Voice, exit and efficacy: dealing with perceived neighbourhood decline without moving out

Abstract

Residents of deprived urban neighbourhoods with a changing population often experience an increase in insecurity. If they judge the change as decline, they are likely to become less satisfied with their residential situation and exhibit coping tactics. This paper combines Hirschman's Exit, Voice and Loyalty theory with insights on personal and collective efficacy drawn mainly from the work of Bandura and Sampson in order to describe and interpret three coping tactics: (partly) withdraw, accept and adapt, and show voice. Neighbourhood loyalty can partly explain why residents choose a particular tactic. This loyalty relates to residents' place attachment and local social ties, but can sometimes be more or less forced when it results from of a lack of possibilities to move away. Those who cannot or do not want to move tend to exit by withdrawing from places or people in the neighbourhood. Their coping tactics contribute to feelings of personal efficacy but might harm collective efficacy. Exit-based tactics are often accompanied by a high degree of distrust towards other residents and/or local formal institutions. The more residents deploy exit-based coping tactics and the higher the degree of distrust among residents, the higher the pressure on collective efficacy and social control mechanisms in the neighbourhood.

What makes people stay in or leave shrinking cities? An empirical study from Portugal

“…Place attachment (Brown et al, 2003;Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001), social networks (Coulton et al, 2012;Hospers, 2014) and loyalty to a place, which combines place and social ties (van der Land & Doff, 2010), have been presented as relevant factors. Of importance is individuals' pleasure or gratification connected with their place of residence (Bonaiuto et al, 2003), which renders a sense of residential satisfaction.…”

Should I stay or should I go? Locational decisions and coping strategies of Turkish homeowners in low-income neighbourhoods

“…Researchers have applied the model to actors on the housing market and their behaviour in the light of housing dissatisfaction (e.g. van der Land and Doff, 2010). The decision to stay can be associated with an active component allowing housing satisfaction to be improved without relocation.…”

Students “at Risk”

“…In such cases, educators and others might point to the prevailing statistics of test scores, special needs designation, the high drop-out rates, school disciplinary problems, and lack of parental involvement in their children’s education as evidence that the situation is irreversible (Brown & Parekh, 2010; McKenzie, 2009). Added to this is the reality that many of the youth live in stigmatized, heavily policed, low-income urban neighborhoods populated by a significant number of immigrants with related issues of unemployment, poverty, limited school–community interactions, and negative media reports (Smith, Schneider, & Ruck, 2005; Young, Wood, & Keil, 2011; see also van der Land & Doff, 2010). The circumstances of their parents are seen as evidence of what can be expected for these youth in the future.…”