mixed-tenure neighbourhoods in london: policy myth or effective device to alleviate deprivation?

Mixed-Tenure Neighbourhoods in London:Policy Myth or Effective Device toAlleviate Deprivation?

SONIA ARBACI and IAN RAE

Abstractijur_1145 451..479

Social and tenure-mixing policies are recurrently deployed as a means to tackle urbandeprivation and reduce social inequalities on both sides of the Atlantic, albeit withoutsound evidence, with policies often resulting in gentrification, social polarizationor dispersal towards peripheral areas. This article explores whether housing-tenure diversification is a device for alleviating deprivation in terms of increasingsocioeconomic opportunities (production) and access to resources (consumption), andempirically contributes to wider debates on inequality, segregation and neighbourhoodeffects. Quantitative and qualitative longitudinal analyses examine the extent to which inGreater London there are greater opportunities and access to resources amongst socialtenants in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods than amongst those in concentrations of socialhousing. Changes in deprivation levels according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation(IMD) are contrasted and unpacked, and correlations between tenure, ethnicity, income,location, neighbourhood affordability and deprivation are investigated. The researchdemonstrates that social tenants do experience differing opportunities and access toresources, but these are not dependent on, or improved by, the level of tenure mix withinthe neighbourhood. Instead, integration of area-based and people-based policy, as wellas decommodified access to welfare services (such as education, training andemployment opportunities), is crucial. Furthermore, the IMD as an evidence base forpolicy formulation is contested and the neighbourhood effects are challenged.

IntroductionConcentration of poverty often ‘reflects economic inequality, it does not cause it. Forcingneighbourhoods to be mixed in social and economic terms is treating the symptoms ofinequality, not the cure’ (Cheshire, 2006: 1241). Notwithstanding this, social and tenuremixing in urban policy are recurrently deployed as a means to alleviate, or prevent, urbandeprivation and reduce social inequality on both sides of the Atlantic (Atkinson andKintrea, 2001; Galster, 2002).

This article aims to contribute empirically to the wider theoretical and political debateon social mixing from a redistributive perspective, rather than a relational one (VanBeckhoven and van Kempen, 2003). Emphasis is placed on inequality of opportunitiesand access to resources within the remit of social mobility and neighbourhood(de-)commodification (Musterd et al., 2003; Cheshire, 2009), rather than on interaction,

A version of this article was presented at the XVII ISA World Congress — RC21 in Gothenburg (2010).The authors are grateful to Tim Butler, Paul White, Nick Phelps, Yvonne Rydin and Pablo Mateos, as wellas the IJURR reviewers, for their comments and valuable time. We also wish to thank the interviewees.

bs_bs_banner

Volume 37.2 March 2013 451–79 International Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchDOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01145.x

© 2012 Urban Research Publications Limited. Published by Blackwell Publishing. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX42DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA

diversity, aspiration, social cohesion and social capital (Wilson, 1987; Fainstein, 2005;Uitermark et al., 2007). It progresses European debates relating to segregation (Musterdet al., 2006; Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2010), rather than gentrification(Lees, 2008; Urban Studies, 2008). The former are particularly equipped to questionthe context-free notion of neighbourhood effects and its instrumental contribution ‘in thebroad debate on area-based policy’ (Lupton, 2003) since they also reposition thediscussion, and thus the solution, at a structural level and within wider welfare debateswhere redistributive arrangements and embedded sources of inequalities can be captured(Musterd, 2005; Arbaci, 2007).

Within the academic arena, mixed-communities discourse is widely regarded as ahegemonic neoliberal project that marks working-class neighbourhoods and areas withconcentrations of social housing as problematic and, as a consequence, justifiesmarketing places for investment through diversification rhetoric (Hackworth, 2007;Lupton and Tunstall, 2008; Darcy, 2010). It is a ‘faith-based policy because there is scantreal evidence that making communities more mixed makes the life chances of the poorany better’ (Cheshire, 2009: 343) and ‘increase[s] the social capital and social cohesionof inner city communities’ (Lees, 2008: 2450). Nonetheless, social mixing is a recurringtheme in the political sphere, ranging from US initiatives such as HOPE VI and MTO tohousing differentiation programmes in the Netherlands, or Contracts de Ville in France.1

In the UK, it remains at the forefront of spatial planning through mixed-tenure policyunder the government’s Sustainable Communities agenda (CLG, 2003), which addressesperceived shortfalls in social cohesion, particularly within large concentrations of socialhousing (Robson et al., 2000). This approach, which considers clustering of minorityethnic groups in concentrations of social housing as problematic, has been furtherlegitimized in the aftermath of the riots in North-England cities in 2001 and the Londonbombings of 2005, amid fears that Britain is ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ (see critiquesin Finney and Simpson, 2009; Hamnett and Butler, 2010).

In the UK, the assumption that diversification of housing tenure can assist in theprevention of a range of socioeconomic problems at the neighbourhood level (JRF, 2005)permeates across scales: in national guidance (CLG, 2006), regional strategies (forexample, the London Plan and the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder) and withinlocal-authority-level policies (Local Development Documents). This assumption isreiterated by the Mixed Community Initiative of 2005, which — in contrast to previousprogrammes (the late-1990s New Deal for Communities or the 1960s Area-BasedInitiative) — promotes an entrepreneurial and instrumental approach to social mixing,furthering the process of re-commodification of public services associated with thedevolution process (Raco, 2008; Watt, 2009). Similarly, the continued London Plandesignation of ‘Regeneration Areas’ to target (that is, to channel funding and initiativesto) the 20% most deprived wards according to the 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation(IMD), assumes that deprivation is not as severe in the remaining 80% of wards, becauseit is not concentrated (Mayor of London, 2009).2

All these planning policies share an area-based approach and prioritize tenurediversification in areas with a concentration of deprivation, often associated with aconcentration of social housing. Whilst resonating from the neighbourhood-effectsassumption, ‘the discourse framing of poor neighbourhoods provides a framework inwhich the obvious solution is not to challenge structural inequalities, but to engage inspatial reordering’ and change individual behaviour (Lupton and Tunstall, 2008: 110).

1 For critical reviews, see, respectively, Housing Studies (1999), Simon (2002), Popkin et al. (2004)and Kling et al. (2007). HOPE VI stands for Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhereand MTO for Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing.

2 The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), published by the UK government in 2004 and 2007,identifies the level of deprivation at a range of spatial scales and based on seven individual domainsof deprivation: income, employment, health, education, barriers, crime and living environment. Eachdomain is formulated upon a wide range of indicators.

452 Sonia Arbaci and Ian Rae

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.2© 2012 Urban Research Publications Limited.

However, there is little evidence to suggest that such a spatial reordering actually tacklesdeprivation, particularly amongst social tenants (Friedrichs et al., 2005; Van Gent et al.,2009; Darcy, 2010). Conversely, rather than moving people across tenures, with the aimof increasing educational and labour market attainment, mixed-tenure policies have oftendriven or led to wider economic transformations of cities, social polarization and state-led gentrification (Allen, 2008; Porter and Shaw, 2009; Urban Studies, 2008).

Nonetheless, the extent to which housing-tenure diversification, or mixed-tenureneighbourhood, is a device for alleviating deprivation needs to be tested, as doesthe question whether social-housing concentration, or concentration of deprivation,constrains residents’ opportunities and access to resources. This article addresses bothissues within the London context and focuses on social tenants through comparativequalitative and quantitative analyses. It employs the IMD indicators utilized by thegovernment as evidence for area-based funding initiatives in deprived areas.

This article compares urban and suburban neighbourhoods in Greater London,starting with quantitative research in Part 1 to explore the extent to which social tenantsin ten mixed-tenure neighbourhoods have greater life chances in terms of opportunitiesand access to resources than those in ten concentrations of social housing. Changes indeprivation levels (IMD, in 2004 and 2007) are contrasted and the seven individualdomains that make up the indices are unpacked, by capturing additional indicators andinvestigating the correlations between tenure, ethnicity, income, location, neighbourhoodaffordability and deprivation in differing residential contexts. Part 2 focuses onqualitative analysis and further socioeconomic profiling of two predominantly social-rent neighbourhoods within Heath ward (Barking and Dagenham) and Peckham ward(Southwark) and two mixed-tenure neighbourhoods within Highbury East ward(Islington) and Woolwich Common ward (Greenwich), which appear to be significant inPart 1. A detailed analysis of these four paradigmatic cases reinforces the variance in therelationships between social tenants and the context of their neighbourhood — includingethnicity, housing progression, neighbourhood affordability, training and employmentopportunities. It demonstrates that social tenants do experience varying socioeconomicopportunities (production) and access to resources (consumption), but these are notdependent on, or improved by, the level of tenure mix within the neighbourhood. Instead,integration of area-based and people-based policy, as well as decommodified access tothe neighbourhood and welfare services, such as education, training and employmentopportunities, is crucial. Furthermore, the IMD as an evidence base for policyformulation is contested and the neighbourhood effects are challenged. Thus, the successof mixed-tenure policy is disputed with reference to these paradigmatic cases, whichindicate that mixing exacerbates inequality and masks deprivation, while showing thatconcentration of social housing facilitates opportunities and access to services, thusimproving life chances.

Shifting discourses and approachesThis article draws upon and explores two related threads of enquiry that are debated insegregation studies: sources of inequality and critiques of neighbourhood effects.

First, the consideration of production of inequality and opportunities for socialmobility expands recent efforts to redirect the debate and interpretation of ‘mixedcommunities’ and ‘concentration of poverty’ to redistributional realms, including(de-)commodification of welfare services and neighbourhoods (Musterd et al., 2003;Beaumont, 2006; Cheshire, 2006; Musterd et al., 2006; Cheshire, 2009). This is ofparamount importance and calls for a radical shift in both policy and theory.

Over the past two decades, under the umbrella of neoliberal agendas and devolutionprocesses, there has been a move from redistributive discourses to relational ones (VanBeckhoven and van Kempen, 2003; Lupton and Tunstall, 2008). ‘Structural problems

Mixed-tenure neighbourhoods in London 453


[have been] individualized and spatialized’ (Darcy, 2010: 5), and policies have thusmoved away from being comprehensive and systemic (redistributive) to focusing onindividual behaviour and problematization of poor neighbourhoods (relational). In otherwords, policy solutions have moved from arranging redistribution of wealth and publicservices across society to improving relations and interactions between individuals andwithin selected places. ‘Purposive aggregation of data [for example, IMD] serves todiscursively construct places and communities as the source of and the solution to socialand economic disadvantage, while binary narratives of community and tokenparticipation practices reinforce the perception that it is the poor tenant households whomust change their behaviour or their residential location in order to secure the promisedbenefits’ (Darcy, 2010: 19).

In academia, this movement has been mirrored by a similar shift from redistributionalto relational perspectives, strongly influenced by USA schools of thought (Wilson,1987; Briggs, 2005; and the ‘Dispersal Consensus’ — see Imbroscio, 2008). Sinceconcentration of disadvantaged households is regarded as having negative effects, themost important delivery vehicles for social equity are sought in the perceived benefits ofdiversity (Fainstein, 2005), individual role models adhering to middle-class norms(Atkinson and Kintrea, 2001: 2278; Friedrichs and Blasius, 2003) and social capitalthrough greater interaction and cohesion (Bagguley and Hussain, 2003; Uitermark et al.,2007). The individuality promoted in these relational approaches has warranted arenewed over-emphasis on spatial reordering interventions.

These discursive strategies, which focus on individuals and places — rather than onstructural arrangements — are historically bound to the devolution process. Givenassociated financial and fiscal constraints, devolved local governments have furtherenforced an entrepreneurial approach in the provision and management of publicservices and social housing (Van Kempen et al., 2005; Lipman, 2008). ‘Local authoritiesare encouraged to . . . create opportunities and conditions for private investment — forexample, by clearing sites for development, or by selling or giving publicly owned landto developers, in return for contributions to development of public housing, infrastructureor facilities’ (Lupton and Tunstall, 2008: 107). Accordingly, diverse forms and degrees ofre-commodification of welfare services and privatization schemes (for example, Rightto Buy, Arm’s Length Management Organization), as well as diversification anddeconcentration programmes in publicly owned land, have been further justified as thepreferred solution (Power, 2007; Raco, 2008; Watt, 2009). The more policies havefostered private provision and welfare services re-commodification, the greater therelational discourse on concentration of deprivation and social housing, framed as athreat resulting from neighbourhood effects, lack of aspirations and lack of individualrole models (Musterd and Andersson, 2005; Hackworth, 2007; Lipman, 2008). Thepolicy instrument turns into tenure mixing and area-based programmes on both sides ofthe Atlantic, based on neighbourhood-effects assumptions.

However, two major corpuses of critiques have emerged in transatlantic gentrificationand segregation debates. Mixing and deconcentration programmes are contested aspromoting polarization and state-led gentrification (Lees, 2008; Urban Studies 2008;Porter and Shaw, 2009; Watt, 2009), whereby the government engages with developersto provide regeneration cooperatively in order to stimulate a larger middle-classhomeownership market for new-build developments (Davidson and Lees, 2005).Concurrently, the narrowing focus on individuals and neighbourhoods is essentiallydiverting attention away from the wider structural causes of poverty and production ofinequality, which instead warrants further enquiry (Beaumont, 2006; Musterd et al., 2006;Arbaci, 2007; Cheshire, 2009). This calls for renewed interest in, for instance, therelationship between inequality and access to welfare services, or rather the(re-)commodification of welfare services and their impact at a local level. In the late 1990s,this relationship was sought within macro-scale perspectives, with particular emphasison housing (Musterd and Ostendorf, 1998). Currently it is explored at a local level,with growing attention to education and training (Butler and Robson, 2003; Burgess



et al., 2005; Journal of Education Policy, 2008) and the notion of neighbourhood(re-)commodification (Cheshire, 2009), which considers the degree of neighbourhoodaffordability — a crucial component of local consumption of wealth and resources.

A second thread of enquiry has recently emerged, given the weight of neighbourhoodeffects in constructing the discourses on mixed community, differentiation anddeconcentration policies. It calls for greater empirical and conceptual scrutiny ofneighbourhood effects from its discourse approach (see the comprehensive review andcritique in Lupton and Tunstall, 2008 and Darcy, 2010) to the scales and dimensions ofpolicy responses (see the multi-level model of neighbourhood effects andmethodological debate in Friedrichs et al., 2005: 5–8; also see Lupton, 2003; Cheshire,2006; 2009). There is a certain ‘circularity’ about the debates — whilst an aggregate ofpoor people define poor areas, researchers question whether there is an ‘additionality’about such aggregates that exacerbates residents’ poverty (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2001:2278).

A recurring debate appears to be whether housing should be viewed fundamentally asan end in itself, or as a means to the greater end of reducing social stratification anddeprivation (Galster, 2002). Most housing-differentiation policies are based on theassumption that there is a correlation between deprivation/opportunity structures andresidential mix (Ostendorf et al., 2001). On the one hand, it is unclear whether mixed-tenure neighbourhoods offer better access to jobs and services, or better opportunities formutual exchange of various goods and services (Kesteloot et al., 2006). Concentrationmight play a significant role in both (Kesteloot and Meert, 1999; Power, 2007). On theother hand, it is argued that (poor) neighbourhoods have limited negative effects onindividual outcomes, since they do not bear any statistical significance on constrainingupward mobility in terms of labour-market prospects, educational achievements andtraining opportunities (on the Netherlands, see Musterd et al., 2003; on the UK, Burgesset al., 2005; Bolster et al., 2007; Kling et al., 2007; on France, Goux and Maurin, 2007;and on the USA, Lipman, 2008). Darcy (2010: 3) states:

Reviews . . . in the UK and . . . in the US found inconsistencies in methods and approach andlack of agreement as to what was being measured [as neighbourhood effects] . . . Lupton(2003) question[s] the extent to which reliable evidence of neighbourhood effects is possible,or even necessary to support policies aimed at income mixing.

Nevertheless, some European scholars view the neighbourhood effects as a Trojanhorse to refocus the debate on social mobility, by questioning whether theneighbourhood plays a greater role than the decommodification of welfare services inproviding or constraining socioeconomic opportunities and access to resources (Musterdet al., 2003; 2006). In other words, they implicitly question whether area-based policiesare more effective than redistributive comprehensive policies in decreasing inequalitiesand providing more equal opportunities for life chances (Van Gent et al., 2009). Thisarticle contributes to this enquiry. There is a clear requirement to set the neighbourhoodin its wider context, thereby recognizing that economic forces may exaggerateneighbourhood problems and that public policies beyond the neighbourhood may havemore influence on people’s lives than specific area-based initiatives (Atkinson andKintrea, 2001). Other policy areas, such as labour and education, ultimately influencehousing mobility as well as socioeconomic segregation (Musterd et al., 1998; Cheshire,2006). Therefore, research should not limit its attention to the question of ‘whether’neighbourhood matters, but begin to tackle the more difficult question of ‘how’ and ‘forwhom’ (Ellen and Turner, 1997).

The focus on socioeconomic opportunities and access to resources is not new. Itfollows the welfare debates of the mid- to late 1990s in segregation and urban studies(Musterd and Ostendorf, 1998) that have now revisited past theoretical sources, such asPolanyi’s theories of ‘modes of socioeconomic integration’ and ‘mixed embeddedness’(Kesteloot and Meert, 1999; Kesteloot et al., 2006), which look at how particular



conditions of market exchange, reciprocity and redistribution provide opportunities andresources for upward social mobility, particularly in concentrated areas.

Overall, both threads of enquiry provide a degree of continuity in their counter-arguments, both redirecting the debate on ‘mixed communities’ and ‘concentration ofpoverty’ to redistributional realms. The attention to mechanisms and programmesredistributing wealth by providing equality of opportunities and access to resources inturn warrants further understanding of the relationship between production of inequalityand re-commodification of welfare pillars (education, health, housing, and so on), givencurrent neoliberal pressures and devolution processes. It is this uneasy relationship thatis at the core of the European academic debate on social mixing (and neighbourhoodeffects), which culminates in the ‘social justice dilemma’ (Lupton and Tunstall, 2008)and the issue of ‘neighbourhood affordability’ (Cheshire, 2009), further contributing tothe re-emerging debate on the ‘right to the city’ (City, 2009; Marcuse et al., 2009).

In light of the above, this article responds to the need for tenure mixing to beempirically tested within the remit of equality of opportunity and neighbourhood(de-)commodification. It seeks to achieve this by narrowing the focus in order to explorethe relationship between diversification of housing tenure and (decreasing) urbandeprivation. Such exploratory work is crucial, since the perceived benefits of mixed-tenure neighbourhoods on their residents’ social and economic opportunities form thedominant assumption underlying mixed-community policies and deconcentrationpolicies on both sides of the Atlantic. However, unlike other strands of policy, such anapproach is not underpinned by sound evidence, and policymakers have little supportingresearch upon which to monitor and review such policies.

MethodologyGreater London is a mosaic of mixed-tenure neighbourhoods, of socially and ethnicallymixed areas, alongside pockets of wealth and poverty (see Figure 1) and spatialconcentrations of social housing (see Figure 2). This occurs within both the inner city(inner London boroughs) and the suburbs (outer London boroughs), where concentrationof owner-occupation may also be found (Hamnett, 2003; Hamnett and Butler, 2010).Such diversity makes Greater London a crucial case study, yet its fine-grained pattern iscomplex to unravel and calls for a neighbourhood-level analysis.

Testing the relationship between tenure diversification and changes in deprivationrequires a longitudinal perspective, which is problematic in nature since it entails severalindicators at differing scales being systematically comparable over time (Friedrichset al., 2005).

The 2004 and 2007 Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (ODPM, 2004; CLG,2008) are employed here, as they were the first (and latest) successive sets of indices tobe set at the same neighbourhood scale that follow the formulation of three layers ofSuper Output Areas (SOAs) to facilitate further analysis of the 2001 census, in whichoutput areas replaced enumeration districts for the first time (see note in Figure 7).The IMD is therefore the only multidimensional tool available to policymakers andresearchers that allows longitudinal comparisons of the same key indicators for the samegeographical units, which inform seven distinct domains (see footnote 2). A detaileddefinition and breakdown of indicators used to inform the IMD are set out in ‘TheEnglish Indices of Deprivation 2007’ (CLG, 2008). Moreover, the IMD has been thegovernment’s favoured tool for measuring the comparative success of policy outcomesand identifying neighbourhoods for investment and renewal (for example, the New Dealfor Communities; London Regeneration Areas), which consider tenure mixing as a keymechanism to achieve improvement (CLG, 2006; Mayor of London, 2009).

However, in this article the IMD is critically deconstructed for the purpose of theresearch, given its inherent contradictions in the construction of people-based indicatorsto measure place-based characteristics, with an absence of tenure-neutral measures (Deas



et al., 2003; Darcy, 2010). On the one hand, changes in the degree and domain ofdeprivation are looked at and related to socioeconomic opportunities (production,i.e. employment and training) and access to resources (consumption, i.e. publicservices, public spaces and amenities, housing affordability), including neighbourhoodaffordability, as an important component of local consumption of wealth and resources(Cheshire, 2009). On the other hand, the IMD is only used as a starting point to constructthe research and identify key case-study neighbourhoods across Greater London, it beingthe tool the government uses to highlight demographic and socioeconomic patterns at theneighbourhood level (albeit through individual/household data across seven domains).In terms of Lower Super Output Area (LSOA), each neighbourhood averages 1,500residents and can be consistently selected across inner and outer London boroughs (seeFigure 7).

Case studies have been identified by isolating the neighbourhoods (at LSOA level)with the greatest tenure mix and those with the highest proportion of social-rentdwellings in the 2001 census. Optimal tenure mix was defined as neighbourhoods withmore than 40% social-rented, more than 40% owner-occupied and more than 15%privately rented households. Proportions of at least 40% social-rented and 40% owner-occupied households were used because this provided a substantial portion of eachtenure type in the neighbourhood without either being dominant. It was also crucial torecognize the importance of the private-rent sector, the specified 15% reflecting the factthat this is the smallest tenure type of the three throughout Greater London (Hamnett andButler, 2010). Only ten neighbourhoods reflected these parameters of optimal tenuremix. These were then compared to the ten neighbourhoods with the highest proportion ofsocial-rented dwellings (see Figure 3).

In order to analyse whether social tenants in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods havegreater opportunities and access to resources than those in concentrations of socialhousing, relationships between tenure, ethnicity and deprivation are examined first.Whilst it is important not to make a simple correlation between ethnic diversity andsocioeconomic deprivation, people from ethnic minority groups often find themselveshoused in the social-rented sector in certain parts of a city (Hamnett, 2003; Beaumont,2006), a pattern that has been increasing in Greater London in the past two decades(Hamnett and Butler, 2010). Debates surrounding the creation of mixed communitieshave an implicitly strong ethnic component, which has been inherited fromneighbourhood-effects theory based on the context of USA ghettos (Wilson, 1987), andmore recently has been embedded in the UK as a result of perceived problems of ethnicsegregation, whereby tenure mixing has been regarded as a policy solution (Robsonet al., 2000; Cantle, 2002; Bagguley and Hussain, 2003). Simultaneously, most Europeancountries have shifted from pluralist models and multicultural policies to new strategiesseeking rapid-assimilation models, particularly within perceived segregated residentialareas (Grillo, 2007; McGhee, 2008; Prime Minister’s Office, 2011). It is thereforeimportant to consider the ethnic dimension in this research and to what extentthe changeable opportunities and resources of different groups are influenced byneighbourhood context.

Part 1 of the research interprets all 20 neighbourhoods in relation to the 2004 IMD,other indicators from 2001 to 2003, and changes in deprivation between 2004 and 2007by unpacking each domain and, where necessary, capturing additional explanatoryindicators. The period 2001 to 2007 was a period of economic stability, with consistentemployment rates nationally and no economic recession, which reduces the impact ofmacro-scale externalities in the interpretation of changes. From Part 1, two mixed-tenureneighbourhoods and two predominantly social-rented neighbourhoods are then selected,based on the perceived significance of their diverging rates of deprivation and populationcomposition, including their ethnic components and inner/outer location. The fourneighbourhoods are shown to be valuable case studies because they mirror differentcontexts across the city, which are complementary in their characteristics. The casestudies are therefore not completely unique and can be considered alongside other



neighbourhoods with comparable characteristics for research or policy-formulationpurposes.

These four neighbourhoods are then explored in more detail in Part 2 usingquantitative and qualitative considerations of their wider neighbourhood context. SincePart 1 is a desk-based high-level study, Part 2 required the development of an in-depthknowledge on the ground in order to mitigate against potential flaws in the IMD and thusmisinterpretations in Part 1. Semi-structured interviews with two managers of socialhousing were therefore conducted in each of the four selected neighbourhoods, inaddition to interviews with a long-term social tenant with active involvement in the localcommunity, thus allowing feedback from managers as well as general assumptions madeabout local context to be validated.3 This was combined with additional literature on thelocal-borough context to develop a more accurate picture. In this sense, the researchdescribed in Part 2 plays a vital role in identifying flaws in the assumptions made in Part1, while also demonstrating the limitations of the IMD and how it can often be aninaccurate measure of relative deprivation and policy success (Darcy, 2010).

In light of the above, the research seeks to move away from the government’sdependence on the IMD as a policy-monitoring tool, given the weaknesses of the indices,which are often accused of ignoring neighbourhood processes (change of population,users of local services) and local context, as deprived places are simply viewed as thesum of deprived people within them (Deas et al., 2003; Darcy, 2010), which can oftenmask deprivation experienced by marginalized residents.

Part 1 — Setting the neighbourhoods: relationshipbetween tenure, ethnicity and deprivationAs outlined in the previous section, mixed-tenure neighbourhoods and socially andethnically mixed areas in Greater London sit alongside pockets of wealth and poverty(see Figure 1) and concentrations of social housing (see Figure 2). Fine-grain andcomplex patterns exist across both inner and outer boroughs.

Correlations between tenure, ethnicity and deprivation are examined at aneighbourhood scale (LSOA, each averaging 1,500 residents), which facilitates analysisof the question whether social tenants in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods have greateropportunities and access to resources than tenants in concentrations of social housing.The ten neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of social-rent dwellings (seeFigure 3, right) and the ten neighbourhoods with the greatest tenure mix (see Figure 3,left) are isolated and contrasted.

Of the ten neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of social-rent dwellings (seeFigure 3, right), six are located in Southwark (inner London). These feature a significantnon-white population, whilst the neighbourhood with the largest white population (87%)is located in Barking and Dagenham (outer London). This suggests a direct relationshipbetween minority ethnic dimension and social-rent stock in inner-Londonneighbourhoods (Hamnett and Butler, 2010).

Of the ten neighbourhoods with the greatest tenure mix (see Figure 3, left), themajority are located in inner London. These feature an ethnically diverse population,except in the City of London, Camden and Islington, which have a significant white

3 A total of 12 semi-structured interviews with key social-housing managers in selectedneighbourhoods were undertaken during the summer of 2008. Two managers for those agenciesshown in italics were interviewed, as well as one active long-term tenant for each neighbourhood: (1)Barking and Dagenham (10, Heath ward): London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; (2) Southwark(9, Peckham ward): Hyde Housing Association, Family Housing Association, Southwark and LondonDiocesan, New World Housing Association, Presentation Housing Association; (3) Islington (17,Highbury East ward): Family Mosaic Housing, London Borough of Islington; (4) Greenwich (19,Woolwich Common ward): London and Quadrant Housing Trust, Hyde Housing Association.



population (78%), despite the presence of social-rent stock (above 40%) and a diversepopulation across the wider borough. Therefore, there is no obvious link betweenethnicity and tenure, but there is a spatial relationship between tenure mix and proximityto inner London.

As previously discussed, there is an assumption that concentration of social housingis correlated to concentration of poverty, and that such aggregation of deprivationconstrains opportunities for life chances. This assumption can be examined bycomparing changes in the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for 2004 to 2007 within

Figure 1 Distribution of deprivation, Greater London Authority 2007 IMD, by wards(source: CLG, 2008)

Figure 2 Distribution of social-rent stock, 2001, by wards (sources: 2001 census, as quotedin Mayor of London, 2008)



Degree of Deprivation ( IMD scores,0 - 100 )

IMD

sco

re

soci

al-r

ent s

tock

(% o

f tot

al h

ousi

ng s

tock

)

9878

14

SO

CIA

L-R

EN

T N

EIG

HB

OU

RH

OO

DS

MIX

ED

TE

NU

RE

NE

IGH

BO

UR

HO

OD

S

889

04

240

0303545 40505560

Sw1

Gw

2

Sw3

Sw4

Sw5

Ls6Sw

7

Gw

8

Sw9

BD10

Hc1

1

Ls12

Cm

13

Br14

Gw

15

15

CL1

6

Is17

Nw

18

Lb19

Nw

20

43

O

uter

Lon

don

BD

- Bar

king

&

Dag

enha

m

Br

- Bar

net

Gw

- Gre

enw

ich

Inn

er L

ondo

n

CL

- City

of L

ondo

n

Cm

- Cam

den

Hc

- Hac

kney

Is- I

slin

gton

Lb

- L

ambe

th

Ls

- Lew

isha

m

Nw

- New

ham

Sw

- Sou

thw

ark

% o

f n

on

-wh

ite

po

pu

lati

on

:

0 - 3

0%

30 -

50%

50 -

65%

nei

gh

bo

urh

oo

ds:

2004

2007

2007

chan

ges

in IM

D:

%

65 -

75%

No

te:

Po

siti

vefi

gu

res

ind

icat

ean

incr

ease

ind

epri

vati

on

.Eac

hn

eig

hb

ou

rho

od

nu

mb

erco

rres

po

nd

sto

anL

SO

Aco

de

(see

Fig

ure

7)

Fig

ure

3M

ixed

-ten

ure

nei

gh

bo

urh

oo

ds

and

soci

al-r

ent

nei

gh

bo

urh

oo

ds

com

par

ed:d

egre

eo

fd

epri

vati

on

(IM

Dsc

ore

20

04

and

20

07

),so

cial

ho

usi

ng

sto

ck(%

)an

dn

on

-wh

ite

po

pu

lati

on

(%)

(so

urc

es:

gra

ph

com

pile

dan

dca

lcu

late

db

yau

tho

r,b

ased

on

dat

afr

om

ON

S,2

00

1:T

able

sU

V0

9an

dU

V6

3;

OD

PM

,20

04

;CL

G,2

00

8)



the 20 neighbourhoods. A reduction in IMD is assumed to suggest an increase in(equality of) opportunities and resources, since it should measure an improvement in thedomain of employment, education, health, and so forth.

IMD in social-rent neighbourhoods

When comparing the degree of deprivation and changes therein between 2004 and 2007(Figure 3, right, and Table 1), the neighbourhoods with large concentrations of social-rent dwellings score a high IMD. These areas appear to be amongst the most deprivedneighbourhoods, not only in London, but in the country. However, there has been nouniform pattern of decline between 2004 and 2007, thus indicating possible opportunitiesfor improvement in social-housing neighbourhoods. In fact, a mixed picture is emerging.

Many of the neighbourhoods deemed to have suffered from multiple deprivation in the2004 indices have become progressively more socioeconomically marginalized in the 3years that followed. For example, Lewisham (6) experienced a significant increase inIMD by 18%. The neighbourhoods in Barking and Dagenham (10), Greenwich (2 and 8)and Southwark (3) all experienced an increase in scores for the overall IMD, withBarking and Dagenham (10) now the most deprived of all 20 neighbourhoods selectedfor this study (see Figure 4). These also have the largest white population of all 20neighbourhoods (see Figure 7). This case warrants further analysis, especially as theseare among the poorest parts of Greater London and have suffered as a result of thedecline of their traditional manufacturing base (Goodwin, 2008).

Conversely, five of the ten social-rent neighbourhoods actually experiencedreductions in IMD scores (between 2004 and 2007). These are all located in Southwark,and in some cases (1 and 9) the IMD scores dropped by more than 10%, so that theybecame less deprived than several of the mixed-tenure neighbourhoods studied.Interestingly, these Southwark neighbourhoods have the largest non-white population ofall 20 neighbourhoods. This suggests not only that there is no correlation betweenethnicity and IMD changes, but also that other policy areas, regeneration programmes orrecent urban processes (see Part 2) may have triggered the socioeconomic progress ofthese neighbourhoods, indicating improved opportunities for production (for example,employment) and access to resources, irrespective of tenure mix. This is consistent withseveral of the discourses supported by Ostendorf et al. (2001), Musterd (2002), Cheshire(2006) and Kesteloot et al. (2006).

IMD in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods

Similarly, the ten mixed-tenure neighbourhoods show a varied pattern of change betweenthe 2004 and 2007 IMD scores (see Figure 3, left, and Table 2). Six of the tenneighbourhoods experienced a reduction in deprivation scores, indicating potentialimprovement, in particular the City of London (16), Camden (13), Hackney (11) andIslington (17), which are all characterized by a large white population (see Figure 7),even though this is not the case for these boroughs as a whole.

Simultaneously, four of the ten neighbourhoods showed an increase in deprivationscore, the most severe case being Greenwich (15), one of the most ethnically anddemographically diverse neighbourhoods, with a 20% increase. Greenwich not only hadthe sharpest increase in deprivation of all 20 neighbourhoods, but is also now rated moredeprived than several neighbourhoods with large concentrations of social housing. Thiswarrants further analysis in the remainder of the article.

As already argued by van Beckhoven and van Kempen (2003), mixed-tenureneighbourhoods are not always successful and need to be interpreted within thespecificities of their city, regional and national contexts (Musterd, 2005; Kesteloot et al.,2006).



Table

1S

oci

al-r

ent

nei

gh

bo

urh

oo

ds:

20

04

and

20

07

dep

riva

tio

nco

mp

aris

on

LSOA

IMD

Inco

me

Em

plo

ym

en

tH

eal

th

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

So

uth

war

k(1

)4

2.0

73

6.8

1-5

.26

-12

.50

0.3

00

.33

0.0

310

.00

0.16

0.14

-0.0

2-1

2.5

00

.45

0.3

6-0

.09

-20

.00

Gre

enw

ich

(2)

55

.88

56

.77

0.8

91.5

90

.50

0.5

00

.00

0.0

00

.20

0.2

00

.00

0.0

00

.70

0.7

10

.01

1.43

So

uth

war

k(3

)4

2.7

44

.01

1.31

3.0

70

.33

0.3

90

.06

18.18

0.15

0.19

0.0

42

6.6

70

.54

0.6

00

.06

11.11

So

uth

war

k(4

)4

7.6

84

3.5

4-4

.14-8

.68

0.3

50

.32

-0.0

3-8

.57

0.19

0.16

-0.0

3-1

5.7

90

.62

0.5

6-0

.06

-9.6

8

So

uth

war

k(5

)3

7.2

23

5.9

6-1

.26

-3.3

90

.31

0.3

40

.03

9.6

80

.170

.15-0

.02

-11.7

60

.28

0.18

-0.10

-35

.71

Lew

ish

am(6

)3

5.8

14

2.12

6.3

117

.62

0.3

20

.38

0.0

618

.75

0.15

0.17

0.0

213

.33

0.2

50

.54

0.2

911

6.0

0

So

uth

war

k(7

)4

5.0

14

3.15

-1.8

6-4

.130

.34

0.3

70

.03

8.8

20

.170

.170

.00

0.0

00

.84

0.6

-0.2

4-2

8.5

7

Gre

enw

ich

(8)

49

.185

3.9

4.7

29

.60

0.4

40

.47

0.0

36

.82

0.19

0.2

10

.02

10.5

30

.83

1.06

0.2

32

7.7

1

So

uth

war

k(9

)3

8.7

13

2.5

7-6

.14-1

5.8

60

.33

0.3

0-0

.03

-9.0

90

.130

.11-0

.02

-15

.38

0.5

10

.32

-0.19

-37

.25

Bar

kin

gan

dD

agen

ham

(10

)5

3.7

55

8.2

84

.53

8.4

30

.47

0.5

20

.05

10.6

40

.20

.21

0.0

15

.00

1.11

1.12

0.0

10

.90

LSOA

Ed

uca

tio

nB

arri

ers

Cri

me

En

viro

nm

en

t

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

So

uth

war

k(1

)2

0.3

12

1.06

0.7

53

.69

47

.55

40

.32

-7.2

3-1

5.2

11.3

0.6

7-0

.63

-48

.46

35

.93

39

.59

3.6

610

.19

Gre

enw

ich

(2)

37

.97

36

.84

-1.13

-2.9

84

3.6

49

.35

.713

.07

1.35

1.03

-0.3

2-2

3.7

03

7.2

46

.64

9.4

42

5.3

8

So

uth

war

k(3

)2

3.6

52

2.3

1-1

.34

-5.6

74

8.4

34

3.5

3-4

.9-1

0.12

0.8

10

.41

-0.4

-49

.38

41.7

73

5.7

4-6

.03

-14

.44

So

uth

war

k(4

)2

3.8

32

7.8

23

.99

16.7

44

6.3

64

1.24

-5.12

-11.0

41.4

91.6

10

.128

.05

37

.03

41.3

84

.35

11.7

5

So

uth

war

k(5

)2

2.0

218

.78

-3.2

4-1

4.7

14

7.4

44

4.0

2-3

.42

-7.2

1-1

.16-0

.39

0.7

76

6.3

83

9.2

84

1.91

2.6

36

.70

Lew

ish

am(6

)2

6.5

72

7.5

50

.98

3.6

94

0.8

64

1.92

1.06

2.5

9-0

.05

0.4

60

.51

1,02

0.0

03

3.6

63

6.7

3.0

49

.03

So

uth

war

k(7

)2

3.12

30

.66

7.5

43

2.6

15

0.9

34

6.19

-4.7

4-9

.31

0.5

30

.33

-0.2

-37

.74

43

.02

38

.78

-4.2

4-9

.86

Gre

enw

ich

(8)

33

.79

31.3

2-2

.47

-7.3

13

6.8

64

5.2

18

.35

22

.65

0.9

80

.84

-0.14

-14

.29

29

.42

40

.27

10.8

53

6.8

8

So

uth

war

k(9

)2

5.4

52

5.6

70

.22

0.8

64

8.18

42

.53

-5.6

5-1

1.73

0.4

6-0

.04

-0.5

-10

8.7

03

2.4

73

5.5

43

.07

9.4

5

Bar

kin

g&

Dag

enh

am(1

0)

55

.55

60

.59

5.0

49

.07

32

.64

28

.48

-4.16

-12

.75

0.9

31.2

70

.34

36

.56

30

.43

35

.59

5.16

16.9

6

So

urc

es:

Cal

cula

ted

and

com

pile

dby

auth

or,b

ased

onda

tafr

omO

DPM

(200

4)an

dC

LG

(200

8)



Table

2M

ixed

-ten

ure

nei

gh

bo

urh

oo

ds:

20

04

and

20

07

dep

riva

tio

nco

mp

aris

on

LSOA

IMD

Inco

me

Em

plo

ym

en

tH

eal

th

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Hac

kney

(11)

50

.67

45

.62

-5.0

5-9

.97

0.3

90

.35

-0.0

4-1

0.2

60

.21

0.19

-0.0

2-9

.52

1.01

1.00

-0.0

1-0

.99

Lew

ish

am(1

2)

31.7

43

5.2

23

.48

10.9

60

.22

0.2

70

.05

22

.73

0.12

0.11

-0.0

1-8

.33

0.5

70

.72

0.15

26

.32

Cam

den

(13

)3

6.9

23

2.2

0-4

.72

-12

.78

0.2

20

.26

0.0

418

.180

.130

.130

0.0

01.1

70

.87

-0.3

0-2

5.6

4

Bar

net

(14

)3

2.2

63

4.0

41.7

85

.52

0.3

0.2

9-0

.01

-3.3

30

.160

.160

0.0

00

.29

0.3

0.0

13

.45

Gre

enw

ich

(15

)3

6.8

04

4.19

7.3

92

0.0

80

.24

0.3

30

.09

37

.50

0.15

0.17

0.0

213

.33

0.7

31.1

20

.39

53

.42

Cit

yo

fL

on

do

n(1

6)

17.3

914

.38

-3.0

1-1

7.3

10

.09

0.0

90

0.0

00

.08

0.0

80

0.0

0-0

.11-0

.31

-0.2

181.8

2

Islin

gto

n(1

7)

40

.23

34

.41

-5.8

2-1

4.4

70

.180

.17-0

.01

-5.5

60

.140

.13-0

.01

-7.14

0.8

30

.71

-0.12

-14

.46

New

ham

(18

)3

9.5

83

6.2

0-3

.38

-8.5

40

.33

0.2

9-0

.04

-12

.120

.160

.12-0

.04

-25

.00

1.05

0.9

2-0

.13-1

2.3

8

Lam

bet

h(1

9)

29

.20

28

.09

- 1.11

-3.8

00

.21

0.2

0-0

.01

-4.7

60

.100

.09

-0.0

1-1

0.0

00

.50

0.4

9-0

.01

-2.0

0

New

ham

(20

)3

5.9

53

7.73

1.78

4.9

50

.26

0.2

90

.03

11.5

40

.140

.12-0

.02

-14

.29

0.8

50

.99

0.14

16.4

7

LSOA

Ed

uca

tio

nB

arri

ers

Cri

me

En

viro

nm

en

t

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Score2004

Score2007

Change

Change(%)

Hac

kney

(11)

24

.72

13.0

3-1

1.69

-47

.29

38

.52

42

.72

4.2

10.9

01.0

30

.66

-0.3

7-3

5.9

25

4.4

55

7.13

2.6

84

.92

Lew

ish

am(1

2)

20

.28

18.4

3-1

.85

-9.12

39

.60

39

.98

0.3

80

.96

0.8

40

.86

0.0

22

.38

26

.27

45

.38

19.11

72

.74

Cam

den

(13

)13

.29

7.5

7-5

.72

-43

.04

38

.98

26

.62

-12

.36

-31.7

11.1

10

.92

-0.19

-17

.124

1.00

40

.41

-0.5

9-1

.44

Bar

net

(14

)12

.85

6.7

8-6

.07

-47

.24

25

.59

42

.90

17.3

16

7.6

40

.44

0.3

7-0

.07

-15

.91

36

.184

0.2

14

.03

11.14

Gre

enw

ich

(15

)2

7.4

12

5.7

3-1

.68

-6.13

35

.23

40

.27

5.0

414

.31

1.11

1.25

0.14

12.6

13

2.3

73

0.3

7-2

.00

-6.18

Cit

yo

fL

on

do

n(1

6)

5.7

36

.75

1.02

17.8

03

6.8

03

3.3

6-3

.44

-9.3

5-2

.15-1

.36

0.7

9-3

6.7

44

2.2

42

8.3

1-1

3.9

3-3

2.9

8

Islin

gto

n(1

7)

12.5

99

.55

-3.0

4-2

4.15

45

.49

35

.70

-9.7

9-2

1.52

1.28

1.17

-0.11

-8.5

96

6.2

76

3.15

-3.12

-4.7

1

New

ham

(18

)2

1.57

18.7

9-2

.78

-12

.89

35

.95

48

.33

12.3

83

4.4

40

.68

0.5

3-0

.15-2

2.0

62

7.9

22

7.10

-0.8

2-2

.94

Lam

bet

h(1

9)

13.10

10.4

0-2

.70

-20

.61

34

.71

38

.39

3.6

810

.60

0.4

80

.51

0.0

36

.25

49

.89

49

.19-0

.70

-1.4

0

New

ham

(20

)2

7.0

315

.55

-11.4

8-4

2.4

73

9.13

50

.09

10.9

62

8.0

1-0

.03

-0.14

-0.11

36

6.6

74

2.16

48

.66

6.5

015

.42

So

urc

es:

Cal

cula

ted

and

com

pile

dby

auth

or,b

ased

onda

tafr

omO

DPM

(200

4)an

dC

LG

(200

8)



Overall, both social-rent and mixed-tenure neighbourhoods do not show a correlationbetween deprivation and tenure in terms of either scores or changes. However, thesefindings are not representative for the whole of Greater London, as the furtherresidualization of the social-rent stock has led to an increasing concentration ofvulnerable groups within this tenure type (Hamnett, 2003; Watt, 2009). Within mixed-tenure neighbourhoods, ethnicity seems to be associated with both the extent and changeof deprivation. However, these initial findings can be misleading unless it is knownwhich of the seven domains affect the changes in deprivation and which processes (forexample, gentrification, re-commodification of social housing) and conditions(for example, training, regeneration programmes) respectively constrain or enhanceopportunities and access to resources. The former are explored in the remainder of thissection by means of additional supporting information, whilst the latter are examined inPart 2.

Unpacking the seven domains of the IMD

Income domain

Deprivation scores (see Table 1) in the income domain are predictably high and stable forsocial-rent housing, since residents are disproportionally dependent on income supportbenefits, and working and child tax credit (CLG, 2008). These households are typicallyalready well embraced by the welfare state (Kesteloot et al., 2006), as the high numberof Income Support claimants in social-rent housing shows (see Figure 4, right) comparedto the number in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods (see Figure 6, left). In the latter

Income Support

City

of L

ondo

n16

SOCIAL-RENT NEIGHBOURHOODSMIXED-TENURE NEIGHBOURHOODS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Income Support

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Islin

gton

17

Lam

bet

h19

Lew

isha

m12

New

ham

18

New

ham

20

Bar

net1

4

Cam

den

13

Gre

enw

ich

15

Hac

kney

11

Bar

king

& D

ag.1

0

Gre

enw

ich

2

Gre

enw

ich

8

Sou

thw

ark

3

Sou

thw

ark

1

Sou

thw

ark

9

Lew

isha

m6

Sou

thw

ark

7

Sou

thw

ark

5

Sou

thw

ark

4

average social-rent neighb.

average mixed-tenure neighb.

Note: The vertical axis refers to the total number of claimants of income support in theselected neighbourhood. Income support includes social security benefit for adults aged 18or over who are working less than 16 hours a week, or have a partner working less than 24hours a week and who have less money coming in than the law says they need to live on. Ingeneral, income support is now only available to people who are not required to be availablefor work, such as pensioners, lone parents and sick and disabled people.

Figure 4 Mixed-tenure neighbourhoods and social-rent neighbourhoods compared: incomesupport 2006 (source: graph compiled by author, based on data from ONS, 2008)



neighbourhoods, the more affluent owner-occupiers are likely to mask the presence ofincome support claimants. Not surprisingly, Barking and Dagenham (10), with their highconcentrations of social housing and Income Support claimants, is the most multiplydeprived neighbourhood in this study.

Interestingly, despite their mixed-tenure composition, four neighbourhoodsexperienced an increase in income deprivation scores, Greenwich (15) having thegreatest increase within the income domain for the neighbourhoods studied.

Employment domain

This domain is crucial to shedding light on potential opportunities (production of wealthand resources), as it entails investigating whether large concentrations of social housinghamper access to employment. Employment is dependent on structural macro-economicfactors (Cheshire, 2006) and indicators used to formulate this domain draw upon people-based policies, which arguably influence this domain more than area-based policies(Musterd et al., 1998). Interestingly, during the period of economic stability from 2001to 2006, the change in unemployment benefit claimants (Job Seekers Allowance or JSA)in selected social-rent neighbourhoods showed no major increase and actually improvedin many of the neighbourhoods studied (see Table 1 and Figure 5, right). This isparticularly significant in Southwark (1, 4, 5 and 9), where residents managed togain access to employment initiatives despite the lack of tenure mix. Therefore,concentrations of social housing do not always constrain access to employment.Not surprisingly, given the presence of highly skilled residents, mixed-tenureneighbourhoods experienced more stability in JSA claimants and a reduction inunemployment (see Figure 5, left), except Greenwich (15), a fact that again warrantsfurther investigation.

JSA Claimants

SOCIAL-RENT NEIGHBOURHOODSMIXED-TENURE NEIGHBOURHOODS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120JSA Claimants

0

20

40

60

80

100

12020

01 '02

'03

'04

2005 '0

6

2001 '02

'03

'04

2005 '0

6

Greenwich 2

Lewisham 6

Southwark 4

Greenwich 8

Barking & Dag. 10

Southwark 5

Greenwich 15

Camden 13

City of London 16

Hackney 11

Islington 17

Barnet 14

Note: Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) is a benefit for people of working age who are out ofwork or work less than 16 hours a week on average. As figures exclude the long-termeconomically inactive, they allow consideration of changing opportunities

Figure 5 Mixed-tenure neighbourhoods and social-rent neighbourhoods compared: JobSeekers Allowance (JSA) claimants, August 2001 to 2006 (source: graph compiled byauthor, based on data from ONS, 2008)



Education, skills and training domain

Of all seven domains, the education, skills and training scores illustrate the clearestcontrasts between social-rent and mixed-tenure neighbourhoods (see Table 1 andTable 2). Amongst the social-rent neighbourhoods studied, the majority experienced anincrease in deprivation scores in this domain, particularly Barking and Dagenham (10)which are now amongst the 5% most deprived neighbourhoods in the country foreducation, skills and training, with a score more than double that of fellow social-rentneighbourhoods. By contrast, all mixed-tenure neighbourhoods show significantimprovement in education, skills and training deprivation scores, with the exception ofthe City of London (16).

However, the indicator provides a false picture, since its spatial coverage does notnecessarily relate to pupil performance based on attainment at local schools.4 Childrenliving in a mixed-tenure neighbourhood do not necessarily attend local schools(Cheshire, 2006), which are also assumed to be mixed. In London, school pupils aregenerally more segregated at school than in their neighbourhoods (Burgess et al., 2005),such ‘micro-public’ spaces playing a key role in shaping patterns of division (Amin,2002). These scores could thus be inflated by children of owner-occupied householdsattending private schools, or high-performing state schools outside the immediateneighbourhood (Butler and Hamnett, 2011), a practice that leads to higher schoolsegregation for pupils residing in social housing. Therefore, population change andgentrification processes could have a significant impact on the performance ofneighbourhoods within this domain.

Barriers to housing and services domain

The barriers to housing and services domain shows an inverse pattern to the educationdomain. The majority of the social-rent neighbourhoods, including Barking andDagenham (10), showed a reduction of scores in this domain, with Southwarkneighbourhoods again displaying particularly good progress (see Table 1). In addition todistance to key services, scores in this domain are also based on ‘rate of acceptance underthe homelessness provisions of the 1996 Housing Act’ and ‘difficulty of access toowner-occupation’ (CLG, 2008), which is more effectively managed in areas with largequantities of social housing stock. Thus, these positive changes can be misleading, assome of the indicators used to construct this domain are by default biased towards thistenure.

By contrast, the mixed-tenure neighbourhoods are not able to offer the same levelsof social and intermediate affordable housing (thus reducing opportunities forhomelessness provision and access to owner-occupation). This has been exacerbated bythe surge in house prices in London since the late 1990s (Hamnett, 2009), for example,in Islington.5 Indeed, the majority of mixed-tenure neighbourhoods showed an increasein deprivation scores for this domain (Table 2). Such mixed-tenure neighbourhoods aremore likely to be targeted by (and indeed marketed to) high-earning professionals aspotential up-and-coming places to buy property, especially given their close proximity toCentral London, for example, Hackney and Newham. This might be the result of arelative lack of availability of social housing and difficulty in accessing owner-occupation, particularly for middle-income groups in inner-London boroughs. It istherefore debatable whether some of the mixed-tenure neighbourhoods allow residents

4 Indicators are also based on snapshots of test scores for different years, which were obviouslyobtained by different pupils, for example, one set of 14-year-olds for the 2004 data and anothergroup of 14-year-olds for the 2007 data.

5 ‘Intermediate affordable housing’ refers to housing at intermediate prices (i.e. low-cost homes forsales) and intermediate rents (that is, above social rents but below market rents). It also includesequity sharing, such as shared ownership (for example, HomeBuy schemes), in which the residentbuys part of the property and rents part of it from a housing association.



to progress in their ‘housing careers’, as local planning policies seek to achieve(Greenwich, 2006; Barking and Dagenham, 2010; Islington, 2011; Southwark, 2011).

The living environment domain

Although, on the whole, actual scores within the living environment domain are broadlysimilar in the social-rent and mixed-tenure neighbourhoods, there are clear differences inrates of change, with an increase in deprivation in most social-rent neighbourhoods anda decrease in most mixed-tenure neighbourhoods scores (see Tables 1 and 2).

Scores consider the ‘outdoors’ living environment, including air quality and roadtraffic accidents, which are tenure neutral (CLG, 2008), yet are simultaneouslyinfluenced by the ‘indoors’ living environment, namely ‘social and private housing inpoor condition’, which are not tenure neutral. The improvement in housing conditions insome mixed-tenure neighbourhoods is associated with the increasing gentrificationprocess and gradual privatization of social-housing stock (Beaumont, 2006). Also,residents of social housing in mixed-tenure neighbourhoods may observe the high livingstandards of their home-owning neighbours and demand higher standards for theirsocial-rent dwellings, whilst larger clusters of social housing are more difficult tomanage and have become increasingly residualized and of a poorer quality as a result oflong-term systemic underfunding of council housing (Van Kempen et al., 2005;Beaumont, 2006; Watt, 2009).

Health deprivation and disability domain

Variations between neighbourhoods in this domain can be seen to readily reflect‘neighbourhood effects’, contributory indicators including ‘years of potential life lost’and the ‘proportion of adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders based onprescribing’. The mixed-tenure neighbourhoods showed far more stability within thisdomain, yet improvements were not as marked as in some of the social-rentneighbourhoods in Southwark (see Tables 1 and 2). Interestingly, the mixed-tenureneighbourhood within Greenwich (15) again experienced a dramatic increase in score inthis domain and now matched that of social-rent neighbourhoods in Barking andDagenham (10), which thus became the two most deprived neighbourhoods in thisdomain.

Crime domain

There does not appear to be any correlation between crime and tenure in theneighbourhoods studied (see Tables 1 and 2). This correlation has played a major role inAmerican ghetto debates, whereas European research has been focused along incomelines (Ellen and Turner, 1997; Musterd, 2005). Moreover, many of the mixed-tenureneighbourhoods located in inner London boroughs have higher scores in the crimedomain than the outer boroughs, owing to their central location.

Preliminary findings

Overall, it has been shown that the individual domains of deprivation have a complex andinconsistent relationship with residential tenure. Moreover, caution is required whenconsidering findings, given the inherent limitations of indicators, and the inability tocapture changes in population, users of local services (for example, schools) and localurban processes.

In terms of the ‘income’, ‘employment’ and ‘health’ domains, many of the social-rentneighbourhoods became progressively more deprived between 2004 and 2007,Southwark neighbourhoods being the exception, which suggests improvement inemployment opportunities and access to resources and services despite the lack of tenuremix. Amongst the mixed-tenure neighbourhoods, Greenwich (15) has surprisinglybecome more deprived, showing an inverse pattern to Southwark. Although both theseneighbourhoods have a strong minority ethnic dimension, the patterns of change are



diverging. The predominantly white neighbourhoods in Barking and Dagenham (10) andIslington (17) show a correlation in the degree of concentration of social housing anddeprivation scores. However, the alleged relationship between ethnicity, tenureand deprivation is not straightforward and warrants further investigation.

In terms of the ‘education, skills and training’, ‘barriers to housing and services’ and‘living environment’ domains, most of the mixed-tenure neighbourhoods displayed adistorted picture, possibly as a result of a recent influx of middle-income residents, whichhas been driven by gentrification processes and middle-class school strategies, forinstance in Islington (Cheshire, 2006; 2009). Social-rent neighbourhoods displayedpatterns of decline in the ‘education’ domain, although providing greater rates ofprogress within the ‘barriers to housing and services’ domain. This was the case in, forinstance, Barking and Dagenham (10) and Southwark (9), which offer social tenants agreater range of house sizes and types than mixed neighbourhoods. Again, in both casesfurther investigation of the apparent changes is required, given the limitation of some ofthe indicators.

Overall, the white social housing neighbourhood in Barking and Dagenham (10)and the ethnically and tenure-mixed neighbourhood in Greenwich (15) emerge asbeing comparatively significant, given sharp increases in deprivation. Moreover, thepredominantly black neighbourhood of Southwark (9) stands out as an important casestudy, since positive performance occurs within a concentration of social housing, whilstthe predominantly white neighbourhood of Islington (17) with its ongoing gentrificationprocesses highlights additional elements in the relationship between decreasingdeprivation and mixed tenure. A more in-depth contextual analysis of these four casestudies in Part 2 will enable us to explore socioeconomic opportunities (production) andaccess to resources (consumption) for social tenants in both types of neighbourhoods,thus allowing us to empirically contribute to the theoretical debates on neighbourhoodeffects and tenure mixing.

Part 2: Exploring opportunities and accessto resources: a tale of four neighbourhoodsBased on Part 1, we analyse four key case studies to investigate whether neighbourhoodswith large concentrations of social stock provide a framework that limits socioeconomicopportunities and access to resources to social tenants in comparison to mixed-tenureneighbourhoods. These four case studies provide a range of neighbourhood contexts interms of tenure, ethnic and socioeconomic composition, and geographical locationwithin Greater London (see Figure 6 and Table 3).

Of the social-rent neighbourhoods studied, white social housing (10) within Heathward in Barking and Dagenham had an increasingly high multiple deprivation score anduniquely is almost entirely white. Conversely, black social housing (9) within Peckhamward in Southwark appeared to be progressing both socially and economically (IMD2004 to 2007), despite its homogeneous tenure make-up. It is interesting to comparelocal circumstances to those in the selected Barking and Dagenham neighbourhood,which may also give an indication of reasons for progress seen in other Southwarkneighbourhoods, which challenge neighbourhood-effects discourses.

In terms of the mixed-tenure neighbourhoods it is necessary to further explore why themixed ethnicity and tenure neighbourhood (15) within Woolwich Common in Greenwichhas become significantly more deprived despite its tenure mix, whilst neighbourhoodssuch as the white leafy mixed neighbourhood (17) within Highbury East in Islingtoncontinues to become increasingly affluent. Both cases challenge the alleged benefits ofmixed-tenure neighbourhoods.

Findings from interviews (see footnote 3) and additional quantitative analysis willconsider whether differences in opportunities and access to resources, includingneighbourhood affordability, are specific to a particular context and population groups.



This will also shed light on the extent to which housing tenure diversification is a devicefor alleviating deprivation, as suggested by the tenure-mix policy approach in the UK.Further reflection on the relevance and robustness of the IMD as evidence for area-basedpolicies will also be considered. Each of the four case studies will now be examined in turn.

White social housing in Barking and Dagenham (10)

This neighbourhood is a typical development of the 1960s, with high-rise social housingand associated public infrastructure (school, civic centre, leisure centre) still owned andmanaged by the local authority. Low turnover rates could indicate an element of stabilityamongst residents or an element of entrapment. However, interviews suggest that residentsview the area as their permanent home and do not see the neighbourhood as a ‘steppingstone’ to more desirable accommodation, thus strengthening local cultural ties (Goodwin,2008). Relatively weak public transport connections and spatial isolation have limitedthe influx of new populations. This stability has enabled shops and services to remainaffordable and accessible to the local population, although many now appear outdated.

High deprivation scores in the neighbourhood are a reflection of the residents’ lowskills base, for example, there remains a dependence on the declining manufacturingsector for employment, which accounts for 11% of working-age residents’ jobs, doublethat of the other neighbourhoods studied (see Table 3). Over 40% of residents have noqualifications and 25% of households depend on income support (for example, loneparents) — by far the highest proportions of all the neighbourhoods studied (Table 3).

Social-rent neighbourhoods Mixed-tenure neighbourhoods

Dec

reas

ing

depr

ivat

ion

(IM

D 2

004-

07 c

hang

e)

Southwark (9) Inner London - Peckham ward

Islington (17)Inner London - Highbury East

ward Black population (50%) White population (80%)

<< IMD

– crime –108.70% << IMD

–15.86% – health –37.25% –14.47%

–employment –15.38%

– barriers –11.73%

– income –9.09% – employment –7.14%

– education –24.15%

– barriers –21.52%

– health –14.46%

– crime –8.59%

– income –5.56%In

crea

sing

dep

riva

tion

(IM

D 2

004-

07 c

hang

e)

Barking and Dagenham (10)Outer London - Heath ward

Greenwich (19) Outer London - Woolwich

Common wardWhite population (90%) Ethnically mixed population (50%)

>>IMD

>>IMD

8.43% + environment 16.96%

13.33%

+ employment

+ employment

5.00%

+ crime

+ crime

36.56% + health 53.42%

20.08% + income

+ income

37.50%

10.64% + barriers 14.31%

+ education 9.07%

12.61%

Figure 6 Selected neighbourhoods, geography and composition (sources: calculated andcompiled by author, based on data from ODPM, 2004; CLG, 2008)



Despite these shortfalls in skills, education and income, and a lack of employmentopportunities, there have not been any major employment or training initiatives, nor anyinvestment in new infrastructure in the area. The close proximity of two relatively highlyregarded secondary schools adds to the stability of the neighbourhood and may lead toeducational improvements in the coming years, although this may deflect attention awayfrom the need for increased public intervention in the area (Barking and Dagenham,2010).

Publicized white working-class dissatisfaction and increased support for the far-rightBritish National Party (BNP) in this part of Outer East London results from the area’srelative economic isolation and perceived lack of, or unfair allocation of, resources (forexample, health services, education, social housing and jobs) (Amin, 2002; Goodwin,2008). Whilst the greatest part of Barking and Dagenham has been witnessing the largestincrease in ethnic minorities in London (Hamnett and Butler, 2010), this neighbourhooddoes stand out as relatively isolated and socially homogeneous, with social housing oftenpassed down from generation to generation within the same family.

Table 3 Selected neighbourhoods: characteristics by tenure, ethnicity and employment(% 2001), and IMD (2004–07)

DataBarking &

Dagenham (10) Southwark (9) Islington (17) Greenwich (19)

(1) Ward HeathOuter London

PeckhamInner London

Highbury EastInner London

Woolwich CommonOuter London

(2) Social housing % 87.40 87.57 40.94 41.11

(3) Ethnic group %

White 86.75 26.64 78.69 47.93

Black 8.25 55.82 11.59 17.54

Indian 0.72 0.58 2.00 22.72

Pakistani 0.18 0.32 0.34 3.04

Bangladeshi 0.78 0.58 0.97 0.83

(4) Employment %

Manufacturing 10.87 5.26 8.42 10.20

Construction 7.39 2.74 3.37 8.70

Finance 5.00 3.16 8.16 4.01

Retail 17.83 14.95 7.64 13.71

Education 14.13 7.37 7.64 8.19

Health & social work 8.91 15.16 7.38 12.88

Business activities 11.09 20.21 29.27 13.55

(5) IMD score

2004 53.75 38.71 40.23 36.80

2007 58.28 32.57 34.41 44.19

(5) IMD English rank*

2004 1,648 5,011 4,525 5,619

2007 1,082 7,149 6,504 3,547

*Where 32,482 is best and 1 is worstSources: Table compiled by author, based on data from (1) LSAO code in Figure 7; (2) ONS (2001: Table UV63);(3) ONS (2001: Table UV09); (4) ONS (2001: Table KS11A, % people aged 16–74 in employment/working in); and(5) ODPM (2004); CLG (2008)



Interviewees acknowledge the lack of training and employment interventions,suggesting that the design and management of social housing is key to improvingresidents’ quality of life, and that tenure mix is of no relevance to increased opportunityor access to resources. However, overall it can be seen that whilst access to, andaffordability of, resources have remained stable at a level set in the 1960s (for example,schools, shops and services), socioeconomic opportunities have continued to decrease(for example, training and employment). ‘Focus groups similarly found that a shortageof available housing combined with rapid demographic changes have fuelled theperception amongst residents that some areas of the borough are being “taken over” byminority ethnic groups’ (Cruddas et al., 2005: 15). Local resources, especially housing,were perceived to be unfairly distributed in favour of newly arrived groups at the expenseof long-term residents (Goodwin, 2008). In the case of this neighbourhood, the relativeisolation has been key to historical availability of council housing and retention ofneighbourhood affordability.

Lon

don

Bor

ough

Nei

ghb.

N

umbe

r

LSO

A*

shor

t co

de

Pop

ulat

ion

Pop

ulat

ion

Non

-whi

te

(%)

Soci

al-r

ent

neig

hbou

rhoo

ds

Southwark 1 018C 1563 61.93 Greenwich 2 024C 1538 39.40 Southwark 3 019B 1446 73.86 Southwark 4 022A 1401 60.10 Southwark 5 015C 1538 60.53 Lewisham 6 001A 1516 68.14 Southwark 7 019E 1336 71.26 Greenwich 8 005D 1494 46.32 Southwark 9 019D 1539 73.36

Barking and Dagenham

10 006C 1661 13.25

Mix

ed-t

enur

e ne

ighb

ourh

oods

Hackney 11 018C 1524 47.18 Lewisham 12 024C 1494 55.42 Camden 13 019B 1569 20.01 Barnet 14 022A 1546 30.01

Greenwich 15 015C 1448 52.07 City of London

16 001A 1535 12.96

Islington 17 019E 1450 21.31 Newham 18 005D 1566 63.73 Lambeth 19 019D 1458 27.71 Newham 20 006C 1584 50.95

Note: *These are the LSOA codes for Super Output Areas, which are a set of geographiesdeveloped after the 2001 census. The aim was to produce a set of areas of consistent size,whose boundaries would not change (unlike electoral wards). They are an aggregation ofadjacent Output Areas with similar social characteristics. The Office for National Statistics(ONS) coding system is a hierarchical code used in the UK for tabulating census and otherstatistical data

Figure 7 Super Output Areas, neighbourhood numbers by population, 2001 (source: ONS,2001: Tables UV09 and UV63)



This is a representative case for the lack of public intervention, given the plentifulsupply of public services nearby, although these are outdated and were originallyprovided alongside the 1960s council housing. The area’s associated limited residentialmobility and its cultural legacy, gained through its historical working-class identity, hasalso triggered feelings of resentment and entrapment (John et al., 2006; Goodwin, 2008).

Black social housing in Southwark (9)

In contrast to Barking and Dagenham, this neighbourhood has a predominantly non-white population (74%), with more than 50% of all residents ‘Black or Black British’,half of which are first-generation immigrants born in Africa (see Table 3).

However, despite the high volume of social housing and the relatively significantenclave of black African residents, there were significant reductions in deprivation scoresbetween 2004 and 2007, which suggests potential increases in socioeconomicopportunities (for example, through training programmes) and access to resources (forexample, affordable consumption and services). In fact, interviewees attribute theseimprovements to a substantial re-housing programme delivered by the ‘PeckhamPartnership’ (the local strategic partnership), which is considered to have made ahuge impact on the quality of life of the residents, with far less antisocial behaviour andmore contentment amongst residents, as well as improved standards of housing andpublic spaces. Completed in 2004, the partnership involved the demolition of theneighbourhood’s old 1960s high-rise local-authority stock, which was replaced by newwell-designed low-rise flats and houses, now managed by housing associations. Theresident population within social housing has remained largely the same throughout theprocess, with minimal displacement. In contrast to the previous case, a constructivesupport network amongst residents facilitated the process, which has successfullyincreased access to resources and opportunities, in particular to skills and employment(Buck et al., 2002).

In fact, this programme was complemented by many employment and traininginitiatives within the neighbourhood and across the wider borough, mainly coordinatedthrough the Peckham Partnership, which was set up in 1996. For example, ‘Youth Plus’is a local initiative to encourage youngsters to enter vocational training, which operatesalongside a variety of initiatives run by housing associations for their residents. Theneighbourhood is also located in close proximity to the new ‘Peckham Pulse’ HealthyLiving Centre. Such initiatives seem to be reflected in the employment profile of thisneighbourhood, with the dominant employment sector being ‘real estate, renting andbusiness activities’, catering for 20% of the working-age population (see Table 3).

As part of this programme, a small element of market housing has also beendeveloped recently, which has both helped to fund the programme and introduce more ofa tenure mix in the area (Southwark, 2011). Although the large quantity and variety ofsocial housing in the neighbourhood offers residents more choice, allowing a high degreeof internal movement, interviewees also argue that progression out of social-rent housingto intermediate housing is almost impossible, with only a couple of examples in the past10 years (see footnote 5). Therefore, despite residents’ satisfaction with the design-ledrenewal and improved living standards, there are extremely limited opportunities forprogression across tenures (Watt, 2009). Furthermore, it is debatable whether owner-occupiers in market housing will trigger an even greater rate of socioeconomicopportunities amongst social tenants, owing to the success of employment and traininginitiatives implemented in the area. Affordability of the neighbourhood’s shops andservices has so far been retained; however, an increased influx of middle-class owner-occupiers could lead to gentrification processes, as in Islington, with consequences forneighbourhood affordability.

Southwark is a paradigmatic case; because of a lack of tenure mix, training andemployment initiatives have been provided, thereby increasing socioeconomicopportunities, as suggested in Part 1. Concentration rather than tenure mix has, in



fact, made public intervention possible that focused only on local residents, withoutattracting new residents, while maintaining neighbourhood affordability. In particular,concentration and ethnicity led to a strong support network (Kesteloot et al., 2006). Thereduction in the IMD score can thus be representative of an increase in life chances incases of limited population and tenure change. Housing progression within theneighbourhood has been reached in terms of availability and quality but not in terms oftenure, as a result of the high cost of market housing in London (Hamnett, 2009).Overall, Southwark demonstrates that mixed tenure is not a prerequisite or a tool forincreasing opportunities and local resources.

White leafy mixed neighbourhood in Islington (17)

We now move on to the mixed-tenure cases. In contrast to the other neighbourhoods weexamined, in this part of Islington the mix of housing tenure is not accompanied by asignificant mix of ethnicities (ONS, 2001). This predominantly white neighbourhood hasbecome an increasingly affluent place over the past two decades and is regarded byprofessionals and middle-class families as a desirable permanent residence (see Table 3).Local-authority-owned and managed blocks of social housing, such as the ChestnutsEstate, are located alongside rows of three-storey houses that have been converted intoexpensive owner-occupied apartments, interspersed with further social dwellingsmanaged by a housing association, although a large proportion of social housing hasbeen sold to very wealthy professionals (Islington, 2011).

The influx of wealthy owner-occupiers accounts for a reduction in deprivation scores,masking the real levels of socioeconomic deprivation social tenants experience, whichare higher than in Southwark (9). In addition, the ongoing gentrification of theneighbourhood has triggered changes in the provision of retail and other services(expensive organic shops, wine bars), thus jeopardizing neighbourhood affordability forlong-term residents (Cheshire, 2009).

However, interviewees suggest that the mixed nature of the neighbourhood has somepositive impacts on the tenants of social housing, including an increase in expectationsin the standards of their own accommodation. As a result of new owner-occupiers’demands and lobbying for higher standards of amenities, the exteriors of socialproperties and public spaces (for example, the Chestnuts Estate) are maintained to ahigher standard than in some of the larger social-housing concentrations in nearby areas,so that they do not give an immediate impression of being less affluent.

However, as widely argued in literature on gentrification, interviewees also warn aboutthe negative impacts of mixed tenure on residents of social housing. Rich owner-occupiersare attracted by the growing popularity of Islington, which has been heightened by newhigh-profile developments such as the nearby ‘Arsenal’project (opened in 2009) and closeproximity to central London (Islington, 2011). In effect, owner-occupiers are buying intoa lifestyle and do not necessarily want to live in close proximity to social tenants. Forinstance, interviewees emphasize that owner-occupiers often seek to purchase an existingsocial-rent flat on the floor above or below in order to gain an element of exclusivity withintwo- or three-story town houses that have been subdivided into flats.Affluent professionalsare replacing previous populations of Greeks and then Somalians, with social tenantsmoving further out of London to places such as Enfield and Cheshunt in Hertfordshire. Theremaining social tenants are increasingly trapped and restricted, as they cannot afford orgain access to any other accommodation within Islington. Consequently there is a lack ofhousing choice, and even shared-ownership schemes are taken up almost exclusively byyoung professionals from outside the neighbourhood, thus limiting progression of housingcareers (Islington, 2011).

In contrast to the other three case studies, and as already stressed by Butler andRobson (2003) and Burgess et al. (2005), interviewees confirmed that there is a limitedmix of pupils at school as a result of the education strategies of middle-class owner-occupiers (for example, by acquiring a home within the catchment area of the best



schools, or by sending children to private schools). This leads to school segregation,which constrains socioeconomic opportunities for social tenants. Despite this, there arefew policy initiatives to address educational and training needs, since the residentialpresence of the middle classes masks the actual level of deprivation present in theneighbourhood.

Islington is a representative case of a mixed neighbourhood that does not providegreater opportunities and resources for social tenants but instead increases inequality,enhances school segregation and constrains housing careers within the neighbourhood,resulting in entrapment or outflow to peripheral outer-London neighbourhoods. Mixingbetween private and social housing residents appears to be one of distant observationrather than shared investment of social capital. It is a clear case of a reduction in IMD notonly being a false indicator of decreasing deprivation, but also being used as a dangerousevidence base for policy, as it masks the need for public funds for infrastructure provisionand removes attention from vulnerable population groups. It exemplifies the distortedpicture outlined in Part 1. Paradoxically, it also shows how a decreasing IMD couldindicate different stages of gentrification as a result of middle-income inward mobility.

Mixed population and tenure in Greenwich (15)

This traditionally low-rise working-class neighbourhood shows the greatest diversity interms of ethnicity (see Table 3), housing typologies and tenures, yet is experiencingincreasing levels of deprivation. Residents have a lower skills base than those in all othermixed neighbourhoods, and in the Southwark social-rent neighbourhoods (Buck et al.,2002). Furthermore, figures for manufacturing employment and the Job SeekersAllowance (ONS, 2006) are far higher than for the other mixed-tenure neighbourhoods,with manufacturing employment similar to that in Barking and Dagenham (10).

According to interviewees, this diversity is a result of both the nature of the privatestock, which favours a transient population, and housing association allocation policy. Asa result of the low quality of the private stock, the neighbourhood is often a steppingstone for both owner-occupiers and private renters. This accounts for instance for thearea’s marked student population, which leads to a very high housing turnover.Simultaneously, housing associations address social problems by dispersing certaingroups of residents away from areas of tension and into close proximity to markethousing, which is believed to ‘influence lifestyle aspirations’ of social tenants. Such anapproach is reflected in the local authority’s planning policies, which seek to promote amix of housing tenures and types (Greenwich, 2006).This policy is particularly prevalentin this neighbourhood, because its street layout and its low-rise buildings are thought tofoster greater opportunities for integration and interaction between residents of differenttenures. Nonetheless, tenants’ mobility within and outside the neighbourhood’s socialstock has been limited, as in other mixed-tenure neighbourhoods across Greater London(Watt, 2009).

In contrast to the gentrified white mixed Islington neighbourhood, affordability ofGreenwich’s shops and services has been retained. Interestingly, the mixed populationdoes not mask neighbourhood-wide deprivation; however, there are no interventions orlobbying, such as those in Southwark and Islington, respectively, as a result of thetransient nature of the population. The local ‘Neighbourhood Investment Team’ hascarried out some initiatives in the borough, but it is apparent that there is still significantprogress to be made in this particular neighbourhood (Watt, 2009).

Greenwich is a paradigmatic case of an area in which the presence of a transientpopulation entails a lack of lobbying and social investment in the area. In contrast topredominantly white Islington, this ethnically mixed neighbourhood has retained itsrelatively affordable cost of living and services, owing to its lack of gentrification.Nonetheless, in both cases the tenure mixing, rather than the high concentration of socialhousing, is limiting the attraction of public funding and hampering improvements tolocal services.



Conclusions

This article seeks to contribute empirically to the wider theoretical and political debatethat considers diversification of housing tenure as a device for alleviating deprivation.The diversity and complexity of this alleged relationship has been explored through awide selection of London case studies, varying in context between tenure mix,deprivation, ethnicity, income and location. In fact, individual domains of deprivationshow a complex and inconsistent relationship with housing tenure, with fourparadigmatic cases displaying diverging patterns of change. They demonstrate that socialtenants do experience differing socioeconomic opportunities and access to resources, butthat these are not dependent on, or improved by, the level of tenure mix within theneighbourhood. Further research will be required to better explore the relationshipsbetween these factors.

In particular, Southwark with its black enclave is a paradigmatic example ofincreasing opportunities in an area of concentrated social housing, facilitated primarilyby people-based policies (training and employment) with retention of neighbourhoodaffordability, the absence of which characterizes the gentrification of mixed-tenureIslington. Here the decreasing IMD, driven by an influx of the white middle classes andtheir associated school strategy, masks the actual deprivation and entrapment of socialtenants. Similarly, the lack of people-based policy in Barking and Dagenham drivesentrapment and socioeconomic isolation, which in this case is exacerbated bygeographical isolation (outer London), concentration of social housing and whiteworking-class dissatisfaction. Paradoxically, the relationship between gentrification andethnicity is complicated further by the outward movement of ethnic minorities fromgentrified neighbourhoods, such as Islington, to outer-London locations to seek moreaffordability and housing choice, at the same time creating tension and competition forresources. Surprisingly, Greenwich, the most genuinely mixed neighbourhood in social,ethnic and tenure terms, provides the most complex and unique findings of theneighbourhoods studied. The mix results in a transient population, which in turn ischaracterized by a lack of lobbying and social investment in the area. Far from being acatalyst for investment in education, training and employment, mixed tenure — bothgentrified and transient — can hamper the implementation of such programmes whenfounded upon area-based policy.

This comparative analysis has led to three essential conclusions that can informpolicy. First, the IMD as a policy tool and measure of outcomes is misleading, given theinherent contradiction in a people-based indicator being used to calculate place-basedmeasures of deprivation. In fact, the indicator can only measure a neighbourhood’srelative affluence, and not levels or changes of socioeconomic opportunities and accessto resources for residents within. A decreasing IMD is not a reflection of socioeconomicimprovement or increase in life chances if interpreted in isolation from in- andout-migration, social/urban processes (such as gentrification, professionalization),consolidation of ethnic neighbourhoods and clustering strategies to safeguard middle-class areas. Paradoxically, changes in IMD have usefully identified areas that areexperiencing differing stages of gentrification.

Secondly, all four cases dispute the alleged benefits of mixing that underpingovernment policy and empirically contribute to two main threads of theoretical debate.Greenwich and Southwark are paradigmatic in challenging the neighbourhood-effectstheory. Dilution of poverty through housing-tenure diversification diverts attention fromthe causes of inequality that are rooted within the wider welfare system. Instead,concentration of poverty (in social housing) and associated strong support networks canfacilitate resources, opportunities and delivery mechanisms. Islington adds to the currentdebate on the far-reaching impact of gentrification across the city and society, whichshould warrant a serious policy response, particularly in relation to neighbourhoodcommodification and school segregation, which is driven by the residualization of publicservices and middle-class strategy.



Finally, the analysis shows that mixed-tenure policy cannot be used uniformly acrossGreater London, let alone the country, and that each neighbourhood should be viewed inits own context, with people-based policy applied regardless of concentration ordispersal of poverty, concentration of social housing, and location in inner or outerLondon. This offers support for a combination between an area-based and acomprehensive policy approach (decommodification of key services targeting peoplerather than areas), where the former is effective in engaging people and the latter inwidening access to and knowledge of public services. Overall, all four cases show thatservices and mechanisms that retain neighbourhood affordability are fundamentalin fostering socioeconomic opportunity (production) and access to resources(consumption). The degree of decommodification of services, resources andneighbourhood plays a vital role in reducing deprivation. If we are serious aboutreducing inequalities, or rather tackling the sources of inequality, then solutions cannotbe sought in spatial reordering, or in the dilution of poverty through tenurediversification, but in whether and how (local) social welfare can be reconsidered in lightof a more equitable society.

Sonia Arbaci ([email protected]), Bartlett School of Planning, University College London,22 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0QB, UK and Ian Rae ([email protected]),London Borough of Redbridge, Town Hall, 128–142 High Road, Ilford, London IG1 1DD, UK.

ReferencesAllen, C. (2008) Housing market renewal and

social class. Routledge, London.Amin, A. (2002) Ethnicity and the

multicultural city. Environment andPlanning A 34.6, 959–80.

Arbaci, S. (2007) Ethnic segregation, housingsystems and welfare regimes in Europe.European Journal of Housing Policy 7.4,401–33.

Atkinson, R. and K. Kintrea (2001)Disentangling area effects: evidence fromdeprived and non-deprivedneighbourhoods. Urban Studies 38.12,2277–98.

Bagguley, P. and Y. Hussain (2003) Conflictand cohesion: construction of ‘community’and the 2001 ‘riots’. Paper CommunitiesConference, 18 September.

Barking and Dagenham, London Borough of(2010) Local development framework corestrategy. [WWW document]. URL http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/8-leisure-envir/planning/local-dev-framework/plan-ldf-core-strategy.html (accessed 15 April2011).

Beaumont, J. (2006) London: deprivation,social isolation and regeneration. In S.Musterd, A. Murie and C. Kesteloot (eds.),Neighbourhoods of poverty: urban socialexclusion and integration in Europe,Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Bolster, A., S. Burgess, R. Johnston, K.Jones, C. Propper and R. Starker (2007)Neighborhoods, households and incomedynamics: a semi-parametric investigationof neighborhood effects. Journal ofEconomic Geography 7.1, 1–38.

Briggs, X. (2005) The geography ofopportunity. Brookings Institution Press,Washington DC.

Buck, N., I. Gordon, P. Hall, M. Harloe andM. Kleinman (2002) Working capital: lifeand labour in contemporary London.Routledge, London.

Burgess, S., D. Wilson and R. Lupton (2005)Parallel lives? Ethnic segregation inschools and neighbourhoods. UrbanStudies 42.7, 1027–56.

Butler, T. and C. Hamnett (2011) Location,education: place, choice, constraint inLondon. Children’s Geographies 9.1,35–48.

Butler, T. and B. Robson (2003) Plotting themiddle classes: gentrification and circuitsof education in London. Housing Studies18.1, 5–28.

Cantle, T. (2002) Community cohesion: areport of the independent review team.Home Office, London.

Cheshire, P. (2006) Resurgent cities, urbanmyths and policy hubris: what we need toknow. Urban Studies 43.8, 1231–46.



Cheshire, P. (2009) Policies for mixedcommunities: faith-based displacementactivity? International Regional ScienceReview 32.3, 343–75.

City (2009) Special issue: Cities for people,not for profit. City 13.2–3, 173–377.

CLG (2003) Sustainable communities:building for the future. Communities andLocal Government, London.

CLG (2006) Planning policy statement 3:housing. Communities and LocalGovernment, London.

CLG (2008) The English indices ofdeprivation 2007. Communities and LocalGovernment, London.

Cruddas, J., P. John, H. Margretts, N. Lowlesand D. Rowland (2005) The far right inLondon: a challenge to local democracy?Joseph Rowntree Charitable Foundation,Coventry.

Darcy, M. (2010) De-concentration ofdisadvantage and mixed income housing: acritical discourse approach. Housing,Theory and Society 27.1, 1–22.

Davidson, M. and L. Lees (2005) New-build‘gentrification’ and London’s riversiderenaissance. Environment and Planning A37.7, 1165–90.

Deas, I., B. Robson, C. Wong and M.Bradford (2003) Measuring neighbourhooddeprivation: a critique of the Index ofMultiple Deprivation. Environment andPlanning C 21.6, 883–903.

Ellen, I.G. and M.A. Turner (1997) Doesneighbourhood matter? Assessing recentevidence. Housing Policy Debate 8.4,833–66.

Fainstein, S. (2005) Cities and diversity.Should we want it? Can we planfor it? Urban Affairs Review 41.1,3–19.

Finney, N. and L. Simpson (2009)Sleepwalking to segregation? Challengingmyths about race and migration. PolicyPress, Bristol.

Friedrichs, J. and J. Blasius (2003) Socialnorms in distressed neighbourhoods:testing the Wilson hypothesis. HousingStudies 18.6, 807–26.

Friedrichs J., G. Galster and S. Musterd(2005) Life in poverty neighbourhoods:European and American perspectives.Routledge, New York, NY.

Galster, G. (2002) Trans-Atlantic perspectiveson opportunity, deprivation and thehousing nexus. Housing Studies 17.1,5–10.

Goodwin, M.J. (2008) Backlash in the ‘hood:determinants of support for the BritishNational Party (BNP) at the local level.Journal of Contemporary EuropeanStudies 16.3, 347–61.

Goux, D. and E. Maurin (2007) Closeneighbors matter: neighborhood effects onearly performance at school. EconomicJournal 117, 1193–215.

Greenwich, London Borough of (2006)Unitary development plan. [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/Strategies/LandAndBuildingDevelopmentPlan/UnitaryDevelopmentPlan/ReadUPD/(accessed 15 April 2011).

Grillo, R. (2007) An excess of alterity?Debating difference in a multiculturalsociety. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30.6,979–98.

Hackworth, J. (2007) The neoliberal city:governance, ideology, and development inAmerican urbanism. Cornell UniversityPress, Ithaca, NY.

Hamnett, C. (2003) Unequal city: London inthe global arena. Routledge, New York,NY.

Hamnett, C. (2009) Spatially displaceddemand and the changing geography ofhouse prices in London, 1995–2006.Housing Studies 24.3, 301–20.

Hamnett, C. and T. Butler (2010) Thechanging ethnic structure of housingtenure in London, 1991–2001. UrbanStudies 47.1, 55–74.

Housing Studies (1999) Special issue:Towards undivided cities: the potential ofeconomic revitalisation and housingredifferentiation. Housing Studies 14.5,573–716.

Imbroscio, D. (2008) United and actuated bysome common impulse of passion:challenging the dispersal consensus inAmerican housing policy research. Journalof Urban Affairs 30.2, 111–30.

Islington, London Borough of (2011)Islington’s core strategy — adoptedFebruary 2011 [WWW document]. URLhttp://www.islington.gov.uk/Environment/Planning/planningpol/local_dev_frame/pol_corestrat/ (accessed 15 April 2011).

John, P., H. Margretts, D. Rowland and S.Weir (2006) The BNP: the roots of itsappeal. Human Rights Centre, Universityof Essex.

Journal of Education Policy (2008) Specialissue: Schools and the urban renaissance.



Journal of Education Policy 23.2,99–198.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies(2010) Special issue: Linking integrationand residential segregation. Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies 36.2,169–374.

JRF (2005) Mixed tenure twenty years on —nothing out of the ordinary. JosephRowntree Charitable Foundation (JRF),Coventry.

Kesteloot, C. and H. Meert (1999) Informalspaces: the geography of informaleconomic activities in Brussels.International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 23.2, 232–51.

Kesteloot, C., A. Murie and S. Musterd(2006) European cities: neighbourhoodmatters. In S. Musterd, A. Murie and C.Kesteloot (eds.), Neighbourhoods ofpoverty: urban social exclusion andintegration in Europe, Palgrave,Basingstoke.

Kling, J., J. Liebman and L. Katz (2007)Experimental analysis of neighbourhoodeffects. Economentrica 7.1, 83–119.

Lees, L. (2008) Gentrification and socialmixing: towards an inclusive urbanrenaissance? Urban Studies 45.12,2449–70.

Lipman, P. (2008) Mixed-income schools andhousing: advancing the neoliberal urbanagenda. Journal of Education Policy 23.2,119–34.

Lupton, R. (2003) ‘Neighbourhood effects’:can we measure them and does it matter?CASE Research paper 73, London Schoolof Economics, London.

Lupton, R. and R. Tunstall (2008)Neighbourhood regeneration throughmixed communities: a ‘social justice’dilemma? Journal of Education Policy23.2, 105–17.

Marcuse, P., J. Connolly, J. Novy, I. Olivo, C.Potter and J. Steil (2009) Searching forthe just city: debates in urban theoryand practice. Routledge, New York,NY.

Mayor of London (2008) The London plan:spatial development strategy for GreaterLondon (consolidated with alterationssince 2004). Greater London Authority,London.

Mayor of London (2009) The London Plan:spatial development strategy for greaterLondon (draft replacement). GreaterLondon Authority, London.

McGhee, D. (2008) The end ofmulticulturalism? Terrorism, integrationand human rights. Open University Press,Maidenhead.

Musterd, S. (2002) Response: mixed housingpolicy: a European (Dutch) perspective.Housing Studies 1.1, 139–43.

Musterd, S. (2005) Social and ethnicsegregation in Europe: levels, causes andeffects. Journal of Urban Affairs 27.3,331–48.

Musterd, S. and W. Ostendorf (1998) Urbansegregation and the welfare state:inequality and exclusion in Western cities.Routledge, London.

Musterd, S., W. Ostendorf and M. Breebaart(1998) Multi-ethnic metropolis: patternsand policies. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dordrecht.

Musterd, S., W. Ostendorf and S. de Vos(2003) Neighbourhood effects and socialmobility: a longitudinal analysis. HousingStudies 18.6, 877–92.

Musterd, S. and R. Andersson (2005)Housing mix, social mix and socialopportunities. Urban Affairs Review 40.6,761–90.

Musterd, S., A. Murie and C. Kesteloot(2006) Neighbourhoods of poverty: urbansocial exclusion and integration in Europe.Palgrave, Basingstoke.

ODPM (2004) Indices of deprivation 2004.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,London.

ONS (2001) 2001 census data. Office forNational Statistics, London.

ONS (2006) Income support and Job SeekersAllowance claimant data. Office forNational Statistics, London.

Ostendorf, W., S. Musterd and S. de Vos(2001) Social mix and the neighbourhoodeffect: policy ambitions and empiricalevidence. Housing Studies 16.3, 371–80.

Popkin, S., D. Levy, and L. Harris (2004) TheHOPE VI program: what about theresidents? Housing Policy Debate 15.2,385–14.

Porter, L. and K. Shaw (2009) Whose urbanrenaissance? An international comparisonof urban regeneration strategies.Routledge, London.

Power, A. (2007) City survivors: bringing upchildren in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.Policy Press, Bristol.

Prime Minister’s Office (2011) PM calls for‘shared national identity’. 5 February 2011[WWW document]. URL http://www.



number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2011/02/pm-calls-for-shared-national-identity-60300 (accessed 15 April 2011).

Raco, M. (2008) Key worker housing, welfarereform and the new spatial policy inEngland. Regional Studies 42.5,737–51.

Robson, B., M. Parkinson, M. Boddy and D.Maclennan (2000) The state of Englishcities. Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions, London.

Simon, P. (2002) When de-segregationproduces stigmatisation: ethnic minoritiesand urban policies in France. In M.Martiniello and B. Piquard (eds.),Diversity in the city, University of Deusto,Bilbao.

Southwark, London Borough of (2011) LDFCore Strategy — adopted April 2011[WWW document]. URL http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2648/documents_for_core_strategy_adoption ac (accessed 15 April2011).

Uitermark, J., J. Duyvendak and R. Kleinhans(2007) Gentrification as a governmentalstrategy: social control and social cohesion

in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment andPlanning A 39.1, 125–41.

Urban Studies (2008) Special issue:Gentrification and public policy. UrbanStudies 45.12, 2379–625.

Van Beckhoven, E. and R. van Kempen(2003) Social effects and urbanrestructuring: a case study in Amsterdamand Utrecht. Housing Studies 18.6,853–75.

Van Gent, W.P.C., S. Musterd and W.Ostendorf (2009) Disentanglingneighbourhood problems: area-basedinterventions in Western European cities.Urban Research and Practice 2.1,53–67.

Van Kempen, R., K. Dekker, S. Hall and I.Tosics (2005) Restructuring large housingestates in Europe. Policy Press, Bristol.

Watt, P. (2009) Housing stock transfers,regeneration and state-led gentrification inLondon. Urban Policy and Research 27.3,229–42.

Wilson, W. (1987) The truly disadvantaged:the inner city, the underclass and publicpolicy. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

RésuméDes deux côtés de l’Atlantique, des politiques sociales et de diversification des régimesd’occupation des logements sont régulièrement mises en æuvre pour lutter contre lapauvreté urbaine et les inégalités sociales (bien que sans preuves solides), certainesmesures entraînant souvent gentrification, polarisation sociale ou dispersion vers lespériphéries. Cet article étudie si une diversification des régimes d’occupation permet defreiner la pauvreté en multipliant les opportunités socio-économiques (production) etaccès aux ressources (consommation); elle contribue aussi, sur le plan empirique, à desdébats généraux sur les incidences des inégalités, de la ségrégation et du voisinage. Desanalyses quantitatives et qualitatives longitudinales évaluent dans quelle mesureles opportunités et accès aux ressources, pour les locataires de logements sociaux duGrand Londres, sont supérieurs dans les quartiers où les régimes sont diversifiés parrapport aux quartiers à forte concentration de logements sociaux. Les niveaux dedénuement selon l’Indice de pauvreté multiple (IMD) sont comparés et décomposés. Lescorrélations entre régime d’occupation, ethnicité, revenu, lieu, accessibilité financièredu quartier et pauvreté sont examinées. D’après les résultats, les habitants de logementssociaux ont effectivement des opportunités et accès aux ressources différents, ceux-cin’étant ni déterminés ni améliorés par le degré de diversité des régimes d’occupationdans le quartier. En revanche, des programmes propres à un territoire ou à unepopulation, ainsi qu’un accès démarchandisé aux services sociaux (éducation, formationet emploi), sont essentiels. En outre, l’IMD comme argument de base pour formuler despolitiques est contesté, et les effets de voisinage sont remis en cause.

