Click here to download

Social Mix: Considerations on a Policy Facing Socio-spatial Inequality
Journal Title: SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE 
Author/s: Alfredo Agustoni, Alfredo Alietti 
Year:  2015 Issue: 108 Language: Italian 
Pages:  12 Pg. 7-18 FullText PDF:  54 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SUR2015-108001
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The present article offers some preliminary reflections on social mix as introduction to the following thematic session. The question related to the outcomes of social and spatial closeness among differences is not so unrelated to sociological tradition. However, in the last twenty years the problem of mix is back to be a key issue as "device of government" in the North American and European metropolitan areas. In the current neoliberal configuration of welfare state, and specifically for what concerns the housing policies, this perspective has taken on a prominence in the urban policies. The promotion of social mix at neighbourhood level by means of coexistence with affluent segments of population in term of socio-economic and cultural resources represents a widespread strategy for opposing to the growing marginalization and segregation of vulnerable social and ethnic groups. The effects of this policy result inadequate in regard to expected goals. In this sense, the logic of social mix appears faulty by a rhetoric of public action to looking for legitimacy which hides processes of inequality and by a deterministic vision on relationship between space and society. From this critical point of view is necessary to start for understanding the real potentiality of social mix as factor of change.
Keywords: Social Mix, Urban Dynamics, Segregation, Life Chances, Housing Policies, Inequality

  1. Agustoni A., Alietti A. (2013). Integrazione, casa e immigrazione. Milano: ISMU.
  2. Agustoni A., Alietti A., Cucca R. (2015). Neoliberalismo, migrazioni e segregazione spaziale, Sociologia Urbana e Rurale, 106: 118-136., DOI: 10.3280/SUR2015-10600
  3. Agustoni A., Rozza C. (2005). Diritto alla casa, diritto alla città. Milano: Aracne.
  4. Appleyard D. (1976). Planning a Pluralist City. Cambridge, Mass: Mit Press.
  5. Appleyard D. (1979). The Environment as a Social Symbol. Journal of the American Planning Association: 143-153., DOI: 10.1080/0194436790897695
  6. Arbaci S., Rae I. (2013). Mixed-Tenure Neighbourhoods in London: Policy Myth or Effective Device to Alleviate Deprivation? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2: 451-479., DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01145.
  7. Atkinson R., Kintrea K. (2001). Disentangling Area Effects: Evidence from Deprived and Non-deprived Areas. Urban Studies, 1: 2277-2298., DOI: 10.1080/0042098012008716
  8. Barou J. (2008). Mixité sociale et accès au logement: un couple antagonique? Recherches et Prévisions, 94: 49-57., DOI: 10.3406/caf.2008.240
  9. Benevolo L. (1960). Le origini dell’urbanistica moderna. Bari: Laterza.
  10. Blanc M., (2010). The Impact of Social Mix Policies in France. Housing Studies, 2: 257-272., DOI: 10.1080/0267303090356292
  11. Bolt G. (2009). Combating residential segregation of ethnic minorities in European cities. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24: 397-405., DOI: 10.1007/s10901-009-9163-
  12. Bolt G., Özüekren S., Phillips D., (2010). Linking Integration and Residential Segregation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2: 169-186., DOI: 10.1080/1369183090338723
  13. Bolt G., Phillips D., van Kempen R. (2010). Housing Policy, (De)segregation and Social Mixing: An International Perspective. Housing Studies, 2: 129-135., DOI: 10.1080/0267303090356483
  14. Bolt G., Burgers J., van Kempen R. (1998). On the Social Significance of Spatial Location, Spatial Segregation and Social Inclusion. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1: 83-95., DOI: 10.1007/BF0249693
  15. Brenner N., Theodore N., (eds). (2002). Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Wiley-Backwell.
  16. Budin G. (2001). La mixité sociale: une utopie urbaine et urbanistique. Revue de CREHU.
  17. Campbell H, Fainstein S (2010). Justice, urban politics and policy. In K. Mossberger, S.E. Clarke, P. John Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Canter D. (1987). Action and Place, the Existential Dialectic. In E. Bianchi, F. Perussia (a cura di). Immagine soggettiva e ambiente. Milano: Unicopli.
  19. Castronovo V. (1976). Soggetti pubblici per la crescita urbana: gli enti per l’edilizia popolare. In A. Mioni (a cura di). Sulla crescita urbana in Italia. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  20. Cheshire P. (2009). Policies for mixed communities: faith-based displacement activity? International regional science review, 3: 343-375., DOI: 10.1177/016001760933608
  21. De Rudder V. (1991). Seuil de tolerance et cohabitation plurietnique. In Taguieff P.A. (sous la direction). Face au racisme, 2. Paris: La Découverte.
  22. Fonio C. (2007). La videosorveglianza. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  23. Gennetian L., Sanmonbatsu L., Ludwig J. (2011). An Overview of Moving to the Opportunity. A Random Assignment Housing Mobility Study in Five U.S. Cities. In Newburger H.B., Birch E.L., Wachter S.M. (a cura di). Neighborhood and Life Chances. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. pp. 163-178.
  24. Galster G. (2009). Neighborhood Social Mix: Theory, Evidence, and Implications for Policy and Planning. Paper presented at the International Workshop at Technion University “Planning for / with People”. Haifa, Israel
  25. Genestier P. (2006). L’expression ‘lien social’: un syntagme omnipresent, révélateur d’une éevolution paradimatique, Espaces et Societes, 126: 19-34., DOI: 10.3917/esp.126.001
  26. Glaeser, H.J. (1961). The Balanced Community. Homogeneity or Heterogeneity in Residential Areas. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 3: 176-184.
  27. Harvey D. (2005). Breve storia del neoliberalismo. Milano: Il Saggiatore.
  28. Harvey D. (2012). Il capitalismo contro il diritto alla città. Verona: Ombre Corte.
  29. Joseph M.L. (2011). Reinventing Older Communities Through Mixed Income Development. In Newburger H.B., Birch E.L., Wachter S.M. (a cura di). Neighborhood and Life Chances. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press: 122-138.
  30. Kleinshans R. (2004). Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: a review of recent literature. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19: 367-390., DOI: 10.1007/s10901-004-3041-
  31. Launay L. (2010). De Paris à Londres, le défi de la mixité sociale par “les acteurs clés”. Espaces et Sociétés, 140/141: 111–126., DOI: 10.3917/esp.140.011
  32. Lefebvre H. (1974). La production de l’espace. Parigi: Anthropos.
  33. Lyon D. (2002). La società sorvegliata. Tecnologie di controllo della vita quotidiana. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  34. Manley D., van Ham M., Doherty J. (2011). Social Mixing as a Cure for Negative Neighbourhood Effects: Evidence Based Policy or Urban Mith?. IZA Discussion Paper, n. 5631, April.
  35. Munch S. (2009). “It’s all in the mix”: constructing ethnic segregation as a social problem in Germany. Journal of Housing and Build Environment, 24: 441-455., DOI: 10.1007/s10901-009-9160-
  36. Musterd S., Andersson R. (2005). Housing Mix, Social Mix and Social Opportunities. Urban Affaire Review, 6: 1-30., DOI: 10.1177/107808740527600
  37. Newburger H.B., Birch E.L., Wachter S.M. (a cura di). (2011). Neighborhood and Life Chances. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.
  38. Sala Pala V. (2006). Le racisme istitutionelle dans les attributions de logement social, une comparaison franco-britannique. Hommes & Migrations, 1264: 103-113.
  39. Sampson R., Morenoff J., Gannon-Rowley T. (2002). Assessing “Neighborhood Effects”: Social Processes and New Directions in Research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 443-78. doi. 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141114
  40. Sarkissian W. (1976). The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical review. Urban Studies, 13: 231-246., DOI: 10.1080/0042098762008052
  41. Sarkissian W., Forsyth A., HeineW. (1990). Residential “social mix”: the debate continues. Australian Planner, 28(1): 5-16., DOI: 10.1080/07293682.1990.965743
  42. Slater T (2013). Your Life Chances Affect Where You Live: A Critique of the “Cottage Industry” of Neighborhood Effects Research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2: 367-87., DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2013.01215.
  43. Strassoldo R. (1987). La percezione e la valutazione dell’ambiente costruito. In E. Bianchi, F. Perussia (a cura di). Immagine soggettiva e ambiente. Milano: Unicopli.
  44. van Ham M., Manley D. (2010). The effect of neighbourhood housing tenure mix on labour market outcomes: a longitudinal investigation of neighbourhood effects. Journal of Economic Geography, 10: 257–28., DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbp01
  45. van Kempen R., Bolt G. (2009). Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24: 457-475., DOI: 10.1007/s10901-009-9161-
  46. Villani L. (2012). Le borgate del fascismo. Milano: Ledizioni.
  47. Wilson W. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  48. Zimmermann C. (2004). L’era delle metropoli. Bologna: il Mulino.

Alfredo Agustoni, Alfredo Alietti, Social Mix: Considerations on a Policy Facing Socio-spatial Inequality in "SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE" 108/2015, pp. 7-18, DOI:10.3280/SUR2015-108001

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content