• What are you interested in?

  • En español

  • Learn key terms

    Find definitions for key terms used in this blog in our glossary
  • Do you want more?

    Debates and polls
    Join in current debates in Social Science and vote and check the results of polls about hot topics.

    Talk to the experts
    A space for exchange between the blog's readers and the Social Polis experts. Leave your questions and comments for the authors of the papers.

    Test your knowledge
    Online interactive quizzes to test your knowledge on Social Science.

  • Read the original Social Polis papers

    Social polarisation, the labour market and economic restructuring in Europe: an urban perspective
    Morlicchio and Pratschke

    Housing, Neighbourhood and Health: Research Review
    Cameron, Gilroy and Miciukiewick

    Cities, social cohesion and the environment
    Swyngedouw and Cook

    Towards a research agenda on Governance, Citizenship and Social Cohesion in Cities
    García, Pradel, Eizaguirre, Martínez and Terrones

    Super Diversity, Multiple Identities and Place
    Dukes and Musterd

    If you are interested in reading these papers, contact Social Polis.

  • References

  • Advertisements

LIMITS

Project LIMITS 

‘Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities in European Cities: Life-courses and Quality of Life in a World of Limitations’ (Latcheva et al, 2006)

As regards social cohesion:

Aim

The integration of 6 groups of first generation immigrants from different sending countries into 6 cities in 5 European countries: Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden 

Findings

Housing is a key indicator for:

  • quality of life 
  • integration in the receiving country
  • social cohesion
  • urban tension

Housing quality depends a lot on the quality of housing provision in the receiving country.

The housing situation of immigrants has improved over time (Latcheva et al, 2006).

As regards migration, ethnic diversity and neighbourhoods:

(Latcheva et al, 2006)

Aim

Neighbourhood cohesion and social integration

Findings

FACTORS FAVOURING INTEGRATION FACTORS INHIBITING INTEGRATION(especially women and elderly)
  • KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE RECEIVING COUNTRY
  • INVOLVEMENT IN MIGRANT ORGANISATIONS
  • LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE RECEIVING COUNTRY
  • LACK OF INVOLVEMENT IN MIGRANT ORGANISATIONS
Advertisements

RESTATE

Project RESTATE

As regards social cohesion:

Aim

Peripheries built in large, high-density European states, in the early post war period(van Kempen et al 2005). They have social and physical problems. But… Are they really problematic? Or is it just a question of improving social cohesion? (Rowlands and Dekket, 2006).

Findings

MEASURES TO IMPROVE SOCIAL COHESION are essential. They:  

  • facilitate communication and networking between groups
  • empower residents
  • favour attachment to the neighbourhood and shared identity and
  • above all, promote effective participation of residents in decision making processes

 But they must be accompanied by MEASURES TO REDUCE INEQUALITIES  

And it is important to offer more housing options for a greater housing mix. Because policies which:

  • see concentrations of poverty as a problem
  • promote demolition and gentrification 

 create even more socially diverse populations (Andersson and Musterd, 2005).

As regards migration, ethnic diversity and neighbourhoods:

Aim

Fostering of social cohesion in ethnically-diverse estates

Findings

  • The large, ethnically mixed estates don’t form a single cohesive community but overlapping communities.
  •  Future of social cohesion: mutual respect and democratic inclusion.

Project SOCOHO

Project SOCOHO (2001-2003)

Czasny, 2004

As regards social cohesion:

Aim

Relationship between social cohesion problems and housing systems in 6 European countries:  Austria, France, Spain, UK, Sweden, and The Netherlands

Findings

  • EU housing systems are key to maintain social cohesion
  • Growing neoliberalism has a negative impact on cohesion: increases inequalities

 As regards the fragmentation of neighbourhood bonds:

Aim

Link between housing systems and neighbourhood segregation.

Findings

  • Housing provision systems: decisive influence on social and ethnic segregation between neighbourhoods 
  • Changes in housing systems: intensify tendency towards segregation 
  • Social housing policies that offer poor quality housing to the poor (the lower the rent, the lower the quality) and concentrate poverty encourage segregation Social housing policies that achieve a more balanced social mix encourage cohesion