The Mechanism(s) of Neighbourhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications

Galster, George

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2309-2_2

Cited by 529 publications

(611 citation statements)

References 132 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

576

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, high turnover rates, which were found especially in student and lowincome areas, mean that exposure times in these neighbourhoods tend to be short and that the neighbourhoods do not provide stable environments even for those staying put. High mobility rates mean that neighbourhood transmission mechanisms that require a certain amount of exposure to the same people are less likely to take place (see for instance Bergström, forthcoming;Galster, 2011). The results of this study demonstrate a need for a more sophisticated approach when modelling neighbourhood effects, an approach which explicitly takes neighbourhood sorting (and preferably also turnover rates) into account.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Neighbourhood Choice and Neighbourhood Reproduction

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Although we know a lot about why households choose certain dwellings, we know relatively little about the mechanisms behind their choice of neighbourhood. Most studies of neighbourhood choice only focus on one or two dimensions of neighbourhoods: typically poverty and ethnicity. This paper argues that neighbourhoods have multiple dimensions and that models of neighbourhood choice should take these dimensions into account. We propose the use of a conditional logit model. From this approach we can gain insight into the interaction between individual and neighbourhood characteristics which lead to the choice of a particular neighbourhood over alternative destinations. We use Swedish register data to model neighbourhood choice for all households which moved in the city of Uppsala between 1997 and 2006. Our results show that neighbourhood sorting is a highly structured process where households are very likely to choose neighbourhoods where the neighbourhood population matches their own characteristics. We find that income is the most important driver of the sorting process, although ethnicity and other demographic and socio-economic characteristics play important roles as well.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Neighbourhood Choice and Neighbourhood Reproduction

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of OAs and CATTs for studying Occupational Mobility is consistent with the theories and mechanisms relating to neighbourhood effects. For instance, one of the mechanisms through which context may impact of occupational mobility is through the process of social contagion (for a full discussion of mechanisms see Galster 2012). Social contagion relates to the way in which individuals behave or the attitudes that they adopt, and how this may be changed by contact with people neighbouring their everyday lives.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are many mechanisms through which such concentrations are thought to transmit disadvantage to individuals. In a recent overview, Galster (2012) identified 17 different mechanisms, which could be grouped into four categories: geographical mechanisms which rely on the organisation or distribution of resources or amenities; social interactive mechanisms which rely on the interactions between individuals in local neighbourhood spaces; environmental mechanisms whereby the condition of the local area can influence individual outcomes, especially with respect to health outcomes, and; Institutional mechanisms whereby (non)governmental service providers can exclude people or places from accessing their services.…”

Section: Neighbourhood Effects Selective Mobility and Occupational Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Mobility and Living in Deprived Neighbourhoods: Housing Tenure Differences in ‘Neighbourhood Effects’

Ham

Manley

2014

Appl. Spatial Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on neighbourhood effects suggests that the lack of social mobility of some groups has a spatial dimension. It is thought that those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods are the least likely to achieve upward mobility because of a range of negative neighbourhood effects. Most studies investigating such effects only identify correlations between individual outcomes and their residential environment and do not take into account that selection into neighbourhoods is a non-random mechanism. This paper investigates occupational mobility between 1991 and 2001 for those who were employed in Scotland in 1991 by using unique longitudinal data from Scottish Longitudinal Study (SLS). We add to the existing literature by investigating neighbourhood effects on occupational mobility separately for social renters, private renters and home owners. We find that 'neighbourhood effects' are strongest for home owners, which is an unexpected finding. We argue that the correlation between characteristics of the residential environment and occupational mobility can at least partially be explained by selection effects: homeowners with the least resources, who are least likely to experience upward mobility, are also most likely to sort into the most deprived neighbourhoods. Social housing tenants experience less selective sorting across neighbourhoods as other than market forces are responsible for the neighbourhood sorting mechanism.

show abstract

“…These inequalities are not due to personal choices and are iniquitous. A large body of scientific literature now exists demonstrating that context does impact on health inequalities but open questions remain in particular regarding the underlying mechanisms that lead to health inequalities at the area level 2 . For this reason a series of workshops over the last four years at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF Bielefeld, Germany) brought together researchers representing several disciplines to consider contextual effects on health inequalities, raising challenges and investigating solutions.…”

Section: Contextual Effects On Health Inequalities: a Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%