Sinks of social exclusion or springboards for social mobility ...Sinks of social exclusion or...
Transcript of Sinks of social exclusion or springboards for social mobility ...Sinks of social exclusion or...
Sinks of social exclusion or springboards for social mobility? Analysing the roles of disadvantaged places in urban Australia
Hal Pawson & Shanaka Herath, City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales Paper to: Australasian Housing Researchers Conference, Hobart 18-20 February 2015
Presentation overview 1. Theoretical and policy context 2. Survey fieldwork locations and methodology 3. Poverty and economic exclusion 4. Views about the local area 5. Housing market dynamics 6. Conclusions
1. FRAMING THE SURVEY
Theoretical and policy context Growing socio-spatial polarisation in Australia’s major cities Dominant narrative: spatial concentrations of disadvantage inherently
detrimental to local residents due to ‘neighbourhood effects’ – i.e: ‘…living in a neighbourhood which is predominantly poor is itself a source of disadvantage’ (Atkinson & Kintrea, 2001)
Contrary idea that ‘low status suburbs’ may: • feature substantial social capital • play vital role in urban systems – e.g. migrant gateway function
Questions for the research How applicable to the Australian context are US-
sourced ideas on neighbourhood effects? How comparable is the depth of spatially
concentrated disadvantage in urban Australia? To what extent are residents subject to measureable
‘social exclusion’? What is the stock of social capital in such areas? Do lower status neighbourhoods perform a useful
role as a housing market entry point for aspirational homebuyers?
Survey context Survey incorporated within larger 3-year study
on disadvantaged places in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane Followed on from, and informed by:
Large scale secondary data analysis to identify and classify disadvantaged suburbs
Qualitative fieldwork to investigate the experience of living in disadvantaged places from perspective of residents and other local stakeholders
Series of research reports already published by AHURI on the above
Profile of ‘disadvantaged suburb’ cohort • Disadvantaged suburbs defined
in relation to SEIFA lowest quintile (Australia-wide)
• 177 in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane
• 10% of all suburbs, 16% of combined city population
• Disproportionate no of renters but owners still in the majority
• Social housing overrepresented but still only small fraction
• Map follows
31
26
36
28
25
27
4
13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Rest ofSydney
Disadvantaged suburbs
% of all households
2011 housing tenure profile of Sydney disadvantaged suburbs
Owners PurchasersPrivate renters Social renters
2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Survey methodology Fieldwork in four contrasting ‘disadvantaged
suburbs’ in Sydney 801 doorstep interviews by professional
fieldwork firm (approx 200 per area) Sample split equally between
a. recent movers b. longer-established residents
Fieldwork locations and profiles
• Chosen to ‘represent’ each of 4 socio-economically distinct types of disadv. Suburb
• But all in lowest decile of SEIFA distribution – not lowest quintile
• Fieldwork locations: 20-60 km from Sydney CBD
• Incomes relatively low and unemployment high
• Ethnic and tenure profiles quite diverse
Housing tenure and property condition
External condition of…
Owned Being purchased
Private rental
Public rental
All tenures
Dwelling 1 2 18 7 10
Landscape/ garden 2 4 25 13 15
Street 6 4 16 9 11
% in each tenure rated as having ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ external condition/ surroundings:
3. POVERTY AND ECONOMIC EXCLUSION
Gauging the depth of deprivation
5
6
8
6
8
11
22
2
2
4
3
6
7
15
0 5 10 15 20 25
Went without meals
Pawned or sold item
Sought help from welfareorg
Unable to heat home
Trouble paying carreg/insurance
Sought financial help fromfamily/friends
Trouble paying utility billson time
% of all respondents
Bray’s deprivation indicators
Greater Sydney
Study area average
Responses to question: ‘Over the past year have any of the following happened to you because of a shortage of money?’
• 33% of study area residents affected by specified ‘deprivation’ in past year
• Two thirds higher than Sydney norm (20%)
• Differential greater for ‘more serious’ problems – e.g:
• ‘pawned or sold item’ • ‘unable to heat home’ • ‘went without meals’
• But only a minority demonstrably ‘doing it tough’
Respondent views on their locality
37
40
41
53
62
68
69
0 20 40 60 80
I would get out of thisneighbourhood if I could
Drugs are a problemhere
Crime is a problem here
Car hooning is aproblem here
There is a strong senseof community
I feel I belong in thisneighbourhood
My local area is a safeplace to live
% agreeing with statement • Place attachment and positive sentiments appear high
• Balance of respondents believed their areas recently improving
• Certainly not classic sink neighbourhoods
• But problem issues also quite widely perceived
• Purchasers esp. disaffected – e.g: • ‘I belong in this neighbourhood’: 49% • ‘I would get out of this neighbourhood
if I could’: 49%
4. DIMENSIONS OF EXCLUSION
Constructing synthetic indicators for ‘dimensions of exclusion’
Exclusion dimension Survey questions Access There are good local facilities and activities for young children*
The area is well served by public transport* The area has good access to primary schools* The area has good access to health services*
Civic engagement I visit my neighbours in their homes* Attendance at local events Membership of local groups
Community identity There is a strong sense of community in this neighbourhood* I feel I belong in this neighbourhood*
Economic Monthly household income Difficulty in paying for essentials
Neighbourhood My local area is a safe place to live* Car hooning is a problem here*
*Question asked in form of a statement with which respondents were asked to agree or disagree
Dimensions of exclusion by household type
Exclusion dimension
Household contains… Study area avg
Chdn under 16
Age pens
Wkg age adults only
Access 29 31 29 33
Civic engagement
21 19 19 14
Community identity
21 18 27 21
Economic 27 16 24 28
Neighbourhood 16 20 25 20
• Limited differentiation by household type but:
• Families most exposed to economic exclusion
• Working age adults most likely to be excluded on neighbourhood & community identity
• Two thirds of households ‘excluded’ on at least 1 dimension
Dimensions of exclusion by tenure • More differentiation of exclusion
dimensions by tenure • V high incidence of economic
exclusion for renters – only slightly higher in public housing
• Polarisation of owner occupied sector on: • Civic engagement • Neighbourhood • Access
Exclusion dimension Owner Pur-chaser
Private renter
Social renter
Access 26 48 26 29
Civic engagement 26 6 15 20
Community identity 24 23 21 24
Economic 5 5 36 40
Neighbourhood 26 6 23 20
Share of total excluded households located in each tenure
• What is the composition of the ‘excluded population’ in disadvantaged suburbs?
• Need to factor in: • Incidence of exclusion in
each tenure (last slide) • tenure profile of all
disadvantaged suburbs • On economic exclusion vast
majority are renters but mostly private not public
• On 3 of other 4 dimensions homeowners in the majority
56
26
23
27
36
29
14
12
17
15
0 50 100
Economic
Communityidentity
Access
Civicengagement
Neighbourhood
Owner PurchaserPrivate renter Public renter
5. HOUSING MARKET DYNAMICS
Mobility dynamics: inter-tenure moves • Vast majority of owner
occupier moves involve FHBs
• Vast majority of private renter moves within private rental
72
78
0 20 40 60 80 100
Publicrenter
Privaterenter
Owner
% of all recent movers
Recent movers: breakdown by tenure of former home
Within tenure From another tenure
Mobility dynamics: inter-area moves • More than two thirds of recently
moved homeowners from elsewhere
• PRS moves mostly local • But need to factor in v high
mobility incidence in PRS • Thus, a quarter of all current
private tenants moved into current area within last 5 years
• A relatively high % of ‘possible mover’ homeowners aspire to leave the area in future
66
69
0 20 40 60 80 100
Publicrenter
Privaterenter
Owner
% of recent movers
Recent movers: breakdown by location of former home
Moved within the 'local area'Moved from outside the 'local area'
6. CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions Depth of spatially concentrated disadvantage in urban Australia
moderate rather than extreme Place attachment and community activity high but local social
problems also quite widely perceived Economic exclusion largely concentrated in rental housing – private
renters account for substantial majority within overall ‘excluded population’
Disadvantaged areas appear to play an important ‘home ownership gateway’ function
Much greater self-containment of private rental markets implies restraints on onward mobility for private renters