at national, metropolitan, local and neighbourhood level. France: Paris. URBEX report no. 3. Amsterdam: AME. Pamela Dorsch, Hartmut Huermann, Andreas Kapphan, Rolf Keim, Martin Kronauer, Claudia Schumann, Ingo Siebert & Berthold Vogel (2000) Comparative statistical analysis at national, metropolitan, local and neighbourhood level. Germany: Berlin and Hamburg. URBEX report no. 4. Amsterdam: AME. Alberta Andreotti, David Benassi, Mauro Bernasconi, Domenico Carbone, Rosanna Costaiola, Elena de Filippo, Catelo Formisano, Yuri Kazepov, Enrica Morlicchio, Stefania Sabatinelli & Mattia Vitello (2000) Comparative statistical analysis at national, metropolitan, local and neighbourhood level. Italy: Milan and Naples. URBEX report no. 5. Amsterdam: AME. Hans Blok, Sjoukje Botman, Ronald van Kempen, Marieke Langemeijer, Sako Musterd & Wim Ostendorf (2000) Comparative statistical analysis at national, metropolitan, local and neighbourhood level. The Netherlands: Amsterdam and Rotterdam. URBEX report no.6 Amsterdam: AME.

72

Justin Beaumont, Chris Hamnett, Peter Lee & Alan Murie (2000) Comparative statistical analysis at national, metropolitan, local and neighbourhood level. United Kingdom: London and Birmingham. URBEX report no.7 Amsterdam: AME. Sako Musterd & Ronald van Kempen (2000) The spatial dimensions of urban social exclusion and integration: a European comparison; comparitive framework based on analysis at national and metropolitan level: Amsterdam, Antwerp, Berlin, Birmingham, Brussels, Hamburg, London, Milan, Naples, Paris and Rotterdam. URBEX report no.8 Amsterdam: AME. 2001 Sako Musterd, Andreas Kapphan, Wim Ostendorf & Hans Blok (2001) Armut und soziale Ausgrenzung in drei Dimensionen; Ein Stadtvergleich von Berlin und Amsterdam. In: Leon Deben & Jacques van de Ven (Hrsg.), Berlin & Amsterdam, pp 258-272

Hans Blok, Sako Musterd & Wim Ostendorf (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. URBEX report no.9 Amsterdam: AME. Inge Van Nieuwenhuyze & Jan Vranken (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Antwerp, Belgium. URBEX report no.10 Amsterdam: AME Pamela Dorsch, Hartmut Huermann, Andreas Kapphan & Ingo Siebert (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Berlin, Germany. URBEX report no.11 Amsterdam: AME Peter Lee, Alan Murie & Riette Oosthuizen (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Birmingham, United kingdom. URBEX report no.12 Amsterdam: AME Fred Guldentops, Pascale Mistiaen & Christian Kesteloot (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Brussels, Belgium. URBEX report no.13 Amsterdam: AME Martin Kronauer, Peter Noller & Berthold Vogel (2001) Spatial dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Hamburg, Germany. URBEX report no.14 Amsterdam: AME Justin Beaumont & Chris Hamnett (2001) Spatial dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of London, United kingdom. URBEX report no.15 Amsterdam: AME Alberta Andreotti & Yuri Kazepov (Eds.) (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Milan, Italy. URBEX report no.16 Amsterdam: AME

73

Enrica Morlicchio (ed.) (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Naples, Italy. URBEX report no.17 Amsterdam: AME Elise Palomares, hakima Rabhi & Patrick Simon (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Paris, France. URBEX report no.18 Amsterdam: AME Sjoukje Botman & Ronald van Kempen (2001) Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. The Case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. URBEX report no.19 Amsterdam: AME Morlicchio, E. (2001a) The unimportance of weak ties and the helplessness of strong ties: two case histories of low-income families living in Naples, 5th Conference of the European Sociological Association, Helsinki, august 28-september 1. Morlicchio, E. (2001b) La dimensione territoriale della povert e la sua rilevanza per l'analisi di genere, paper presented at the conference "Leggere le differenze. percorsi di ricerca per la costruzione di indicatori di genere", Prato, 23rd -24th November. 2002 Sako Musterd & Alan Murie (Eds., 2002) The Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. A comparative report on social exclusion and integration in neighbourhoods in eleven cities in six European countries. URBEX report no. 20, Amsterdam: AME Chris Kesteloot (Ed., 2002) Urban territorial policies and their effects at the neighbourhood level. URBEX report no. 21, Amsterdam: AME Musterd, S. (2002) Response: Mixed Housing Policy: a European (Dutch) Perspective. Housing Studies, 17, 1, pp. 139-143 Andreotti, A. (2002) le reti come vincolo e risorsa. Il caso delle donne in condizione di bisogno economico a Milano, Ph.D thesis, University of Trento, Trento. Benassi, D. (2002) Unanalisi territoriale del disagio sociale: una comparazione tra Milano e Napoli, in: A. Besussi e L. Leonini (a cura di) LEuropa tra societ e politica. Integrazione europea e nuove cittadinanze, Angelo Guerini e associati, Milano, pp. 331-349. Benassi, D. (fc) Welfare e povert a livello locale: implicazioni teoriche e conseguenze metodologiche, in: Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, forthcoming. Benassi, D. (fc) Tra benessere e povert. Sistemi di welfare e traiettorie di impoverimento a Milano e Napoli, Franco Angeli, Milano, forthcoming. Musterd, S. (fc) Urban Segregation, Integration and the Welfare State; on causes and effects in multi-layered contexts. Forthcoming. Musterd, S. (fc) The Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Exclusion and Integration. Forthcoming

74

Training The Urbex results have been used also partly by several scholars of the research team within the Eurex a European Online Seminar taking place since 1998 which involved in the last three years about 80 Ph.D. candidates (e.g. Sako Musterd, Ronald van Kempen, Jan Vranken, Yuri Kazepov, Enrica Morlicchio, Patrick Simon, Hartmut Haeussermann, Chris Kesteloot).

75

Hamburg: Mummelmansberg

Rotterdam: Hoogvliet-Noord

Amsterdam: Osdorp-Midden

Birmingham: Sparkbrook

Naples: Quartieri Spanoli

Birmingham: Pool Farm

London: Ethelred Estate

London: Clapham Park

Rotterdam: Tarwewijk

Milan: Ponte Lambro

Amsterdam: Landlust

Brussels: Beizegem

Paris: La Corneuve

Antwerp: Silvertop

Brussels: Marollen

Hamburg: St.Pauli

Paris : Montreuil

Berlin: Neukolln

National: Welfare State

Type: Liberal, Corporate, Social democratic (L, C, S) Are benefits generous? Are benefits inclusive? (are all 3 groups treated the same) Is there a Working Poor? Is there regulation of the national economy (national collective wages agreement) Do significant numbers of people leave the educational system without qualifications Does your welfare state restrict residential mobility Does the national budget fund area based policies? S Y Y S Y Y S Y Y S Y Y C Y N C Y N C Y N C Y N C Y N C Y N C Y N C Y N C Y N C Y N L N Y L N Y L N Y L N Y L N N L N N L N N L N N

N Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

N Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

N N

N N

N N

N N

Naples: Scampia

Berlin: Marzahn

Antwerp: Dam

Milan: Baggio

Table 6: neighbourhoods classified according to the type of welfare state they belong to,, the type of metropolitan area they belong to and their internal dynamics.

77

Metropolitan Influences
Economic base: Services or Manufacturing (S, M) Is the economy booming or struggling (B, S) Is the population of the city growing? Are the services provided by the city in decline? Does the public transport system prevent spatial mismatches? Does the metropolitan or city budget fund area based policies? S B Y N Y S B Y N Y M S N N Y M S N N Y S S Y N Y S S Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y M B M B S B S B M B M B S B Y S B Y S B Y Y N S B Y Y N M S N Y N M S N Y N Y Y N N S B S B M S M S

78

Neighbourhood Dynamics
Has the standing of the neighbourhood fallen, not changed or risen (F, N, R) Is the neighbourhood Inner or Outer City Is there predominantly public housing or not (P, N) Are there a range of voluntary and private sector neighbourhood services? Is almost all of the housing unpopular? Is the neighbourhood in transition (high turnover)? Is there a thick infrastructure of community facilities? Are local networks becoming stronger or weaker? (S, W) Is the neighbourhood culturally homogeneous or diverse (H, D)? Has unemployment risen in the last ten years? Is the political support for the neighbourhood strong or weak? (S, W) N F F F F N R F R F F F F F F F N F N N R F

I N Y

O P N

I N Y

O P N

I N Y

O P N

I N Y

O P N

I N Y

O P N

I N Y

O P N

I N Y

O P N

I P N

I P N

I N Y

O P N

I N Y

I N Y

I N Y

O P Y

N Y Y

N Y Y

N Y Y

N Y Y

N Y Y

N N Y

N Y Y

N N Y

N Y Y

N Y Y

N N N

N Y N

N N N

N N N

N Y N

N Y N

N N Y

Y Y N

N N N

N N N

N N N

Y Y N

N S

N S

N S

N S

Y W

Y W

N W

Y S

N W

Y W

Y W

Y W

Y W

Y W

N W

N W

N S

N W

N W

N W

Y W

Y W

79

Table 6 continued Are there other major 1 influences on neighbourhood change (see next page) 2 4 5 6 16 17 22

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Big restructuring plans Demolition plans Economic impact of German Unification Process Ibid Succession of major policy initiatives Only recent inclusion in New Deal policy Huge demolition

80