Elsevier

Cities

Volume 28, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 260-264
Cities

Viewpoint
Comparing deconcentrating poverty policies in the United States and the Netherlands: A critical reply to Stal and Zuberi

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.08.003Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper is a critical reply to an article by Stal and Zuberi, in which they compare two policies which deconcentrate poverty in the US and the Netherlands. By drawing lessons from a renewal program in the Netherlands, they suggest several ways to help break the ‘cycle of poverty’. We distinguish at least three fundamental flaws in their argument. After discussing these flaws, we discuss renewal in Dutch cities and issues related to displacement and social networks. We conclude with a reflection on the nature of comparative urban research.

Research highlights

► A critical reply to an article, which compares policies that deconcentrate poverty. ► 3 fundamental flaws: the comparison, context differences, evidence for success. ► Also, article overlooks issues with urban renewal in the Dutch cities. ► We plea to reflect on use of concepts in international urban comparative research.

Introduction

In a recent article in this journal, Stal and Zuberi (2010) discuss two policy programs targeting areas of concentrated poverty and argue that a multifaceted approach to socio-spatial integration policies can provide significant social benefits to the poor. They base their claim on a comparison of the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program in the United States and the urban renewal program of the Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. In their article, they make several thought-provoking points with regard to the theory of neighborhood effects (pp. 4–5). Also, they make the important point that MTO programs should also focus on those left behind (p. 9).

Nevertheless, there are several problems with their conclusions. We believe that there are at least three fundamental flaws in the comparison made by Stal and Zuberi. First, it is not really clear what the authors try to compare: three types of comparisons seem to be mixed in a rather confusing manner. Second, the comparison of the two programs is problematic because they are entirely different in nature and embedded in different policy contexts, which makes transfer of the urban renewal program to the American context rather difficult. Third, from a Dutch perspective there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that urban renewal in the Bijlmermeer is a success. After discussing these three flaws, we will discuss some issues related to displacement and social networks. By way of conclusion, we reflect on the nature of comparative urban research.

Section snippets

What is the object of comparison?

Our first problem is with the comparison of different types of policies. Stal and Zuberi have chosen to compare the relocation program MTO in the US to the renewal of the Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam with the objective of evaluating policies and drawing lessons, while making several comments about neighborhood effect studies. Their case selection seems to be based on the condition that both policies seek to deconcentrate poverty.

The renewal of the Bijlmermeer has displaced some of its residents

Is the Bijlmermeer comparable to disadvantaged neighborhoods in the US?

Our second concern with the comparison is with Stal and Zuberi’s lack of appreciation for the actual importance of differences in urban and institutional contexts. The authors do not really grasp the differences in depth and scale of poverty in Dutch or Western European cities compared to those in the US. Context is extremely important in understanding poverty and social exclusion (Van Kempen, 2001). Several authors have outlined how social and political urban context in Western Europe

Is the Bijlmermeer renewal a success?

In order to support their claim about the success of the Bijlmermeer, the authors refer to a limited number of sources. Based on these, they claim that the Bijlmermeer renewal is a success because residents were included in the planning process, developers hoped it would be a success, and the marketing as a multi-ethnic neighborhood worked well (Stal & Zuberi, 2010, p. 9). However, very few of these papers actually evaluate the renewal plan (only Bodaar, 2006, Bruijne, 2002, Helleman and

Renewal: displacement, limited social benefits and broken networks

The physical and social transformation of the Bijlmermeer has been quite persuasive and from a territorial point of view, even successful. The neighborhood as a whole is ‘doing better’, which is not surprising considering the fact that the program has radically changed the built environment and social composition. However, does this imply that the ‘socio-spatial reconfiguration’ has worked for everyone? In other words, did all residents benefit socially from the renewal? Residents who moved to

Conclusion

This article sought to correct, amend and add to the claims made in Stal and Zuberi’s article. In addition, we would like to make two more general points with regard to comparative urban studies. First, it may seem somewhat obvious, yet it is important to stress the importance of taking context into account when doing comparative research. Social processes and policy interventions are embedded in social context, which generates social outcomes and social change. Thus, understanding social

References (53)

  • G. Bolt et al.

    After urban restructuring: Relocations and segregation in Dutch cities

    Tijdschrift voor Economische en Social Geografie

    (2009)
  • D. Bruijne

    Amsterdam southeast: Centre area southeast and urban renewal in the Bijlmermeer 1992–2010

    (2002)
  • CBS (1998). Regionaal Inkomensonderzoek. Voorburg: Centraal Bureau voor de...
  • S. Clampet-Lundquist et al.

    Neighborhood effects on economic self-sufficiency: A reconsideration of the moving to opportunity experiment

    American Journal of Sociology

    (2009)
  • I. Cole et al.

    Social mix and the ‘balanced community’ in British housing policy – A tale of two epochs

    GeoJournal

    (2001)
  • Dignum, K. (2002). Doorstroming of verstopping: Dynamiek in De Amsterdamse Bevolking En Woningmarkt. O+S,...
  • T. Dukes

    Place, positioning and European urban policy discourse, examples of politics of scale in ’Brussels’ and the Netherlands

    Faculteit der Maatschappij-en Gedragswetenschappen

    (2007)
  • G. Galster

    Should policy makers strive for neighborhood social mix? An analysis of the western European evidence base

    Housing Studies

    (2007)
  • H.J. Gans

    People, plans, and policies: Essays on poverty, racism, and other national urban problems

    (1991)
  • U. Hannerz

    Soulside: Inquiries into ghetto culture and community

    (1969)
  • M. Harloe

    Private rented housing in United States and Europe

    (1985)
  • C.W. Hartman

    Yerba Buena: Land grab and community resistance in San Francisco

    (1974)
  • H. Häussermann et al.

    The European city: A conceptual framework and normative project

  • P.A. Jargowsky

    Poverty and place: Ghettos, barrios, and the American city

    (1997)
  • Y. Kazepov

    Cities of Europe: Changing contexts, local arrangements and the challenge to social cohesion

  • R. Kleinhans

    Sociale Implicaties Van Herstructurering En Herhuisvesting

    (2005)
  • Cited by (5)

    Stal, G. Y., & Zuberi, D. M. (2010). Ending the cycle of poverty through socio-economic integration: A comparison of moving to opportunity (MTO) in the United States and the Bijlmermeer revival project in the Netherlands. Cities, 27 (1), 3–12.

    View full text