1. Social Mix Policies and Research: Finding the ‘Right Balance’
ENHR Toulouse 5-8 July 2011
‘Mixité’: an urban and housing issue?
Mixing people, housing and activities as the urban challenge of the future
Sako Musterd
Urban Geography / Urban Studies
University of Amsterdam

2. The Context Policy assumptions Not new and geographically widespread
Neighbourhood is an isolated key unit
Clear divide between problematic and less problematic areas
Concentration of poverty aggravates problems
Mixing breaks segregation and solves problems
Housing is a key instrument
Not new and geographically widespread
Social mix: outcome or instrument?
Ideological approaches

3. Outline The context Theoretical considerations
Empirical research evidence
Conclusion and Discussion

4. Theoretical considerations; Empirical findings
Macro and managerial; social mix policy …
prevents the development of uncontrollable neighbourhoods and rising segregation
is a conspiracy against the poor: it produces gentrification, favours the affluent and displaces the poor
helps to improve local conditions and service levels
creates negative spill-over effects (displacement)
reduces stigmatisation through social mix
increases stigmatisation through selection of areas
reduces the accumulation of neighbourhood problems
improves neighbourhood liveability

5. Theoretical considerations; Empirical findings
Micro and individual; social mix policy …
helps the poor to realize social mobility through socialisation, role models, peers, and ‘better’ social networks through weak ties
stimulates economic, social and cultural participation and integration
destroys individual’s local social networks
Is in conflict with individual’s behaviour – especially of those who can afford – to sort into relatively homogeneous neighbourhoods
Neglects metropolitan and state level impacts

6. Conclusion and Discussion: What to do?
Do not pathologize the poor and the social housing sector
Consider impacts of demolition and displacement
Consider the potential of structural and institutional factors and interventions at various scales aimed at services delivery (schools) and enhanced individual labour market participation

7. Conclusion and Discussion: What to do?
Avoid cynical attitudes and neglect of potential impact of concentrated poverty; this may produce more segregation and further marginalisation of the poor
Recognise the complexity and reciprocal relations and (social) ties between people, place, space and scale
Address more comprehensive measures of individual and neighbourhood well-being
Avoid centering attention to neighbourhood as a problem and middle-class as a solution

8. Sako Musterd
Urban Geography /Urban Studies
University of Amsterdam

9. Income distribution in the 3 poorest neighbourhoods of the Netherlands
The Hague
Rotterdam
Amsterdam
Lowest quintile
46%
40%
34%
Middle incomes
49%
56%
59%
Highest quintile 5% 4% 7%

10. Deprivation in the 40 programme neighbourhoods, 2007
Population
Households
low-income workers
Persons (aged 15-64) on benefits
Persons (aged 15-64) on Unemployment
benefits
Total NL
16,257,390
7,049,280
4,278,151
1,768,874
311,400
40 selected n’hoods
808,090
408,900
203,939
143,407
21,900
% selected n’hoods compared to NL
4.9
5.8
4.8
8.1
7.0

11. Independent dimensions and which neighbour-hoods?
Source: Van Gent e.a. 2009