Disadvantaged areas - getting caught in a pernicious cycle
Authors
Leu, Helena ; Pedersen, Anita
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2020
Submitted on
2020-06-04
Pages
110
Abstract
Kommuner og boligorganisationer i Danmark står over for store ændringer som følge af regeringens strategi One Denmark without Parallel Societies – No Ghettos by 2030 og efterfølgende ændringer i lovgivningen om almene boliger. Strategien prioriterer en omdannelse af de udsatte områder, der står på statens officielle liste, men der findes også udsatte områder uden for listen. Samtidig viser forskning, at der ikke er en fælles forståelse af, hvordan et udsat område identificeres; både internationalt og i den danske offentlige sektor bruges forskellige metoder og indikatorer. Afsættet for projektet er at undersøge forskellen mellem, hvordan staten og kommunerne udpeger udsatte områder, og hvilke konsekvenser strategien har for indsatser i udsatte områder, der ikke er udpeget efter statens definition. I denne sammenhæng forstås indsatsen som strategiske planer for sociale indsatser i almene boligområder, finansieret af National Building Fund (social housing master plans). Undersøgelsen bygger på teorier om social mix (at blande beboere med forskellige indkomster og baggrunde) og governance-netværk (samarbejdet mellem kommune, boligorganisationer og stat). To casekommuner, København og Aarhus, indgik i studiet, og interviewene blev tilrettelagt, så de medvirkende havde sammenlignelige funktioner. Analysen af governance-netværket omkring social housing master plans viser, at aktørerne er gensidigt afhængige af hinandens ressourcer, og at lovændringerne har knyttet de statsligt udpegede områder tættere til finansiering. Konsekvensen er færre midler til områder, der ikke står på listen. Undersøgelsen belyser også, at København og Aarhus anvender egne metoder til at identificere udsatte områder for enten at undgå stigmatisering eller for at arbejde forebyggende. På den baggrund anbefales det at forlænge igangværende social housing master plans for at fastholde relationer og understøtte positiv udvikling. Hvis de samlede midler ikke øges, bør fremtidig forskning finde andre måder at støtte udsatte områder, der ikke har en social housing master plan. Studiet peger på, at bevillinger fra National Building Fund i højere grad tilfalder områder på statens liste, hvilket øger risikoen for fortsatte socioøkonomiske problemer i områder uden for listen.
Municipalities and housing organisations in Denmark are undergoing major changes due to the government’s strategy One Denmark without Parallel Societies – No Ghettos by 2030 and subsequent amendments to social housing legislation. The strategy prioritises transforming the disadvantaged areas on the state’s official list, yet other disadvantaged areas exist outside that list. Research also shows there is no shared understanding of how to identify a disadvantaged area; internationally and within Denmark, different methods and indicators are used. This project examines the gap between how the state and municipalities identify disadvantaged areas, and what the strategy means for work in areas the government does not list. Here, effort refers to strategic plans for social interventions in social housing funded by the National Building Fund (social housing master plans). The study draws on theories of social mix (mixing residents with different incomes and backgrounds) and governance networks (collaboration between municipalities, housing organisations, and the state). Two case municipalities, Copenhagen and Aarhus, were included, and interviews were designed so participants held comparable roles. Analysis of the governance network around social housing master plans shows that actors depend on each other’s resources, and that the legal amendments have tied listed areas more closely to funding. As a result, areas not on the list have fewer resources. The study also shows that Copenhagen and Aarhus use their own identification methods to avoid stigmatizing areas or to act proactively. Based on these insights, the study recommends extending ongoing social housing master plans to maintain relationships and support positive development. If overall funding remains unchanged, future research should identify other ways to support disadvantaged areas that lack a social housing master plan. The study finds that grants from the National Building Fund are more likely to go to areas on the government’s list, leaving off-list areas at greater risk of continued socio-economic problems.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents