As regards social cohesion:
Precariousness in 7 cities (Flatley & McIntosh, 2000) and the dynamics which:
- drive households into poverty or
- allow them to resist
- Importance of strong systems of social protection
- Employment is not enough to guarantee social inclusion
- Good housing and safe neighbourhoods: crucial (Bertaux, Boje & McIntosh, 2002).
As regards neighbourhood, social mix and identity (Olagnero et al, 2005):
Neighbourhoods in Ireland (Dublin) and Italy (Turin) may show signs of weak welfare states that rely on family and informal community-based welfare support.
However, there may also be evidence of the effectiveness of this support, undermined by recent social changes (e.g. more women in the labor market)
- Dublin (neighbourhood with concentrated poverty): More social diversity (from gentrification) + new gated communities (for affluent newcomers) –> undermined the existing neighbourhood bonds and systems of support
- Turin: Increasing ethnic diversity and ethnic divisions: undermined the attachment of residents to the neighbourhood
Filed under: Understanding Social Science | Tagged: diversity, Dublin, Finland, France, Helsinki, housing, Ireland, Italy, Lisbon, London, neighbourhood, Portugal, poverty concentration, precariousness, Sweden, Toulouse, Turin, UK, Umeå |