Arguments For and Against Mixed Community Policies - Coursework Example

Arguments For and Against Mixed Community Policies Introduction The United Kingdom has adopted mixed community approaches in public policy from timeimmemorial, but renewed vigour is evident from 2005. This started after the introduction of the Mixed Community Initiative. It was motivated by the need to improve social services like education and health in highly disadvantaged communities. The Initiative also intended on boosting the population mix in deprived areas so as to enhance opportunities (Lupton and Fuller, 2009). This would also promote economic development by stimulating private sector involvement. Another form of mixed-community policy is evident in the Housing market Renewal project initiated by New Labour. Several arguments have been forward on the potential benefits and dangers of mixed community initiatives. These will be analysed in depth in subsequent sections of the paper. Justifications for mixed communities Perhaps one of the most frequently cited justifications for these policy initiatives is promotion of social cohesion (Bolt et. al., 2010). Authors do not agree on the general definition of the term but allude to the fact that it is a state in which people within a neighbourhood feel connected to each other and have a strong community identity. Theoretically, mixed communities may promote cohesion by placing different social groups in close proximity to one another thus causing them to interact. Kempen and Bolt (2009) explain how the Dutch Housing Minister believed that population compositions affect the capacity to which people can alter their environment through social bonds. Older advocates of mixed communities believe that placing poor people close to more affluent individuals may inspire them to live more orderly lives. They may take advantage of leadership in these areas and thus embrace better education and health guidelines (Sarkissian, 1976). Alternatively, integration can be facilitated by dispersing new immigrants evenly. This causes them to merge into their host communities and promotes the right social mix. Sometimes areas with excessive concentration of certain ethnic communities may possess negative social outcomes. These areas tend to have high crime rates and lawlessness. A number of them may also report low educational performance and poor social-economic results. It may be imperative to disperse such groups in order to minimise the social vices that stem from overconcentration of such marginalised entities (Goetz, 2012). In close association with the above argument is the need to enhance social capital. The latter refers to power or advantage that emanates from one’s social networks. Sometimes members of deprived communities may be too inward-looking. They may have strong bonds among each other but relate little to other social groups. As a consequence, several of them may lack access to information about new opportunities. This hampers their life chances and leads to even greater deprivation. Mixing such individuals with other groups encourages them to access new social capital, which may actually be useful to them (Lupton & Tunstall, 2008). Housing careers are also a key motivation for the policy. Governments implement these strategies in order to promote housing careers. In places like the Netherlands, it is common to find demolitions within areas that have similar social housing blocks. The logic behind this idea is that certain types of housing tend to attract poor individuals from ethnically marginalised communities. If a community is mixed, it may have different types of housing, which may attract more affluent buyers. Instead of exclusive renting, housing careers may be encouraged for residents whose income is increasing and for new, slightly more affluent individuals (Bolt et. al., 2010). Involvement of the private sector and the move towards more neoliberal policies have also been cited as primary motivators for this change. Mixed communities are sometimes created in order to diversify housing (Lupton and Fuller, 2009). This may take the form of a demolition or a sale of council-owned property to private owners or developers. Housing quality and sizes may change and so may their prices (Kleinhans, 2004). This move towards greater privatisation has been common among several western states including the United Kingdom. These nations have revisited social welfare and decided that market-oriented approaches are more appropriate. Neoliberals often assume that welfare housing contradicts market ideals. It prevents cities from maximising the value of their land. Mixed communities in a way legitimise market economies and challenge the very notion of public housing. In countries like the US, several analysts have noted that social housing, as was previously conceived, has been destroyed in favour of market reforms. These proponents believe that social housing traps recipients into a dependency culture, which entrenches poverty even further. Private sector partners have alot to gain from mixed communities, and often support these initiatives (Goetz, 2012). Challenges in mixed communities The above arguments on social cohesion, social capital and housing career promotion seem logical, but rarely yield tangible results in reality. Regeneration of new neighbourhoods tends to disrupt residents and thus reduces the extent of bonding between members of similar social communities. This loss would be acceptable if the result was an overall increase in bonding between members of the host community and new social group. Studies indicate that this rarely happens (Chesire, 2009). Social mobility is a far-fetched goal that does not necessarily emanate from closer proximity to members of different ethnic or social communities. Rhetoric and policy approaches in these initiatives tend to blame ethnic minorities for problems with social cohesion. They claim that new immigrants often self-segregate and thus lack useful exchanges with people from other communities. However, these explanations are only one-sided and tend to place greater primacy on assimilation over multiculturalism. Instead of appreciating ethnic diversity, it appears as though mixed community policies intend on assimilating immigrants. Too much emphasis is being given to ethnic and racial differences while social economic inequalities have been pushed to the side. Therefore, one may argue that the policy could be missing the point behind urban inequalities (Kempen and Bolt, 2009). Some policy makers have failed to realise increases in housing careers, such as the Dutch government. In the latter country, mixed communities were created through urban restructuring. Native communities in targeted areas had to move to other locations in order to allow for the restructures and demolitions to take place. As a result, few of them came back to take advantage of the new opportunities. Therefore, housing careers only benefit outsiders and tend to make it difficult for deprived communities to ever own homes (Cameron, 2006). In fact, some analyses have shown that mixed communities create further segregation instead of minimizing it. This comes from poor affordability of the new structures created (Cameron, 2009). In the United States, for example, African Americans living in the projects had to move to other racially secluded communities after public housing was demolished. They could not participate in ownership schemes due to economic disadvantage. As a result, a number of them went to communities that were similar to the ones they lived. This caused even greater concentration of ethnic minorities in smaller spaces. The middle class appears to be the only victors in this scheme of things. Many of them value diversity but rarely implement it in practice. Mixed community initiatives are characterized by self aggregation within this group. They tend to have more options in housing and continue to leave out poorer communities (Lees, 2008). The policy does not address causation and only window dresses the real problems of poverty in urban communities (Chesire, 2009). Measures of poverty levels in deprived communities have been used as key motivators for mixed community initiatives, yet they only show the symptoms of an even greater problem. In fact the latter author felt that these policies have such little evidence to support their implementation that they may be regarded as faith-based (Chesire, 2009). Conclusion Policy makers need to be cautious about policy intentions and actual policy outcomes in this area of interest. Most mixed communities have not generated greater social mobility, cohesion or even wealth. This is largely because of the flawed assumptions motivating such plans. Spatial arrangements are just one of the manifestations of deeper social and economic challenges among minority communities. To yield better outcomes, the policy should have targeted the underlying factors that caused urban problems like poverty. External issues, outside the control of the targeted group, need to be addressed. Matters of discrimination in housing and education cannot be left out. It is becoming clear that the very problems to be mitigated by mixed community policies have been hidden or augmented by the approach. References Bolt, G., Phillips, D., & Van Kempen, R., 2010. Housing Policy, (De)segregation and Social Mixing: An International Perspective. Housing Studies, 25(2), pp. 129–135. Cameron, S., 2006. From Low Demand to Rising Aspirations: Housing Market Renewal within Regional and Neighbourhood Regeneration Policy. Housing Studies, 21(1), pp. 3–16. Cheshire, P., 2009. Policies for Mixed Communities: Faith-Based Displacement Activity? International Regional Science Review, 32(3), pp. 343–375. Goetz, E. G., 2012. Obsolescence and the Transformation of Public Housing Communities in the US. International Journal of Housing Policy, 12(3), pp. 37–41. Kempen, R., & Bolt, G., 2009. Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(4), pp. 457–475. Kleinhans, R., 2004. Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: A review of recent literature. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19(4), pp. 367–390. Lees, L., 2008. Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance? Urban Studies, 45(12), pp. 2449–2470. Lupton, R., & Fuller, C., 2009. Mixed Communities: A New Approach to Spatially Concentrated Poverty in England. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(4), pp. 1014–1028. Lupton, R., & Tunstall, R,. 2008. Neighbourhood regeneration through mixed communities: a “social justice dilemma”? Journal of Education Policy, 23(2), pp. 105–117. Sarkissian, W., 1976. The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical Review. Urban Studies, 13(3), pp. 231–246. Read More