Neighbourhood Social Mix: Right Diagnosis; Wrong Prescription?

George Galster

Hilberry Professor of Urban Affairs Wayne State UniversityDetroit USA

Presentation at ENHR PlenaryToulouse, FranceJuly 6, 2011

Purposes of Presentation

Analyze:

1. “diagnosis” of social problem thought to justify social mix

2. “prescription” of social mix

Preview of Main Conclusions

There IS strong evidence base (at least in U.S.) to worry on equity and efficiency grounds about spatial concentrations of disadvantaged households

However, “social mix” is complex & caveat-laden prescription to end concentrated disadvantage

Policy Rationale: Equity & Efficiency Goals

EQUITY: Improves absolutely well-being of disadvantaged

EFFICIENCY: Positive-Sum Outcomes for Society (aggregation of disadvantaged + advantaged)

Implies :Pareto Improvements sufficient condition;

Hicks-Kaldor compensation principle necessary condition :

[“$$ winners” > “$$ losers”]

Crucial Feature of Concentrated Disadvantage:Are there Non-Linear Effects?

If rate of social problems grows disproportionately with concentration of disadvantage

a policy that reduces such concentrations can, IN THEORY yield both equity & efficiency gains

What Do U.S. Studies Of Neighbourhood Effects of Concentrated Poverty Tell Us re: Non-Linear?Rate of Social Problems in Neighbourhood

Poverty Rate in Neighbourhood

20% 40%

Evidence from Econometric Studies of Residential Property Values and % Disadvantaged in Neigh.

5 10 20 40

% Poor inNeighborhood

$ Valuesor Rents

0

(not drawn to scale)

OK, So Concentrated Disadvantage is Bad…But what about “Prescription” of Social Mix?” Three crucial caveats

Desired social mix goal unspecified in precise detail

Many program options; each with

different benefits & costs

Potential Inequities for Disadvantaged who may move from current neighborhoods as part of “mixing” process

Social Mix Policy Caveat #1

Desired social mix goal unspecified in precise detail

•Composition

•Concentration

•Scale

Social Mix Policy Caveat #1

•Composition: On what basis(es) are we mixing people: ethnicity, race, religion, immigrant status, income, housing tenure…all, or some of the above?

•Concentration: What is the amount of mixing in question? Which amounts of which groups comprise the ideal mix, or are minimally required to produce the desired outcomes?

•Scale: Over what level(s) of geography should the relevant mix be measured? Does mixing at different spatial scales involve different causal processes and yield different outcomes?

Social Mix Policy Caveat #2

Many program options to achieve mix:

Expand # affordable dwellings in advantaged areas via subsidized units or tenant-based subsidies for market-rate

Expand # up-market rate dwellings in disadvantaged areas

Develop new residential areas as socially mixed neighbourhoods

Social Mix Policy Caveat #3

Potential inequities for Disadvantaged who may move from current neighborhoods as part of “mixing” process:

Loss of “bonding social capital”

Loss of valuable social institutions

Review of Main Conclusions

There IS strong evidence base (at least in U.S.) to worry on equity and efficiency grounds about spatial concentrations of disadvantaged households ; “diagnosis” is valid

However, “social mix” is complex & caveat-laden prescription to end concentrated disadvantage ; perhaps wrong “prescription”

And Remember: Social Mix is Not Enough!

It will take a more comprehensive set of social welfare / human development interventions and supports to provide fair opportunities for all citizens,

…even in a world of perfectly socially

mixed neighborhoods.

Thank you for your comments and questions!

MTO Does Not Reject Neighbourhood Effects!

Little initial exposure to low poverty neighbourhoods far from original ones

Little sustained exposure to low poverty neighbourhoods

Little variation of neighbourhood: % minority, job access, school district

Prior exposure to disadvantaged neighbourhood creates indelible effects

Selection bias of moves after initial random assignment

References

• Galster, G. “Neighborhood Social Mix: Theory, Evidence, and Implications for Policy and Planning,” in Planning as if People Mattered: Looking Back to the Future, edited by Naomi Carmon and Susan Fainstein. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011

• Galster, G. et al. “Does Neighborhood Income Mix Affect Earnings of Adults? New Evidence from Sweden,” Journal of Urban Economics 63 (2008): 858-870.

Galster, G. et al.“The Costs of Concentrated Poverty: Neighborhood Property Markets and the Dynamics of Decline,” pp. 93-113 in N. Retsinas and E. Belsky, eds. Revisiting Rental Housing: Policies, Programs, and Priorities. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst Press, 2008

• Galster, G.“Neighbourhood Social Mix as a Goal of Housing Policy: A Theoretical Analysis.” European Journal of Housing Policy 7(2007), 19-43.

• Galster, G. “Should Policymakers Strive for Neighborhood Social Mix? An Analysis of the Western European Evidence Base,” Housing Studies 22 (no. 4, 2007): 523-546. 

• Friedrichs, Blasius, Galster, “Frontiers of Quantifying Neighbourhood Effects: Introduction,” Housing Studies 22 (no. 5, 2007): 627-636  

• Galster, G. et al. “The Influence of Neighborhood Poverty During Childhood on Fertility, Education and Earnings Outcomes,” Housing Studies 22 (2007): 723-752

•  

Intra- and Extra-Neighbourhood Processes Potentially Related to Social Mix

Intra-Neighbourhood Processes :• Social norms & values• Social control, reduced violence

exposure• Peer effects, role models• Social networks• Relative deprivation, competitionExtra-Neighbourhood Processes:• Job accessibility• Institutional & public service resources• Stigmatisation