Social Class

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australia as a nation has never been richer. But it is now also more unequal than at any time since the early 1980s. This inequality takes many forms, not least between suburbs and neighbourhoods. And our research suggests the few celebrated examples of famous Australians who emerged from disadvantaged neighbourhoods are the exceptions to the rule for children who grow up in them.
The Dropping Off The Edge research program, started by the late Professor Tony Vinson in the early 2000s, identifies the most disadvantaged suburbs and local government areas in each state and territory. This shows that as few as 3% of communities bear a disproportional burden of disadvantage. They are characterised by low rates of education and employment, and high rates of disability, criminal convictions and poverty.
Children growing up in these disadvantaged communities enjoy few opportunities for upwards social mobility when compared with peers in more affluent suburbs. And, significantly, the children of low-income families in better-off suburbs have higher aspirations and know what they need to do to achieve those.
Our recent research with young people in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide shows children in disadvantaged communities are not only more likely to live in poverty, but are also less likely to have access to sports clubs, libraries and other recreational and arts facilities, which those in more affluent suburbs appear to take for granted. Their schools are also less likely to offer extracurricular activities that enable young people to engage with others who live in different areas and have different life experiences.
Most young people see these activities as fun and a good way to connect with other young people. However, the implications for young people’s life chances of missing out on these activities stretch far beyond recreation.
‘Soft skills’ and social mobility
As Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman states: "Conscientiousness, perseverance, sociability and curiosity matter."
While these “soft skills” can be learned in the home and in the classroom, they are reinforced and embedded in structured out-of-school activities. Parents who recognise the long-term benefits of these activities often invest heavily in their children’s participation in them.
For young people in low-income families, access to these activities is made difficult by not being able to afford registration fees, uniforms and other equipment, or even the petrol for transport to the activities. For young people in low-income families living in disadvantaged suburbs, these challenges are multiplied.
Affluent suburbs tend to have good opportunity structures – a combination of physical facilities, institutional support and social networks that provide access to education, jobs and other valued opportunities. Poor suburbs often lack these opportunity structures.
While poor suburbs often abut more affluent suburbs with good opportunity structures, our research suggests young people in the disadvantaged suburbs do not often feel welcome there. As one girl told us when asked if she mixed with young people in the better-off neighbouring suburbs: "No, but if I did, I know it would be my fault."
Her worry is that if her interactions with better-off counterparts end in a conflict, she will be accused of something.
Young people in better-off suburbs, on the other hand, regarded their less well-off neighbours as in need of remediation. When one young man was asked if he went to the youth club in the neighbouring disadvantaged suburb where they offered a range of short workshops (for example; hip hop or graffiti skills), he replied: "Oh there, no! That’s for troubled kids."
These comments capture the social exclusion that keeps young people living in disadvantaged suburbs from connecting with young people in more affluent suburbs, or using facilities near them.
Neighbourhood overcomes lack of money
Not all poor kids live in poor suburbs. We talked with several young people living in low-income families in affluent suburbs who did take part in a range of recreational activities. Their parents struggled to pay registration fees, buy the right equipment and have petrol to take them to activities, but they were able to cobble together arrangements. Often the support of other parents helped with their children’s participation.
The contrast in outlook and aspirations between these young people and those living in the disadvantaged suburbs was notable. Most of the young people in the disadvantaged suburbs who we spoke with had low aspirations for their future careers. But most young people from low-income families in the more affluent suburbs aspired to university and knew what they needed to do to get there.
These differences in opportunities and aspirations underline how life chances are connected to young people’s community contexts as well as their individual and family situations. Young people’s perceptions of these contexts, the people they meet in their out-of-school lives and how they understand the possibilities of their own futures all have impacts on their capacity to take up opportunities.
In order to have equal access to opportunities that improve life chances, young people in the most disadvantaged suburbs need to have access to and feel welcome in the same opportunity structures that are available to more advantaged young people. This demands investment in recreational facilities and a focus on a culture of inclusion in these facilities. Redressing this problem also requires policies that reduce inequalities more broadly, so that progressively fewer suburbs can be defined as “dropping off the edge”.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102640/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Gerry Redmond, Associate Professor, College of Business, government &amp; Law, Flinders University
Jennifer Skattebol, Senior Research Fellow, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/young-australians-prospects-still-come-down-to-where-they-grow-up-102640" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Young Australians’ prospects still come down to where they grow up

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Crime and insecurity are deeply entrenched in some cities. While we have rankings of the most dangerous cities in the world, this does not give a clear picture of how and why dangerous spaces develop in cities.
We are analysing case studies from cities in France, Colombia, Brazil and Australia to understand the factors that lead to insecurity, and to examine possible solutions.
Risks of ghettos in Australia
Australian cities aren’t immune to the dangers. While there is no clear upward trend in crime nationally, the social polarisation and concentration of certain crimes in parts of the cities of Sydney and Melbourne are cause for concern. As a result, New South Wales and Victoria are the states with the highest rates of unlawful entry and armed robbery.
Sydney in particular is experiencing a “ghettoisation effect”. Social polarisation between suburbs is increasing. Another issue in Sydney’s western suburbs is domestic violence.
While crime rates here are much lower than in cities in Latin America and France, we need to be mindful of how neighbourhoods can become dangerous through neglect by planners and policymakers.
What can we do about it?
Social disorganisation theory has dominated research in this field. Central to this approach are neighbourhood mechanisms to reduce crime and disorder.
Some have criticised this theory for not considering the influences on crime of the larger urban political economy. Political and economic decisions may have direct effects by increasing unemployment, residential instability (via planning and housing policies) or population density (via zoning policies).
Reducing crime is also the job of planners. Research has shown, for instance, that better planning can reduce the tragedies of domestic violence.
Incentives at the city scale – such as tax breaks and policies to decentralise public services and promote economic activity in poorer outer suburbs – need to be twinned with strategies to foster social integration at the neighbourhood level.
Latin America: a focus on Colombia and Brazil
Violence and high crime rates have created stark divisions in some Latin American cities. Residents have responded with several strategies to feel safe at home.
In Argentina, crime rates soared after the political and financial crisis of 2001. Citizens started building barricades and fortified their living environments with all types of security devices. Gated communities became the preferred type of housing, especially for upper-middle-class groups who could afford it.
However, gating and security devices have not been successful deterrents to crime. The strategies that have succeeded are linked to encouraging more social integration, shared use of public space, and less opposition to and marginalisation of “the other”.
“Social urbanism” policies in cities like Medellín, Colombia, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, have led to dramatic reductions in crime. The idea of these interventions is not only to physically upgrade housing and public space, but to improve social outcomes.
In Medellín, public space was improved in some of the poorest neighbourhoods, which included new infrastructure. Alleys were upgraded, to make walking easier and increase safety, and the famous escalators were built. The community manages these escalators, which improve access to the upper areas of neighbourhoods and help create safer environments.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217392/original/file-20180503-83693-dfjkg9.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
One of the escalators managed by the local community in Medellín. Sonia Roitman. Author provided
The installation of aerial public transport (“metrocable” cable cars) also improved access and helped integrate these areas with the city centre. This in turn led to greater awareness of their existence and less prejudice against them as areas of marginalisation. Residents of other areas who wouldn’t normally travel through these poor neighbourhoods became more aware of them while using public transport.
In the case of Brazil, the Favela Bairro program to upgrade slums in Rio de Janeiro in the late 1990s succeeded in integrating favelas with the city to improve living conditions and reduce crime rates.
For such projects to succeed it is essential to have community participation, engagement and buy-in.
Urban policy in France
The 2005 riots in French cities were the results of both structural issues, such as unemployment and police violence, and long-term social and spatial segregation.
Since the 2000s, the “action on places” paradigm has dominated urban policy. Its goal has been to tackle spatial inequality, with the National Agency for Urban Renewal (ANRU) playing a central role.
In exchange for state funding, cities had to commit to eradicate old social housing projects and build new residential buildings.
Previously, the policy for “deprived neighbourhoods” allowed elected officials and local representatives of the state a larger choice of strategies. These included renovation, positive discrimination, mediation, and the development of local community-led initiatives.
The urban renewal policy, launched in 2003, restricted the range of strategies. It is now criticised because it changed the urban form of neighbourhoods without really changing the social issues.
Today, the possible avenues for action are more diverse. Efforts are concentrated in the most deprived neighbourhoods, with employment, education and security as the budget priorities.
Build on existing social ties
Many strong social ties exist in these so-called deprived neighbourhoods. One promising avenue for action, but which currently attracts the least investment, is to focus on the strengths of those neighbourhoods. This can be done by supporting local initiatives, especially those led by women.
In the book Remake the City, two French researchers stress that it is illusory to think that solutions imposed from above can prevent ghettoisation. They see a need to learn from the experiments carried out in Latin America and in the United States. In the US, the rise of the “community development corporation” has helped to turn negative situations into experiences that foster social integration at the neighbourhood level and present a more positive image of the “ghetto”.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94418/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Even if the contexts are very different, these examples show that the factors at work in places at risk of ghettoisation need to be analysed at different scales. Solutions need to integrate bottom-up actions with strong engagement from communities and a policy rethink on the structural drivers of strong social and spatial segregation in cities.
Sebastien Darchen, Lecturer in Planning, The University of Queensland
Gwendal Simon, Assistant Professor of Planning and Urban Planning, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée (UPEM)
Sonia Roitman, Senior lecturer in Development Planning, The University of Queensland
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-neighbourhoods-become-dangerous-look-to-local-strengths-for-a-lifeline-94418" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

When neighbourhoods become dangerous, look to local strengths for a lifeline

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66976/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The relentless housing boom in Australia’s cities, especially Melbourne and Sydney, is often framed as an intergenerational conflict in which younger generations are being priced out of the market by baby boomers.
However, sociological theories of social class suggest parents’ wealth and social status will eventually be passed onto their children anyway.
So, by focusing on intergenerational inequalities that will eventually be reversed, we are framing the housing affordability question the wrong way. At the same time, the impact of the housing boom is so deep that some long-established ideas about social class may be no longer relevant.
The housing boom has blurred existing boundaries between upper, middle and lower classes that applied to the baby boomers and previous generations. New social class boundaries and formations are being produced.
This does not mean younger generations, as a collective, are disadvantaged compared to their parents. Rather, these younger generations will be subdivided differently and more unequally.
<h2>The renting class</h2>
In the industrial city, the term “working class” was defined by the experiences of low-income workers in manufacturing jobs. Yet in a post-industrial Australian city it makes more sense to talk about the “renting class”. 
Not all renters are poor, and not all poor households are private renters. However, the correlation between the two is significant and strengthening. The proportion of private renters in the total population is slowly but surely increasing – from 20.3 percent in 1981 to 23.4% in 2011. 
Simultaneously, public housing – once a symbol of the working class – is undergoing a dramatic demise.
Largely abandoned by the state to fend for itself, with weak regulation for security of tenure or rent control, the renting class faces the unrelenting burden of ever-rising rents. The average renter paid 19 percent of their income on rent in 1981. In 2011, this proportion increased to 26.9 percent. 
And, in 2014, around 40 percent of low-income private renters were in housing affordability stress, paying more than one-third of their income on housing. 
With hardly enough “after-housing” disposable income to meet basic living standards, savings for retirement is almost impossible for the low-income renter. And with little or no wealth to assist their children to buy a home, the renter’s social class status is likely to be passed from one generation to the next.
<h2>The home-owner class</h2>
More than just a status symbol, home ownership has become increasingly central to the way most Australians accumulate wealth. About half of the home-owner’s wealth is held in their own home. Each housing boom enriches them further through tax-free capital gain on their homes.
The housing boom also creates work in the construction industry, which is the third-largest employer in Australia with more than one million workers. These are no longer working-class occupations, with most skilled jobs paying average weekly earnings of close to A$1,500. So, it is arguably the home-owner class that benefits most from each construction boom. 
One consequence of the housing boom is that a growing cohort of moderate-income households is now priced out of home ownership. Had they been born a generation earlier, they would have probably been able to afford a house. Now it is beyond their reach. 
Over the years, as their rents rise and their wealth stagnates, the gap between the renter and a home owner will become unbridgeable. Their experience of retirement will be worlds apart. 
One lifeline for this cohort is the prospect of inheriting some of the housing wealth of their baby boomer parents. But when this will happen is highly uncertain.
<h2>The housing elite</h2>
The housing elite is rewarded by the housing boom well beyond the capital gain on their own homes. Much of the massive wealth of Australia’s elite is generated through the housing market – through investment, construction and financing of housing. 
Harry Triguboff, Australia’s third-richest person, earned his fortune in the apartment development business. So did the three youngest entrants into the 2016 BRW Rich List. Their entry marks the rising importance of housing in the making of Australia’s super-rich. 
The top 20 percent of the wealthiest Australians hold most of their wealth in their home and in other investment properties. They also hold significant wealth in the sharemarket, which is commanded by big banks whose portfolios are heavily dominated by housing loans. Each housing boom significantly adds to their wealth.
Social class, however, is more than just financial wealth. The wealthiest Australians secure their social class position by living in exclusive suburbs where they are able to associate with the right people and live an elite lifestyle. The astronomical prices of houses in some of these suburbsensure their hermetically exclusive nature. 
<h2>Breaking the loop</h2>
None of these social class categories is natural or universal. These categories will not apply in some European countries, for example, that have very different housing systems.
The deepening fusion between Australia’s housing system and its social class system creates a dangerous cycle. The further house prices grow, the more important housing becomes as a determinant of social class. And when social class is increasingly defined by housing, people are willing to bid even higher to enter home ownership or the housing elite.
Unless we break this cycle, Australia will continue in its path of becoming a more polarised society, with a weakened renting class, an impenetrable elite, and a shrunken home-owner class between them.
Ilan Wiesel is lecturer in Urban Geography, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ilan-wiesel-303040" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Social Class

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Social Class

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News