The Theoretical Basis for Addressing Poverty Through Mixed-Income Development

Abstract

This article examines the theoretical foundations upon which the rationale for mixed-income development as a strategy to confront urban poverty is built. The authors focus on four propositions that draw from theories on social networks, social control, culture and behavior, and the political economy of place. They assess available evidence about the relative importance of the four theoretical propositions. They conclude that the most compelling propositions are those that suggest that some low-income residents may benefit from a higher quality of life through greater informal social control and access to higher quality services. They find less evidence that socioeconomic outcomes for low-income residents may be improved through social interaction, network building, and role modeling.

Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands

“…Jupp (1999) adds that the liveability of neighbourhoods can also be expected to improve by tenure mix, because owners are likely to complain more often to local authorities and to participate in local associations. Unfortunately, these expectations also fail to be supported by empirical evidence (Joseph et al 2007;Uitermark et al 2007).…”

“…Social mixing is expected to lead to a range of positive outcomes, like social cohesion, social mobility opportunities, more social capital, better services, less crime, an improved neighbourhood reputation, and more residential stability (see e.g., Arthurson 2002;Kleinhans 2004;Tunstall 2003). Many of the associations between these outcomes and mixing policy lack a convincing empirical underpinning (Joseph et al 2007), but for the purpose of this paper, we will only focus on the link between social mix and social cohesion. Before we do that, it should be mentioned that social mix is, like social cohesion, a somewhat problematic concept Goodchild and Cole 2001).…”

“…Social cohesion turned out to have evolved more positively in the other neighbourhoods than in the restructuring neighbourhoods. 1 Most studies on neighbourhood diversification examine the degree of social interaction between several groups within the neighbourhood (see Atkinson 2005;Joseph et al 2007;Kleinhans 2004 for an overview). Many researchers have found that renters and owneroccupiers have totally different activity patterns and hardy any contact with each other (see, e.g., Jupp 1999;Van Beckhoven and Van Kempen 2003;Arthurson 2007).…”

Same Neighbourhood … Different Views? A Confrontation of Internal and External Neighbourhood Reputations

“…Displacement of residents can also result in the break down of important social structures in neighbourhoods because many of the existing residents are not able to return to their neighbourhood (Clampet-Lundquist, 2004). The resulting 'forced' new mix of residents can result in tension between old and new residents and to a (further) decline of social cohesion (Van Beckhoven and Van Kempen, 2003;Joseph et al, 2007).…”

Minority Ethnic Groups in the Dutch Housing Market: Spatial Segregation, Relocation Dynamics and Housing Policy

“…Low-income groups (and the members of minority ethnic groups amongst them) are expected to benefit from social mix in several ways (Joseph et al, 2007;Kleinhans, 2004;Uitermark, 2003): 1) Social interaction between residents of different background leads to social mobility; 2) Higher incomes and homeowners may act as positive role models for lower incomes; 3) Social mix leads to an increasing social control; 4) the presences of affluent residents contributes to more collective action and will therefore have a positive effect on the quality of (public) services in the neighbourhood.…”