Community development in contemporary ethnic-pluriform neighbourhoods: a critical look at social mixing

Abstract

Many disadvantaged neighbourhoods increasingly face pressures from globalization, modernization and individualization, which have arguably helped to accelerate a decline in local-level social cohesion and social maintenance mechanisms. Many governmental officials, politicians and community development workers consider community development a tool for improving mutual solidarity and social maintenance, leading to improved social cohesion, liveability and safety in these neighbourhoods. Today, 'mixing' strategies are popular tools for linking residents with a different ethnic and/or class background. The assumption is that once people are enabled to mingle, bridging social capital will develop easily. However, in practice, contact between heterogeneous groups and individual residents does not develop spontaneously. Once positive encounters take place, this may lead to the development of mutual trust, which is crucial for the development of successful citizens' initiatives in the Netherlands and elsewhere, a process worthy of more attention from professionals and researchers.

The neighbourhood roots of social cohesion: Notes on an exceptional case of Singapore

“…Thirdly, the social mixing literature is useful for turning our attention to the role of areal policies in creating good outcomes, specifically how having a more diverse set of residents may create the conditions for inter-cultural interaction and the associated effects of social cohesion (Bolt and van Kempen, 2013: 391, 394). Although a policy of social mixing does not automatically lead to the anticipated outcomes (Cole and Goodchild, 2001), Smets’ (2011) research in the Netherlands show the importance of positive encounters in creating social trust and of the role of local initiatives in facilitating such interactions. Following Smets’ (2011) work and in keeping with the goals of social mixing, we include support for multi-ethnic neighbouring as a third variable, along with social trust and a sense of belonging.…”

“…Although a policy of social mixing does not automatically lead to the anticipated outcomes (Cole and Goodchild, 2001), Smets’ (2011) research in the Netherlands show the importance of positive encounters in creating social trust and of the role of local initiatives in facilitating such interactions. Following Smets’ (2011) work and in keeping with the goals of social mixing, we include support for multi-ethnic neighbouring as a third variable, along with social trust and a sense of belonging.…”

“…There is an ongoing concern with ‘transforming governance’ (Healey, 2006: 301), which entails the shift in attention to “the territory as a new focus in public policy”, producing what Meegan and Mitchell (2001: 2177) term as ‘areal targetting of policy’. There is also the idea of social mixing in neighbourhoods defined broadly in terms of income, age and ethnicity (Bolt and van Kempen, 2013; Cole and Goodchild, 2001; Smets, 2011); this literature includes more specific issues with poor areas and the micro economy of such deprived areas (Kährik, 2006; Meegan and Mitchell, 2001); of the elderly, and aging in place (Phillipson et al., 1999; Young et al., 2004).…”

Paradoxes of Studentification: Social Mix versus Gentrification in a Disadvantaged Neighborhood in Amsterdam East

“…In other words, these interventions are expected to have a positive impact on the neighborhood and community, but the connection of the community and neighborhood is more complex. In large urban settings there remains uncertainty regarding the reciprocal influence of neighborhood and community [6,21,22].…”

Editorial - Exclusion and Belonging in Urban Public and Quasi-Public Space

“…One further important aspect of the relationship between exclusion, belonging and public and quasi-public space is how increasing social diversity within cities can potentially lead to competing claims over the use and identity of such spaces [14,15]. Arguably, in order for a livable and pleasant atmosphere in public space, it is important that users of different ethnic origins, class backgrounds, gender and age have a common or partly linked sense of belonging.…”