1 / 22

Neighborhood effects, neighborhood problems and policy solutions

Neighborhood effects, neighborhood problems and policy solutions. Discussant’s Comments on Policy Responses to Neighborhood effects on Education, Work, Crime, and Health 7 April, 2011 William A.V. Clark University of California Los Angeles/ CHR St Andrews. Introduction.

azuka
Download Presentation

Neighborhood effects, neighborhood problems and policy solutions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Neighborhood effects, neighborhood problems and policy solutions Discussant’s Comments on Policy Responses to Neighborhood effects on Education, Work, Crime, and Health 7 April, 2011 William A.V. Clark University of California Los Angeles/ CHR St Andrews

  2. Introduction • Places are different • Neighborhood conceptions are both positive – (Beverly Hills, Faubourg St Honore) and negative– wrong side of the tracks, lower east side, dog town, pole town – stigmatization • Place based interventions are a response to difference, usually to negative differences

  3. Basis of intervention Neighborhoods are (identifiable) • Distinctive social worlds; • Territorially bounded; • Organization based on local institutions;

  4. But of varying form • Nominal Neighborhoods: named, but no precise limits; • Absolute Neighborhoods: explicitly defined areas; • Functional Neighborhoods: activity based; • Community neighborhoods: interaction based;

  5. Three Seminars • The question/s across two previous seminars have been about whether we have a theory of neighborhood effects and how do we understand dynamic neighborhoods -what is the role of place • Now, can we intervene with ABI’s – what is the policy impetus and how sure are we that we can make a difference with ABI

  6. Overview • Four papers on substantive issues that have place relevance (presuming we have neighborhood theory) • Education, worklessness, crime and health • All are central issues for social well being • Implicit assumption is that we know “the effect” and we can do something about it (take each paper in turn).

  7. Education • Response to poor education outcomes – improve system, target neighborhoods • ABI clearly linked to wider regeneration of areas (evidence?) • Still only partially successful because meso level approach but need macro too • Need to go from redistribution to recognition (but how, not spelled out) • Solution – give power back to schools and communities – but how and do they want it?

  8. Worklessness • Persistent spatial concentration of worklessness • Best route out of poverty is work - so deal with worklessness in deprived neighborhoods • Causes –usual suspects (econ restr., culture of worklessness, social capital, stigmatization, poor public transport) • To intervene need to know the types of worklessness (can we distinguish and how?) • But again, policies have limited impact (p.16) and do not do much (p.19)-no significant difference in gap between most and least deprived • Interventions at local level poorly positioned to deal with wider change in labor markets

  9. Crime • A lot of interest from Sampson’s work on collective efficacy and role of trust, by extension neighborhood capacity for informal control. • BUT Really only one study and there are questions about the robustness of the results (Veysey and Messner) • Still not a lot on HOW the neighborhood works, this paper tackles that question • Specifically they show that people look beyond the immediate neighborhood • That is the neighborhood is more than the neighborhood and it reiterates the issue of neighborhood definition.

  10. Crime (2) • Ok but what should we do, what is the policy implication of this research?

  11. Health • The paper examines two questions – is poor health concentrated and do socially disadvantaged neighborhoods experience lower quality physical environments. • A discussion of smoking outcomes is used as a springboard to discussions of environmental justice • Sorting/ migration is identified as a major factor in the creation of difference – who leaves who enters becomes determinant. • But health behavior effects are elusive – no or low association of access and outcomes • What does this mean for policy?

  12. Health (2) • The smoking study – two processes: • Selection effects in migration such that those prone to smoking are more likely to end up in one place than another • And, smokers are more likely to move to areas where other smokers are more likely to live • Question: is the location decision made by smokers vis a vis non smokers because they are smokers or because they happen to be of low socio economic status and it is the status that is causing locational clustering?

  13. A digression on Income and Health

  14. Income distribution

  15. Observations • Neighborhood effect or income effect? • And how to deal with the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP)

  16. Health by Neighborhood Type

  17. Life expectancy in Glasgow 14km apart: 28 year difference in life expectancy Lenzie Life expectancy=82 Calton Life expectancy=54

  18. What is the question-from a policy perspective • Are the areas different because of population composition • Are they different from treatment effects - one area has superior facilities and staff • Are they different BECAUSE there are area effects – noxious industry, lead paint etc WHAT IS THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EACH

  19. The underlying question • If the bulk of the difference is composition effects then • THE QUESTION IS HOW THESE AREAS ENDED UP WITH SUCH DIFFERENT COMPOSITIONS • The answer – residential sorting ( see Clark and Morrison -Residential sorting, neighbourhood effects and social mobility: evidence from a large scale survey) • but what are the processes which “sorted” people into these two neighborhoods?

  20. Concluding observations • Sorting out the sorting process is central to understanding the uneven concentrations of socio –economic groups • Unless we can sort out the sorting process we won’t get close to sorting out the neighborhood effects

  21. Review and Overview • They (neighborhood effects) may be mostly an area outcome not an area affect; • If neighborhood effects exist, they are probably small, may be dependent upon your definition of neighborhood, and difficult to detect; • Analysis of outlier neighborhoods may be more useful (e.g, poor neighborhoods with good health OR wealthy neighborhoods with poor health); • A sorting focus gives us both theory and testable measures.

More Related