The relevance of welfare regime for neighbourhood regeneration practices: a case study of Birmingham and Rotterdam

The relevance of welfare regime for neighbourhood

regeneration practices: a case study of Birmingham

and Rotterdam

Political Science: International Relations and Organisations Bachelor project 7: the welfare state in international perspective

Introduction

The subject of residential segregation has received increased scholarly and political attention since the 1970s (Roberts & Sykes, 2000, p.16). We may think of ghetto’s in the United States, ‘banlieus’ in France and ‘vogelaarwijken’ in the Netherlands. The neighbourhoods are characterised by a high concentration of households of a low socioeconomic status. They represent pockets of marginalisation, inequality, and poverty, are frequently framed as failed integration projects. It raises questions of a ‘parallel society’ (Alba & Foner, 2015, p. 67) in which households of deprived neighbourhoods are isolated, yet often live within a miles distance of the successful and prosperous neighbourhoods at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid.

However, segregated neighbourhoods are more than a concentration of socioeconomic problems. Rather, Wilson (1987) demonstrates that these problems can be caused by the context of the neighbourhood itself (Alba & Foner, 2015, p.98; Bolt et al., 2010, p.170; de Magalhães, 2015 p.1; Quillian & Lagrange, 2016, p.1052). He identified ‘neighbourhood effects’ that structurally

disadvantage the opportunities of households living in low class neighbourhoods (Wilson, 1987). As a reaction to these findings, regeneration policies were introduced to overcome neighbourhood

deprivation. Governments and well-doers invested in upgrading the neighbourhoods, policing their streets and mending their houses. Simultaneously, a vast array of social workers has settled in segregated neighbourhoods. Subsequent governments have worked to bring to life a stagnant local economy. Despite these decennia of efforts, spatial segregation still exists and regeneration projects have had mixed results (Carpenter, 2006, p.2145). This signals a need to achieve a better

understanding of regeneration practices. This thesis will not add to the debate about effectivity of policies, rather its objective is to contribute to the understanding of policy makers’ motivation to choose different regeneration strategies. It does this in the context of different worlds of welfare (Esping-Andersen, 1990) through a comparative case study of regeneration practices in Birmingham and Rotterdam in 2000-2013. The findings indicate towards a structural, but far from complete, correspondence between a welfare regime type and the type of regeneration in place. Consequently,

this work adds to discussions of the robustness of institutional welfare arrangements whilst investigating its relevance within the field of regeneration.

Literature Review

Regeneration and segregation

Cities are increasingly recognised as the engines of regional growth and competitiveness (Carpenter, 2006, p.2145), but in the shadow of development a spatial concentration of households excluded from this advancement has emerged. Commentators of segregation note that the character of the city largely defines the occurrence of spatial isolation (Johnson et al. p.553; Massy & Eggers, p.308; Quillian & Lagrange, 2016, p.1052; Reardon & Bischoff, 2011, p.1118). They find that larger cities correspond with higher chances of segregation (Johnson et all. p.553; Massy & Eggers, p.308; Reardon &

Bischoff, 2011, p.1118). Furthermore, segregation is most abundant in metropolises with large finance or manufacturing sectors (St John, 2002, p.501). These ‘Global Cities’ (Sassen, 1991) play a particular role in attracting both high-end and low-end classes which cleavages could harbour ground for spatial isolation (Mustard et al., 2016, p.1077, Taylor, 2005, p.183).

It is in these global cities that regeneration projects have been abundant (Carpenter, 2006, p.2145). Differences in regeneration practices underlie different forces that cause spatial concentration of deprivation: for regeneration policies to have a lasting effect, they must impede, or preferably reverse, those drivers of segregation embedded in the city. Residential regeneration is a diffuse concept, in which policy is rooted in action and theory in practice (Roberts, 2016, p.26). By tracking the origins of segregation the different aspects of regeneration and their purposes can be revealed.

Scholars have identified income disparity as a structural driver of segregation (Massy & Eggers, 1993; Musterd et all. 2017; Quillian & Lagrange, 2016; Reardon & Bischoff, 2011; Scarpa, 2015; St. John, 2002). The spatial division of housing supply and demand sorts households along the ability to afford different housing (Goldenberg, 1998), which ‘means that like attracts like’ (Chen et al., 2012, pp.889-892). Regeneration policies aim to increase the income of low socioeconomic groups, either through benefits or interventions in the labour market (Hall, 1997, p.882-883; Lupton, 2003, p. 8) or by

kick-starting the local economy (Brenner, 2004, p.463; Fuller, 2011, p.194; Hall, 1997, p.882). These practices are tied to enhancing the opportunities of residents of segregated neighbourhoods, which has a social dimension as well as economic dimensions. Policy makers invest in health and education (Roberts, 2000, p.13), local participation (McCartny, 2007, p. 35; Magalhães 2015, p.920; Rich & Stoker, 2014, p.6) and the social capital of the neighbourhood (Carpenter, 2006, p.2146-2147; Vranken, 2005, p.260). The strategies envision to end segregation by equalising wealth and welfare regardless of neighbourhood (Skifter Andersen, 2002, p.467).

A second relevant factor influencing segregation is the housing market, which can be

‘decommodified’ to mitigate the spatial effects of inequality (Brandsen, 2001, p.3). Regeneration strategies can decommodify the housing market by setting rents, subsidies or building public housing and rental estates (Stamsø, 2010, p.66-68; McCartny, 2007, p.27). This increases the housing choice for low socioeconomic groups but also provides the government with means to encourage integration and neighbourhood mixing (Musterd et al., 2016, p,1067; Murie, 2005). Upgrading bad quality housing is another regeneration policy (Andersen Skifter, 2002, p.467; McCartny, 2007, p.27; Vranken, 2005, p.205; Van Gent, 2010, p.64-65). Certain policy is intended to advance the living conditions of the households. Similarly, renewal of the neighbourhood’s public space and crime reductions are regeneration policies aimed to inflict positive neighbourhood effects (Hall, 1997, p.879; Vranken, 2005, p.205).

Segregation is often ethnically defined, as the size of minority groups influences the scope of spatial concentration. Immigrants primarily settle near co-ethnics (Alba & Foner, 2015, p.69-70; Johnston et al., 2004, p.552), who generally have a lower income or education level and subsequently define the neighbourhood’s socioeconomic identity. Regeneration can be specifically targeted at marginalized groups through social benefits, participation and rehabilitation programmes (Rich & Stoker, 2014, p.6; Vranken, 2005, p.260). However, segregation is also aggravated by discrimination of the host society, which actively excludes them from parts of the housing market (Aldén et al., 2015, p.45; Fleischmann & Dronkers, 2010, p.234; Johnston et al., 2004, p.552; Massey & Denton, 1984). Moreover, theories of ‘white flight’ have demonstrated that native population tends to migrate if the concentration of minorities rises in their neigbhourhood (Card et al. 2008; Aldén et al., 2015, p.64). As a response,

regeneration projects can be targeted at improving the image of minority groups and the neighbourhood (Skifter Andersen, 2002, p.471).

Despite these structural forces, segregation is in part a natural tendency of households to live close to families who ‘are like them’ (Schelling, 1971; Atkinson, 2016). In this perspective, residential choice can never be fully steered by regeneration policies. Tiebout (1956), however, examined an effect of personal preference on residential segregation that can be influenced through regeneration. According to him, residents choose a neighbourhood that matches their ideal set of public services and their willingness to pay for it (Tiebout, 1956). This sorting effect privileges high income groups which have more resources to move to their optimal neighbourhood and concentrates lower incomes in undesired areas (Reardon & Bischoff, 2011, p.1102). The result is a positive feedback loop in which high income neighbourhoods attract nearby services such as bars, boutiques, culture amenities and sport clubs (St. John, 2002, p.515; Atkinson, 2016). This effect increases the outflux of high-income groups from mixed neighbourhoods to the newly established resource-rich neighbourhoods (Card et al., 2008). Gentrification is a regeneration strategy that uses this knowledge (Van Gent, 2010, p.66; Vranken, 2005, p.266). It attempts to incite a positive feedback of resources and higher socioeconomic

households in deprived areas. By making the neighbourhoods economic and amenity-rich centres with quality housing, it aims to attract the higher strata (Howell-Moroney, 2008, p.101-102). Gentrification, nonetheless, is criticised as it risks pushing the lower-income groups out of the revived

neighbourhoods (Howell-Moroney, 2008, p.101-102).

The welfare state

This thesis is informed of a structural and institutional perspective, hence issues of individual agency, whilst borne in mind, are left outside of the analytical scope of this research. Focussing on the

abovementioned structural incubators of socioeconomic segregation and their subsequent regeneration policies, this thesis primarily concerns itself with the state’s framework of policies and regulations that. Specifically, the redistribution of welfare resources managed by the welfare state. Through this framework, the state has a say in the level of income inequality, social security and resources. It influences the opportunities or disadvantages in the housing and labour market. Within this

understanding, regeneration’s task is essentially a redistribution of resources, directing them towards deprived neighbourhoods to overcome spatial isolation. Herein lies a possible relevance for a state’s welfare regime. The question of welfare state arrangement is at the heart of residential segregation for it is both a cause and effect: the level of welfare distribution contributes to the level of residential clustering (Skifter Andersen, 2002, p.768) and this level of residential clustering has an impact on the welfare of its households (Scarpa, 2015, p.906).

Conventional appreciation of the welfare state builds upon the work or Esping-Andersen (1990). He classified ‘three worlds of welfare’, a social democratic, liberal and conservative world. Each have a distinctive outlook, or logic, on the extent and the delivery of welfare to its citizens (Arts & Gelissen, 2010, p.3). Esping-Andersen classifies their distribution of welfare along three factors: First, by the degree of decommodification, expressing the extent to which social security is seen as a citizenship right. Secondly, by the responsible actor for guaranteeing social security. This responsibility is centred around three different institution: the market, state or family. Finally, they vary in the level of

socioeconomic stratification maintained throughout these institutions (Arts & Gelissen, 2010, p.3). The social democratic regime’s class-cutting solidarity results in the most generous welfare

provisions. In conservative regimes social insurances plays a major role, meaning that generosity of benefits depends on labour market participation. Liberal regimes locate the market as chief provider of welfare, in which the state plays a residual role to abject market failures (Arts & Gelissen, 2010).

Level of decommodification Primary institution for social security Stratification Characteristics Social Democratic

High State Low Universalism

Equality

Conservative Moderate Family/work Moderate Preservation of

traditional relationships Subsidiarity

Minimal intervention Table 1: welfare regimes (Arts & Gelissen, 2010).

Research question

It follows that both regeneration and the welfare state are invested in a distribution of resources. Within each welfare regime, however, there exists a particular preference for the type and method of resources delivered to its citizens. Therefore, it is plausible that the local welfare state could shape the range of possibilities from which regeneration policies are chosen. This thesis scrutinizes this link by analysing the extent to which regeneration policies act within the confinement of two different types of welfare regimes. What are the strategies of regeneration and how are they conceptualised within a particular welfare ideology? This thesis will address these questions by empirically exploring the relationship between welfare provisions and the policy choices of residential regeneration. It asks: what is the difference between welfare regimes and their policies on residential regeneration? In preparation to addressing these uncertainties, first a conceptualisation of regeneration, and how this interacts with welfare worlds, is provided. These assumptions form the foundation on which to analyse qualitatively the case studies of this thesis, before their findings can be utilised to answer the research question.

Theoretical Framework

Conceptualisation

In broad concepts, regeneration is used to describe urban development projects in general. This thesis, however, refers to regeneration as policies aimed specifically at development of deprived

neighbourhoods, which can be identified as the opposite to causes of segregation. There is no

systematic concept of regeneration, but the best definition is formulated by Roberts and Sykes (2000). They captured regeneration as a ‘comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change’ (Roberts & Sykes, 2000, p.17). Following them, four dimensions of regeneration are identified: economic,

physical, social and environmental. Table 2 summarises the policy instruments found in the literature review according to each dimension, a more detailed explanation on the content of each instrument is found in Appendix II.

Dimensions Policy instrument

Economic Stimulating entrepreneurship (Brenner, 2004, p.463; Fuller, 2011, p.194,

Hall, 1997, p.882)

Attracting or subsidize capital/employers (Brenner, 2004, p.463; Fuller, 2011, p.194; Hall, 1997, p.882)

Economic diversification (Brenner, 2004, p.463/p.472; Hall, 1997, p.882) Training, counselling, recruitment (Hall, 1997, p.882-883; Lupton, 2003, p. 8; McCartny, 2007, p.35)

Job creation, job protection, employer subsidies (Hall, 1997, p.882-883; Lupton, 2003, p. 8)

Benefits (Hall, 1997, p.882-883; Lupton, 2003, p. 8)

Social Participation and empowerment programmes, social care (McCartny, 2007, p.

35; Magalhães 2015, p.920; Skifter Andersen, 2002; Rich & Stoker, 2014, p.6)

Healthcare, education (Roberts, 2016, p.13)

Local social amenities (Carpenter, 2006, pp.2146-2147; Skifter Andersen, 2002, p.465-470; Roberts, 2000, p.13; Vranken, 2005, p.260)

Anti-discrimination, image (Magalhães 2015, p.920; Skifter Andersen, 2002, p.471)

Rehabilitation (Rich & Stoker, 2014, p.6; Vranken, 2005, p.260)

Social benefits (Carpenter, 2006, pp.2146-2147; Rich & Stoker, 2014, p.6; McCartny, 2007, p.35; Vranken, 2005, p.260)

Physical Upgrading, selling, demolition and building (Andersen Skifter, 2002, p.467;

Gentrification (Howell-Moroney, 2008, p.101-102; Vranken, 2005, p.266; Van Gent, 2010, p.65)

Housing market regulations: price, subsidies, entry and loans (Musterd et al., 2016, p,1067; Murie, 2005; Stamsø, 2010)

Affordable housing (McCartny, 2007, p.27)

Environmental Infrastructure (Brenner, 2004, p.475; Magalhães 2015, p.920)

Renewal of public space (Hall, p.879; Roberts, 2016, p.13) Public transport (Hall, p.883; Roberts, 2016, p.13)

Crime prevention (Hall, p.879; Roberts, 2016, p.13) upgrading/creating amenities (Magalhães 2015, p.920)

Table 2: Dimensions of regeneration and their corresponding policies.

Since Esping-Andersen’s work, scholars have identified new worlds of welfare, such as the Southern-Europe and former-socialist states (Aspalter, 2017, pp.15-40). This thesis is limited to the three worlds originally identified by Esping-Andersen, for their terminology is most developed and accepted (Arts & Gelissen, 2002, p.148). Furthermore, it is within Northern Europe and the transatlantic that spatial segregation and regeneration features most prominently on the agenda (Roberts, 2016, p.9). It is important to note Esping-Andersen’s model was built upon evidence on minimum income and basic services. However, as we will see, his theory is less applicable to other sets of welfare that have a stake in residential segregation, such as housing, social inclusion, participation or public goods provisions (van Kempen & Murie, 2009, p.382). If Esping-Andersen, or other scholars following his legacy, do not provide a clear directive, assumptions about regeneration policies and welfare regime will be weaker. In such instances, they are conceived by the behavioural patterns of each regime as summarised in Table 1.

Welfare regime types and regeneration policies

The assumed overlap of welfare regime type and the implemented regeneration policies are founded in theoretical assumptions on the behaviour of different welfare logics. These assumptions will be investigated according to the dimensions of regeneration formulated by Roberts and Sykes (2000). An overview of the theory is found in Appendix II.

Within the economic dimension, the link between welfare regime and regeneration lies partly in their relation to income inequality (Massy & Eggers, 1993; Musterd et al. 2017; Quillian & Lagrange, 2016; Reardon & Bischoff, 2011; Scarpa, 2015; St. John, 2002). In this perspective, liberal regimes are systematically less redistributive, keep wages low and social benefits are targeted at a particular group (Esping-Andersen & Myles, 2009, p.18; Kenworthy, 2010, p.6). Conservative, but especially social democratic welfare states, excel in their redistribution by means of higher wages and intensive social security (Barbier & Ludwig-Mayerhofer, 2006, p.428). Comparing the three regimes, the liberal world is the least likely candidate to increase financial capabilities of households as a regeneration policy. Instead of giving social security, most regeneration practises utilise employment as instrument for improving a households’ income. Socioeconomic deprived neighbourhoods are characterised by above average unemployment statistics (Murie, 2005, p.151). Employment can be stimulated through active labour market polices (ALMPs), which draws on measures such as counselling, training, recruitment and job placement. Social-democratic and conservative regimes are known for intensive ALMPs, whereas liberal welfare regimes demonstrate moderate polices to activate employment (Bukodi & Róbert, p.7, 2007). Subsequent regeneration policies are expect to follow a similar pattern, in which social democratic and conservative regimes are more inclined to decommodify the labour market through ALMPs arrangements. Nevertheless, liberal regimes could favour regeneration through ‘in-work benefits’ (Esping-Andersen & Myles, 2009, p.7), which subsidises low-income to encourage work over unemployment whilst keeping the pressure on employers low (Kenworthy, 2010, pp.6-7). Conservative regimes’ are the most interventionist. They traditionally employ comprehensive passive labour market policies (ELPs), such as large employees protection schemes, hence nurturing the relationship between employer and employee (Bukodi & Róbert, 2007, p.7; Barbieri et al. p.201-203). Conservative regimes are further characterised by specified vocational training, resulting in

correspondence between qualification and occupation and less labour mobility (Bukodi & Róbert, p.35, 2007). Conservative regimes’ orientation on work relations might make bargains to attract employers and their collaboration in training and recruitment programmes feasible as regeneration policy.

Alternatively, a vibrant economy generates more work opportunities for all and is likely sought-after regardless of welfare regime. Accordingly, regeneration practices can pull people out of exclusion by streamlining the neighbourhood’s economy. Regardless of their universal value, regeneration policies would revolve most naturally around entrepreneurship, attracting capital, and diversification of the economy in the market-oriented liberal welfare states. This emphasis, as will be demonstrated, could partially be due to its limitations in the use of other dimensions.

Social dimensions of regeneration are captured in policies of inclusion, rights and social networks (Barbieri et al., 2000, p.204; Murie, 2005, pp.152-156; Muffels & Fouarge, 2004, p.306). Multiple studies on these topics suggest that more generous welfare regimes are most invested in social dimensions of welfare, suggesting extensive regeneration programmes for participation, social care, rehabilitation, image enhancement and creating local social amenities. For example, Stoy (2014, p.357) uses public employment in the welfare services sector as a proxy for the state’s delivery of services, and finds that this corresponds with the generosity of welfare regime clusters. Similarly, the crowding-in hypotheses suggests that generous welfare states, with their roots in universalist social security and full citizenship, are positively related to the formation of social capital, trust and norms (Ferragina, 2017, p.59). These states are more dedicated to equalize opportunity structures (Arts & Gellisen, 2010), seen in Scandinavian efforts for gender equality through social benefits and positive discrimination (Esping-Anderson & Myles, 2009, p.15). On the other hand, less generous welfare schemes co-variate with heightened economic vulnerability, which includes poverty, deprivation and social exclusion (Whelan & Maître, 2010, p.322; Muffels & Fouarge, 2004, p.322). These regimes might find less support for regeneration strategies which require large social budgets and state-intervention (Pemberton & Doos, 2017, p.7). Liberal welfare states are often characterised by a ‘demonization’ of social problems, with rhetoric locating vulnerable groups as responsible for their

problems and blaming welfare recipients (Jacobs et al., 2003, p.438). These discussions correspond to targeted and means-tested benefit strategies, which contribute to the stigmatisation of the receiving groups and their low socioeconomic neighbourhoods (Ferragina, 2017, p.59). These findings indicate that whereas there might be alarming social conditions, social regeneration in conservative regimes is weaker than in social democratic regimes and weakest in liberal regimes. The commodified liberal labour market has its own welfare logic. Labour is seen as the central institution determining life and well-being and participation in the labour market will subsequently yield social equality (Barbier & Ludwig-Mayerhofer, 2006, p.427; Esping-Andersen & Myles, 2009, p.7).

This is not the case for education and healthcare. A welfare state’s traditional role is found within healthcare, education and a basic income (Briggs, 1961, p.288). In all three regimes, we find that these services are fully developed (Esping-Andersen & Myles, 2009, p.21). Consequently, the same can be expected for regeneration policies within spheres of health and education.

The physical dimension of regeneration encapsulates housing. Housing has been described as ‘the wobbly pillar under the welfare state’ (Torgersen, 1987), for it is a traditional function of welfare yet it constitutes a largely commodified resource (Brandsen, 2010, p.3; Malpass, 2008, p.3). For this reason, Esping-Andersen excluded it as a foundation of his regime analysis. The work of Kemeny (1995) poses a possible helpful alternative to Esping-Anderson’s omission. He suggests that alternative types of housing systems resemble the patterns of welfare regimes. He writes that a ‘(resi)dual’ housing regime substitutes welfares spending by owner-occupancy estates. Housing is commodified and hence property is a source of welfare (Kurz & Blossfeld, 2004, p.1; Stamsø, 2010, p.67-68). ‘Unitary’ housing systems differ because they demonstrate relatively more state-intervention, more state-owned housing and a more level playing-field housing market (Van der Heijden, 2013, pp.13-16). Kemeny’s classification has been subjected to debate since housing regimes have displayed considerable

convergence in the last two decades as the result of an European-wide decline in public housing stock (Malpass, 2006, p.3). Accounting for this, Hoekstra’s (2010) work identifies The Netherlands, Denmark and Austria as unitary systems and the UK, Ireland and Belgium as dual systems (Hoekstra, 2010, pp.82-84). It is obvious here that welfare regime and housing regime does not correspond

perfectly. The Netherlands and Belgium are conservative welfare regimes (Arts & Gelissen, 2010) but with rather different housing policy (Hoekstra, 2010, pp.82-84; Musterd et al. 2017, p.1067). Even though Kemeny’s classification might not be fully consistent with Esping-Andersen, findings demonstrate a higher commodification of the housing market in dual systems opposed to unitary systems: ‘the home-owner-ship sector is larger in dual systems, there are greater differences in quality and rent between the social and the commercial rental sector and the social rental sector is more residualised’ (Hoekstra, 2010, p.17). Harloe (1995) described a property-driven housing as a sign of a capitalistic society (Malpass, 2006, p.4). Generally, prevailing welfare provisions and housing regime tend to be strongly related (van der Heijde, 2013, p.13; Musterd, 2017, p.1067).

In relation to residential policies, a unitary system is expected to be more beneficial in achieving regeneration. It controls a higher stake of the housing stock through which estates can be upgraded, sold or demolished. Unitary systems can, and are more willing to, steer market prices and regulations. This allows for increased policy opportunities for physical upgrading, but also entails more control over the social composition of a neighbourhood, allowing for policies of gentrification (Van Gent, 2010, pp.74-75) On the other side, dual regimes might find their regeneration policies more constraint by the interest of private actors (Van Gent, 2010, p.79-80). Dual housing regimes are expected to promote the strongest owner occupancy policies while unitary regimes regeneration policies ought to display interest in social housing.

The environmental aspect of regeneration considers the availability of resources such as public transport, play grounds, streetlights, green areas, cleanliness and crime prevention. These policies are effectively rooted in the neighbourhood effects described by Wilson (1987). Many of them are public goods and the government is, regardless of welfare regime, responsible for the provision and

maintenance of these goods. Consequently, the implementation of these practises depends on the environmental deterioration of the neighbourhood and not the context of the welfare regime. Other valuable assets for the neighbourhood, such as groceries, bars and leisure facilities, are provided privately. A state’s economic policy can nourish their establishment through economic incentives. This illustration reveals that environmental policies often interact with other regeneration dimensions,

in which the latter could be informed by the welfare regime. This works two ways: infrastructure can be a policy utilised for other regeneration dimensions, such as economic development.

Methods

This research draws on a most-similar-system comparison of segregated cities belonging to different welfare regimes and their regeneration efforts. A most-similar-system-design is in the comparison of cases which are equal on all possible independent variables but one. The case selection requires factors which influence segregation to be as similar as possible over the selected timeframe (Bryan, p.74, 2012) This design is essential, as local regeneration policy will ultimately be a product of the nature of the segregated neighbourhood at play. Different outcome could then be explained by different types of segregation. The literature review investigated several factors influencing the occurrence and scale of residential segregation. Cities must be similar in terms of inequality, size, demography and economy. Under these circumstances, the only salient difference between cases is the prevalent welfare regime. Ideally, cases are selected on two extreme ends of the welfare spectrum: a liberal regime and an social democratic regime. On the liberal end, assessment of the possible cases proved the United Kingdom (UK) as the most feasible. First of all, thesis aims to deviate from previous research on the topic, which is usually conducted in the United States. Secondly, regeneration precedes problematizing segregation. In the case of Canada spatial isolation is more normalized (Berry, 2013, p.667), possibly resulting in limited data availability. Thirdly, as member of the EU and proximate to the conservative and social democratic cases, it is assumed that the UK’s international and economic pressures are more comparable and relevant than when opting New-Zealand or Australia. Evaluation of an ideal social democratic regime in line with Esping-Andersen’s (1990) categorisation, was found impossible for this thesis. For pragmatic reasons, the data is conducted within the boundaries of two languages which leaves the case selection limited to the Anglophone (and liberal) world, Belgium and The Netherlands. Esping-Andersen (1990) originally classified The Netherlands as social democratic and Belgium as conservative (Arts & Gelissen, 2004, p.151). Regardless, most contemporary scholars group The Netherlands with the conservative regimes (Arts & Gelissen, 2004, p.151), and

consequently so will this thesis. The Netherlands might be best defined as a ‘hybrid’ regime which combines characteristics of different worlds (Vrooman, 2009). This thesis selected The Netherlands due to its social democratic tendencies. More importantly, the choice for the Netherlands lies in its unitary housing regime, whereas Belgium and the UK both have a dual system (Musterd et al, 2017, p.1065). The Dutch generous housing system distinctively contrasts with that of the UK, placing it closer to the social democratic welfare spectrum and further away from the liberal regime than Belgium.

Case selection: city

From these two states, the cities of Birmingham and Rotterdam. They both meet the aforementioned criteria. Their inhabitants constitute by 2011 1,073,045 (Birmingham City Council, 2013) and 610,386 (CBS, 2017) respectively. Despite their difference in size they have a similar relative size: both are the second largest cities of their country. As expected from a least generous welfare regime, inequality is higher in Birmingham. Its Gini-coefficient stands at 0.4 (Centre For Cities, 2016) compared to 0.31 for Rotterdam (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek, 2018). Nonetheless, the cities suffer of comparable levels of poverty. The percentage of households dependent on government benefits is 20% in Birmingham (Baily & Minton, 2017, p.6). In Rotterdam this is 16%, however this number is likely lower because it does not take benefits for employed into account (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2003). To control for ethnic factors determining segregation, other demographic figures should be taken into consideration. In Birmingham 22.2% (Birmingham City Council, 2013) of the population had an oversees origin and in Rotterdam this was 37% (CBS, 2017). We have seen that for issues of white flight and the character of segregation, it is the relative spatial concentration of minorities which matters, not their absolute number. Therefore, the Dissimilarity Index, which measures the socioeconomic spatial concentration of groups (Quillian & Lagrange, 2016, pp.1063-1064), ought to be similar between the cases. The Dissimilarity Index is 0,30 for non-Westerners in Rotterdam (Sleutjes & de Valk, 2015, p.23) and 0.31 in Birmingham (Mateos, 2008, p.22). Additionally, comparability on the cities’ economic structure is desirable. (Taylor, 2005, pp.182-183). The Globalization and World Cities Research Network find that in the 2000s Rotterdam and Birmingham fluctuate between a Gamma and Gamma- score, indicating a

similar level of interconnectedness into the world economy (Beaverstock, Smith & Taylor, 2015). Furthermore, both cities have a traditionally large manufacturing sector (Pollard, 2004, p.174). At last, segregation and regeneration are invoked with questions on the distribution of resources. In this regard, the political orientation of the government influences if and to what extent residential segregation is problematized and neighbourhood regeneration is initiated. Both city council did not have an outspoken colouring, and government are formed from coalition from a wide political spectrum (Birmingham City Council, n.d.). Significant however, was a landslide victory of a populist right-wing party, which eroded the social democratic character of the council between 2002-2006 (Uitermark & Duyvendak, 2006, p.1498-1499). These effects are difficult to control but, the research question aims to minimize the effect by analysing implemented regeneration projects. The existence of these projects proves for a minimal engagement of politicians and their willingness for redistribution.

Data selection

The data of this thesis is obtained via a content analysis of policy papers on the cities’ neighbourhood regeneration projects, enriched by secondary literature. Content analyses allow for primary data to be translated in a systematic, objective and quantitative manner (Bryman, 2012, p.291). It provides a viable method to manage a large body of government texts and interpret the application of

regeneration. To translate theory and expectations into feasible units for analysis it is useful to reassess the research question: what is the difference between welfare regimes and their policies on residential regeneration? Policy encompasses both the expressed objectives of the policy and the policy action, the methods used to achieve the policy objective. Despite this dualism, the focus point of comparison lies within the policy action chosen.

Sources that will be analysed are those targeted at socioeconomic deprived neighbourhoods or

households. The required sources are found by browsing the online databases of the city councils and, if possible, the websites of their projects and partnerships. Research terms include: Area Based Approaches/Initiatives, renewal, regeneration, urban/neighbourhood planning/development, as well as each of the categories in Appendix I. If the policies referred to national government legislation, those are consulted at the national government’s website. As secondary literature, articles from academic

journals are consulted through the portal of the Leiden University catalogue. Secondary literature is consulted if the policy papers required clarification or to add context to the data.

This research intended to cover the decade of the 2000s. During this decade, regeneration materialised in its current multidimensional form (Roberts, 2016, pp.11-15). A timeframe cutting through the 2008 banking crisis and the subsequent national retrenchments, could have a significant impact on

regeneration policy choices and welfare (Brooks et al., 2016, p.91). Unfortunately, the first policy paper on Rotterdam’s regeneration project of that decade is from 2003. To collect sufficient sources the data collection period was stretched until 2013, consequently the banking crisis could pose as a relevant factor of influence.

Codification of content analysis

Objective analysis of the policy papers is achieved by carefully codifying different types of regeneration policies that are found (Bryman, 2012, p.298). Codification of different regeneration policies a difficult task, as policies could have multiple functions. For example, policies targeted at local business stimulation generate productivity which has complementary social and environmental spill-over effects. It creates both platforms for social interaction and enhances the outlook of the neighbourhood. Hence, each category’s boundary should still be regarded as potentially permeable and caution regarding possible emittances is required. The coding manual is based upon the theoretical framework and comprised of Appendix I, II, and III. In Appendix I two subcategory are created to makes it easier to organise the large number of policy actions. Using Appendix I and II, the type of policy action can be established. After this, Appendix III is addressed to evaluate evaluated whether there is a consistency with the complementary welfare regime. The results of the content analysis are found in appendix IV.

Findings

Birmingham

In Birmingham the start of the 2000s was accompanied by, often nationally directed, policies to improve the well-being of disenfranchised groups. The national government initiated an era of multidimensional area-based approaches funded by the Community Development Trust. The government placed primacy on collaboration with neighbourhood representatives (British National Government, 2001). The result was a high level of partnership: BeBirmingham was the prime platform through which regeneration was negotiated between stakeholders in the housing sector, communities, business and government levels. The British national government also determined local regeneration by the articulation of the Decent Home Standard, which alarmed policy makers of the deteriorated state of housing.

A continuous theme in all regeneration projects is economic development. Birmingham pursued policies of economic growth, attracting capital, inciting entrepreneurs and clearing area for business purposes (Brooks et al., 2016, p.85; Pollard, 2004, p.174). The Longbride Area Action Plan, for example, established a brand new commercial centre proximate to deprived areas. The council arranged jobs in these centres for unemployed from segregated areas. However, most of the newly created jobs in the plans were not reserved for the structurally employed. Moreover, many of Birmingham’s economic investments favour the knowledge-based sector over lower classified work (Brooks et al., 2016, p.90). These findings correspond with the identity of the British welfare regime. Revolutionary was the FutureJob Fund, which recruited unemployed and bound them to employers through ALMPs and ELP usually found in an conservative welfare nature. Despite promising results, this trend towards job creation and training stranded due to the national government (BeBirmingham 2011; Brooks et al., 2016, p.94).

With an eye on the social dimension of regeneration, Birmingham’s case reveals participation

programmes, social benefits, notably childcare, and anti-discriminatory policies. These findings divert from the regime’s expectations. This could be the result of two alternatives. Either the city council is irresponsive to the assumed welfare logic, or the households’ social grievances had reached a level of

severity which demanded to be addressed regardless of welfare orientation. With regards to childcare, the latter could be the case. Child care in the UK is usually privatised and therefore possibly less accessible for low income groups (De Heau, 2008, p.40), this would imply a need of targeted public care for these families. Similarly, the council’s engagement to enhance the image and

anti-discrimination of the neighbourhoods and its residents could be consequential of its residual welfare system, which stigmatizes the poor (Walters, 2014, p.8-9).

Birmingham’s housing policy often relied on upgrading, especially with an eye on meeting the Decent Home Standard (King Norton Three Estates, 2001; Sparkbrook, 2003; King Norton Planning

Framework, 2009; Aston, Newton and Lozels Area Action Plan, 2012). Lack of affordability and quality estates appeared enduring problem (Housing Plan 2008+, 2008), and continued partnership efforts have yielded limited results (Brooks et al., 2016, p.92-93). Lack of affordable housing is most likely due to the increase in private renting. The city council and national government have pursued a policy selling public housing, and the council has not built any public houses since 2000 (Housing Growth Plan for Birmingham, 2013, p.7-14). Policies formulated specifically for affordability were not observed in previous studies regeneration projects. Nonetheless, the policy seems to respond to problems of the commodified housing market, which is typical for the liberal welfare regime. Contrary to its welfare regime, Birmingham’s social housing still occupies one third of the housing stock in areas such as Lozels and Aston (Walters, 2014, p.7), which is double the national average of social housing (Hoekstra, 2010, pp.61-72).

There appears to be an overall interest in the environmental dimension, owing to the regeneration policies streamlined for neighbourhood resources, which is confirmed elsewhere (Barber & Eastway, 2010, p.401). Increased environmental attractiveness was also the result of overall increased economic activity, which improved the quality of resources.

Rotterdam

The first regeneration program observed in the new millennium is ‘Rotterdam Zet Door’. In this paper, Rotterdam was assumed to be in a state of crisis caused by an increasing influx of low socioeconomic groups into the city and the outmigration of higher socioeconomic groups (Rotterdam Zet Door, 2003,

p.15-16). For this reason, the policy strategy was subtitled: ‘on the road to a balanced city’. The overall policy objective since then was to stabilize deprived citizens and to attract a more diverse household into the city (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016). The need for action was answered nationally by an unique regeneration policy that allowed the City Council to block low income groups from moving into deprived neighbourhoods (Wet Bijzondere Maatregelen Stedelijke Problematiek, 2005).

Economically, Rotterdam participated in all sorts of regeneration practises. Extensive ALMPs take presence in all neighbourhood strategies. Proactive unemployment was enforced through stricter regulation on job search and mandatory voluntary work (Rotterdam Zet Door, 2003). In ‘Zuid werkt!’ and ‘Nationaal Programma Rotterdam Zuid’ the city council guaranteed employment by subsidizing employers. Employers were given a principle role in the ‘Nationaal Programma Rotterdam Zuid’ by coordinating youth’s education along the job needs of the employers and guaranteeing inflow of graduates of deprived areas in these vacancies. All these policies seem to reflect the nature of a conservative welfare regime. Yet, these were accompanied by policies stimulating economic

development through creating an innovation friendly environment and attracting capital, as observed in the ‘Kansenzones’.

Rotterdam’s regeneration programmes frequently stress of social care provisions and participation programmes. Many resources are geared towards educating the youth and reducing drop-out rate (Rotterdam Zet Door, 2003; Krachtwijken, 2008; Pact op Zuid, 2007; Zuid werkt! 2011). The description of these policies is longer and more detailed than in the British case. However, this is insufficient ground to assume inherently diverging policies. Integration is focussed on rehabilitation and appears not to touch upon other methods. This could correspond to the Dutch trend towards assimilation at the cost of multiculturalism (Simons & Beaujeu, 2018, p.33-39) and the victory of the populist right party in the City Council. Integration was perceived to result from other fields such as education, safety, work and liveability (Simons & Beaujeu, 2018, p.34; Mak & Stouten, 2014, p.102). Within the physical sphere, all housing regeneration explicitly functioned as an instrument for

gentrification. In segregated neighbourhoods, apart from the ‘Krachtwijken’ ownership was stimulated through loan subsidies and the social housing stock was reduced. The council’s control over the housing stock was useful to attract high-income groups. Social mixing was aided by the national

regulation of the entry to deprived neighbourhoods. These interventionist policies are in line with the expectations of the Dutch housing regime. With almost half of the housing stock being public housing (Mak & Stouten, 2014, p.102), there is a higher availability of social housing than there are

households with acute need for these estates (Woonbond, 2016; Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016, p.14). This, according to the policy makers, allowed for stimulation of higher income housing. Nevertheless, warnings are voiced over a continuation of this trend, which is distinctively more residual then in other Dutch cities and could harm the living condition of the lower classes (Woonbond, 2016).

All regeneration programmes makes reference to the quality of neighbourhood resources. Public space has increased in the targeted neighbourhoods (Mak & Stouten, 2014, pp.110-112). The city’s

investment in these facilities has contributed to the overall appreciation of the regenerated areas (Daamen et al., 2012, p.10-11)

Comparative analysis of the two cases

As assumed, there was no dissimilarity between the cases in policies directed at neighbourhood resources and surrounding. These findings indicate a continued appreciation for environmental upgrading to achieve positive neighbourhood effects. In light the remaining three dimensions of regeneration, there are differences between the two cases, which could be contributed to the welfare regime they are rooted in.

Both Birmingham and Rotterdam make use of a wide variety of economic regeneration policies. In the face of economic development, these seem identical. De ‘Kansenzones’ and the Longbridge Action Plan both marshal similar economic instruments to establish an vibrant local economy. Consulting secondary literature, Rotterdam’s economic development approach was inspired by the UK’s experiences (Mak & Schouten, 2014, p.108; Ministerie Economische Zaken, 2010, p.164). These findings can be understood within their welfare logic. Given the UK’s welfare regime, it is expected to be the first to experiment with market informed policies. On the labour side of economic regeneration, Birmingham applied training and counselling policies to activate the unemployed. This signals a divergence from its welfare regime, which traditionally hosts limited ALMPs. On the other side, as the ALMPs were accessible only to the unemployed receiving unemployment benefit, leaving the

regeneration policy limited to certain households in the neighbourhood, instead of universal (FTIP Worklessness Birmingham, 2004, p.41). Contrasting to a liberal welfare regime was the short-lived FutureJob Fund. It is up to debate if its cancellation in 2011 was a reflection of the national welfare regime or of the economic recession. Either way, in both cases considerable ALMPs were observed. Nonetheless, Rotterdam’s strategy stands out by more comprehensive schemes, employer involvement and ELPs. This could be attributed to its conservative welfare regime, which is built around employer-employee relationships and intervention to protect and create employment. In this way, it is likely more effective in reserving spill-offs of economic growth for segregated households.

The implications for social regeneration practices and welfare regimes is more opaque. Both cases implemented participation programmes. In the UK, there was more explicit mention of local social amenities, as well as more child care benefits. The Dutch relied more on social care. Birmingham was expected to show marginal investments in this field, because of its welfare orientation of relatively limited state intervention, distribution or equality. The findings could either mean a departure from welfare regimes or a catching-up effect after previous neglect of these services. Alternatively, Jacobs (2003, pp.436-438) suggests that the focus on participation is due to the individualisation of social problems, in which the victim is left the responsibility to help itself. Birmingham’s focus on image and anti-discrimination is unexpected, but, from another perspective, could actually be a reaction to cushion the liberal welfare regime’s tendency to demonize the poor. Rotterdam’s integration policy was limited to rehabilitation, which is a smaller investment than assumed, but could also be explained by the rightist political environment. As expected Birmingham’s and Rotterdam’s regeneration efforts included educational and healthcare services. Analysing the sources, the Dutch investment in

education seems more detailed and larger than those in Birmingham. However, this could also have been a matter of wording. Overall, this thesis’s observations are mixed and therefore obscure a meaningful conclusion on the influence of the welfare logics.

The findings conclude that Kemeny’s classification of unitary and dual housing regimes is a suitable distinction which corresponds to the welfare regimes of these cases. The Dutch welfare provisions reserved a strong role for the state in the housing market. This is shown by loan subsidies and the 2001

national law on neighbourhood entry. Furthermore, it was able to demand large funding from its corporations to achieve regeneration. On the other hand, Birmingham’s city council was relatively unpowered and had to act within the confinement of partnerships and diverging interests.

Consequently, Rotterdam was more effective in maintaining the quality of estates. In the dual system of the UK, quality was an urgent problem and forced the government to enact the Decent Homes Standard. The amount of social housing present in each case is confirmative to their welfare regime (Mak & Stouten, 2014, p.102; Hoekstra, 2010). As a result, Rotterdam experienced an over-supply of affordable housing, whereas Birmingham’s systematic attempts to overcome its shortage remain unsuccessful. Birmingham’s market was unable to create sufficient affordable housing, even though continued residualisation increased the need of this type of estates. Different than expected was Rotterdam’s policy goals to increase ownership and private tenancy, which accounts for the number of mismatches in Appendix IV. This could emphasize a divergence from the unitary preference for tenancy and social housing. Nonetheless, from a city wide perspective this seems incorrect, public housing outside of segregated neighbourhoods was still encouraged (Gemeente, 2016, p.16). The overall stock did transform towards more high-income housing at the cost of lower-income housing, yet the level was kept sufficient to provide for Rotterdam’s low-income population (Rotterdam Gemeente, 2016, p.15). It should be acknowledged that, although maintaining its unitary

characterisations, Rotterdam is becoming less generous as the housing availability for the poor is under more stress than was the case in the past (Woonbond, 2016).

The overarching impact of a welfare regime is best illustrated by the cities’ objective of gentrification, and their consecutive policy design to achieve this goal. The UK embarked on this challenge through economic policies: creating pockets of commercialism and activity, which would be appreciated by the higher strata and would hopefully increase the attractiveness of the neighbourhood. When housing circumstances provided a favourable opportunity, the council lobbied for mixed-use building or diversification of the neighbourhood stock. We have seen that Rotterdam’s council enjoyed a more flexible position. Housing institutions allowed for a more swift restructuring of the housing

composition and their households. It combined these policy options with economic policies comparable to those in the UK.

However, neighbourhood regeneration is not all gentrification. Other valuable resources have been directed to the acute well-being and future capabilities of spatially isolated households. Rotterdam’s approach sheds light on a more integrated policy action to achieve these goals. It envisioned a broad spectrum of employment and economic methods and was more successful in safeguarding housing rights of the lower class. The case of Birmingham shows that the council’s action framework was more limited, presumably as a consequence of its national welfare regime. The findings hint towards higher investment in social regeneration of Rotterdam over Birmingham but fails to make substantive claims on this social dimension. In part, this might be the result of the research’s structure. This thesis endeavoured to identify differences between the regeneration methods of welfare regimes and not the scale of each policy. More investigation into the comprehensiveness and reach of the policies

implemented could reveal unnoticed differences. Moreover, a more extensive theoretical background on the subject could offer more insight in the reasons for the different policies opted by each case.

Discussion and conclusion

By means of content analysis, this research has compared the regeneration policies of Birmingham and Rotterdam from the start of the new millennium. Its objective was to identify if there is consistency between the cities’ regeneration strategy and the characteristics of the welfare regime in which it operates. Some findings contradict the logics of welfare regimes because both cases borrow and experiment with practises from the other. Despite this, the physical and economic dimension is largely similar to the welfare regime it operates in. Evidence reaffirms that physical and healthcare

regeneration is uninfluenced by welfare regimes. There seems to be more social regeneration in the conservative regime, but uncertainty remains. The experience of Birmingham and Rotterdam suggest a more integrated regeneration approach in conservative regimes, because welfare provisions allow for more policy instruments to choose from.

This research suffers of problems of generalization because of local context and actors, undoubtedly influential in regeneration processes, are not accounted for. Furthermore, a perfect natural case selection is close to impossible and remaining differences in the segregation of each case and the political nature of the city council negatively influences the conclusions validity. Additionally, the impact of the banking crisis on the findings is uncertain. Subsequent economic stagnation could explain Rotterdam’s orientation towards capital development and Birmingham’s less diverse policy action. The comprehensiveness and impact of the regeneration policies, neither the extent by which the proposed policies have been implemented, have been investigated. These aspects could be influenced by the welfare regime, or could make the influence of the welfare state undone. Incorporation of a social democratic case, or more cases in general, would have been a useful to control the results and would possibly uncover more differences and comparisons. As a result, the findings of this thesis can only be interpreted as directive for a presumed relationship between welfare worlds and regeneration practises. Its explanatory scope remains limited to a classification of differences and commonalities.

To scope by which the findings can be related to distinctive liberal, conservative of social democratic welfare behaviour can be interpreted in two ways. This thesis could provide proof for welfare

convergence and a loss of distinctive value between different worlds of welfare. Alternatively, the findings could be the result of the relative policy freedom of city councils vis-à-vis overhanging welfare structures. Presumably, the extreme condition and structural poverty in which households of socioeconomic neighbourhoods in both Birmingham and Rotterdam find themselves legitimate

regeneration policies that stray outside of its welfare regime. This findings do not imply, however, that welfare regime entirely lacks influence over regeneration.

From the perspective of the deprived, adopting and experimenting with best-practices of other welfare regimes will only bring us closer to finding regeneration policies that work. As the experience of the FutureJob Fund illustrates, the welfare regime could pose as a possible obstruction towards this goal. For this reason, this thesis can be an introduction to new research on the relationship between welfare regime and issues of segregation. It would especially be interesting to analyse under what condition a city’s regeneration is willing to diverge from its welfare regime or when it has ‘crossed the line’ and

reinstates a strong regime oriented policy. The policy implication of the economic recession hint towards an interesting natural experiment, in which exceptional circumstances can lead to reaffirm welfare regime policy or provide opportunity for change.

Bibliography

Alba, R. & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers No More: Immigration and the challenges of integration inorth America and Western Europa. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Aldén, L., Hammarstedt, M. & Neuman, E. (2015). Ethnic Segregation, Tipping Behaviour and Native Residential Mobility. International Migration Review, 46(1), 36-69.

Arts, A. & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report. European Social Policy, 12(2), 137-158.

Arts, W. A. & Gelissen, J. (2010). Models of the welfare state. In Castles, G., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H. & Pierson, G. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Atkinson, R. (2016). Limited exposure: social concealment, mobility and engagement with public space by the super-rich in London. Environment and Planning A, 48(7), 1320-1317.

Aspalter, C. (2017). The Routledge international handbook to welfare state systems. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baily, N. & Minton, J. (2017). The suburbanisation of poverty in British cities, 2004-16: extent, processes and nature. Urban Geography, 1-24.

Barber, A. & Eastaway, M. (2010). Leadership challenges in the inner city: planning for sustainable regeneration in Birmingham and Barcelona, Policy Studies, 31(4), 393-411.

Barbier, J. & Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. (2004). Introduction: the many worlds of activation. European Societies, 6(4), 426-436.

Barbieri, P., Paugam, S. & Russell, H. (2000). Social capital and exits from unemployment. In Gallie, D. & Paugam, S. (eds). Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe (pp.200-217). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Beaverstock, J., Smith R., & Taylor P. (2015). Global City Network. Retrieved from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc.

BeBirmingham (2006). The housing sector’s floor target action plan. Retrieved from: http://www.bebirmingham.org.uk/documents/Housing_FTAP_2006-2007.pdf

Berry, J. W. (2013). Research on multiculturalism in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 663-675.

Birmingham City Council (2013). Population and migration topic report. Retrieved from: www.birmingham.gov.uk/census

Birmingham City Council (n.d.). Election results and further information. Retrieved from:

https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20097/elections_and_voting/819/elections_results_and_ further_information/3

Bolt, G. A., Özüekren S. & Phillips, D. (2010). Linking integration and residential segregation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(2), 169-186.

Brandsen, T. (2001) Bringing actors back in: towards an institutional perspective. Housing, Theory and Society, 18(1-2), 2-14.

Brenner, N. (2004). Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe, 1960–2000. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), pp.447-488.

Briggs, A. (1961). The welfare state in historical perspective. European Journal of sociology/Archives européennes de sociologie, 2(2), 221-258.

British National Government (2001). Empowerment Network: Neighbourhood renewal, case examples in getting communities involved. Retrieved from:

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2004/10/03041070_case_examples.pdf

Brooks, N., Kendall, J. & Mitton, L. (2016). Birmingham, Priority to Economics, Social Innovation at the Margins. In Brandsen, T., Cattacin, S., Evers, A. & Zimmer, A. (eds). Social Innovations in the Urban Context (pp.83-96). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Press.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Bukodi, E. and Róbert, P. (2007). Occupational Mobility in Europe. European Foundation for the

Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Card, D., Mas, A. & Rothstein, J. (2008). Tipping and the dynamics of segregation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(1), 177-218.

Initiative. Urban Studies, 43(12), 2145-2162.

Centraal Planbureau voor Statistiek (2018). Hogere inkomens vooral in randgemeenten grote steden. Retrieved from: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2018/10/hogere-inkomens-vooral-in-randgemeenten-grote-steden

Centraal Planbureau voor Statistiek (2017). Bevolking; ontwikkeling in gemeenten met 100 000 of meer inwoners.. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl

Centre For Cities (2016). Cities Data Tool: Gini Coefficient. Retrieved from

http://www.centreforcities.org/data-tool/#graph=map&city=show-all&indicator=gini-coefficient\\single\\2014&indicator=gini-coefficient\\single\\2016

Chen, W., John, M., & Picot, G. (2012). Why have poorer neighbourhoods stagnated economically while the richer have flourished? Neighbourhood income inequality in canadian cities. Urban Studies, 2012, 49(4), 877-896.

Daamen, T., Franzen, A., & Vegt, J. van der (2012). Sturen op waarde in Rotterdam: afwegen en verbinden in de nieuwe realiteit van stedelijke gebiedsontwikkeling. Gemeente Rotterdam. De Henau, J., Meulders, D. & O’Dorchai, S. (2008). Making time for working parents: comparing

public childcare provisions. In Del Boca, D. & Wetzels, C. (eds). Social policies, labour markets and motherhood: a comparative analysis of European countries (pp.28-62). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambirde University Press.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Esping-Andersen, G. and Myles, J. (2009). Inequality and the Welfare State In W. Salverda, W., Nolan B, & Smeeding, T.M. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ferragina, E. (2017). The welfare state and social capital in Europe: Reassessing a complex relationship. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 58(1), 55-90.

Fleischmann, F. & Dronkers, J. (2010). Unemployment among immigrants in European labour markets: an analysis of origin and destination effects. Work, Employment & Society, 24(2), 337-354

Fuller, C. (2011). ‘Worlds of justification’ in the politics and practices of urban regeneration. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30, 913-129.

Gemeente Rotterdam (2016). Woonvisie Rotterdam, koers naar 2030 agenda tot 2020. Retrieved from https://www.rotterdam.nl/wonen-leven/woonvisie/DEFINITIEF-Woonvisie-Rotterdam-2030-dd-raad-15-december-2016.pdf

Gemeente Rotterdam (2003). Inkomensgegevens Rotterdam op deelgemeente- en buurtniveau 2003. Retrieved from: https://rotterdam.buurtmonitor.nl

Gent, W. van (2010) Housing Context and Social Transformation Strategies in Neighbourhood Regeneration in Western European Cities, International Journal of Housing Policy, 10(1), 63-87.

Gerven, van M. (2008). Converging Trends of Social Policy in Europe: Social Security Benefit Reform in the UK, the Netherlands and Finland. European Journal of Social Security, 10(3), 207-225.

Hall, P. (1997). Regeneration Policies for peripheral housing estates: inward- and outward-looking approaches. Urban Studies, 34(5-6), 873-890.

Harloe, M. (1995) The People’s Home? Social Rented Housing in Europe and America. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Heijden, H. van der (2013). West European housing systems in a comparative perspective. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

Hoekstra, J. (2010). Divergence in European welfare and housing systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press Howell-Moroney, M. (2008). The Tiebout Hypothesis 50 Years Later: Lessons and Lingering

Challenges for Metropolitan Governance in the 21st Century, Public Administration Review, 68(1), 97-109.

Jacobs, K., Kemeny, J. & Manzi, T. (2003). Power, discursive space and institutional practices in the construction of housing problems. Housing Studies 18(4), 429-446.

Johnston, R., Poulsen, M. & Forrest, J. (2004). The comparative study of ethnic residential segregation in the USA, 1980-2000. Economische and Sociale Geografie, 95(5), 550-

569.

Kemeny, J. (1995). From public housing to the social market: rental policy strategies in comparative perspective. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Kempen, R. van & Murie, A. (2009). The new divided city: changing patterns in European cities, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Social Geografie, 100(4), 377–398.

Kenworthy, L. (2010). Labour Market Activation. In Castles, G.; Leibfried S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H. & Pierson, G. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kurz, K., & Blossfeld, H. (2004). Home ownership and social inequality in comparative perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Magalhães, de C. (2015). Urban Regeneration. In J.D. Wright (ed), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp.919–925). New York, NY: Elsevier Press.

Malpass, P. (2008). Housing and the new welfare state: wobbly pillar or cornerstone? Housing Studies, 23(1), 1-19.

Mak, A. & Stouten, P. (2014). Urban regeneration in Rotterdam: economic and social values. European Spatial Research and Policy, 21(1), 102-122.

Martin, J.P. & Grubb, D. (2001). What works and for whom: a review of OECD countries’ experience with active labour market policies. Working Paper, IFAU - Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation, No. 2001:14, Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation, Uppsala

Massey, D. S. & Eggers, M. L. (1993). The Spatial Concentration of Affluence and Poverty during the 1970s. Urban Affairs Review, 29(2), 299-315.

Mateos, P. (2008). Ethnic group segregation in Europe: using names to overcome the lack of ethnicity statistics. University College Londen, United Kingdom. Paper presented at BSPS Conference. Ministerie Economische Zaken (2010). Economische Kansenzone. In Ministerie van Economische Zaken & Seinpost Adviesbureau BV, Handboek Wijkeconomie. Retrieved from

www.platform31.nl/uploads/media_item/.../handboek_wijkeconomie-1438084025.pdf Muffles, R. & Fouarge, D. (2004). The role of european welfare states in explaining resources

deprivation. Social Indicators Research, 68(3), 299-33.

Muffels, R.J.A. and Luijkx, R. (2006). Globalisation and male job mobility in European welfare States. In Blossfeld, H. P., Mills, M. & Bernardi, F. (eds), Globalisation, Uncertainty and Men’s Careers: An International Comparison. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. Murie, A. (2005). The dynamics of social exclusion and neighborhood decline: welfare regimes,

decommodification, housing and urban inequality In Kazepov, Y. (ed), Cities of Europe: changing contexts, local arrangements, and the challenge to urban cohesion (pp.149-150). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Musterd, S., Marcinczak, S., Ham. M. van & Tammaru, T. (2016). Socioeconomic segregation in European capital cities: increasing separation between poor and rich. Urban Geography, 38(7), 1062-1083.

Quillian, L. & Lagrange, H. (2016) Socioeconomic segregation in large cities in france and the United States. Demography, 53, 1051-1084.

Pemberton, S. & Doos, L. (2017). Logics of welfare bricolage among UK service providers. IRiS Working Paper Series 23, Birmingham, United Kingdom: Institute for Research into Superdiversity.

Pollard, J. S. (2004). From industrial district to ‘urban village’? Manufactoring, money and consumption in Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter. Urban Studies, 41(1), 173-193. Reardon, S.F. & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income inequality and income segregation. American

Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1092–1153.

Roberts, B. & Sykes, H. (2000). Urban Regeneration: A Handbook. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.

Roberts, P. (2016). Urban Regeneration: The Evolution, Definition and Purpose of Urban

Regeneration. In: Roberts, P., Sykes, H. & Granger, R. (2016). Urban Regeneration (pp.9-43). Sassen, S. (1991). The global city : New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Malmö, 1991–2010. Urban Studies, 52(5), 906–922.

Schelling, T. (1971). Dynamic Models of Segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-86. Simons, P. & Beaujeu, M. (2018). Mainstreaming and redefining the immigrant integration debate in

old migration countries: case study of France, the UK and the Netherlands. In Scholten, P.W.A. & Breugel, I. van (eds). Mainstreaming integration governance: new trends in migrant integration policies in Europe (pp.25-46). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Skifter Andersen, H. (2002). Can deprived housing areas be revitalised? Efforts against segregation and neighbourhood decay in Denmark and Europe. Urban Studies, 39(4), 767-790.

Sleutjes, B. & de Valk, B. (2015). Residential segregation patterns of migrant groups in Dutch cities: the role of scale. NIDI. Working paper 2. Retrieved from:

www.nidi.nl/shared/content/.../papers/nidi-wp-2015-02.pdf

Stamsø, M. (2010) Housing and welfare policy – changing relations? A cross‐ national comparison. Housing, Theory and Society, 27(1), 64-75.

St John, C. (2002). The Concentration of Affluence in the United States, 1990. Urban Affairs Review, 37(4), 500-20.

Stoy, V. (2014). Worlds of welfare services: from discovery to exploration. Social Policy & Administration, 48(3), 343-360.

London, UK: Sage.

Taylor, P.J. (2005) Leading world cities: empirical evaluations of urban nodes in multiple networks. Urban Studies, 42, 1593–608.

Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424.

Torgersen, U. (1987) Housing: the wobbly pillar under the welfare state, In, Turner, B., Kemeny, J. & Lundqvist, L. (eds), Between State and Market: Housing in the Post-Industrial Era.

Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell.

Vrooman, J.C. (2009). Rules of relief : institutions of social security, and their impact. The Hague, The Netherlands: Institute for Social Research, SCP.

Walters, G. (2014). The challenges of superdiversity for social housing. IRiS Working Paper Series, 5. Birmingham, United Kindom: Institute for Research into Superdiversity.

Wet Bijzondere Maatregelen Stedelijke Problematiek (2005). Retrieved from ww.wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0019388/2018-06-13

Whelan, C. T. & Maître, B. (2010). Welfare regime and social class variation in poverty and economic vulnerability in Europe: an analysis of EU-SILC. Journal of European Social Policy,

20(4), 316–332.

Woonbond (2016). Woonvisie Rotterdam. Retrieved from www.woonbond.nl

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