![]()
Part C: Social solidarity and Social Investment
Flórián Sipos
The third and last section of the book is dedicated to the question of how social solidarities are present in programmes based on Social Investment and innovation. Social solidarity is undoubtedly a key notion in all forms of social policies since the welfare state itself can be regarded as an institutionalised form of solidarity to cope with the risks of an industrialised society (Van der Veen, 2012), albeit that not all forms of social policy promote solidarity. Horizontal solidarity within local societies also deserves special attention since globalisation processes and the transformation of the welfare state also mean challenges to local communities.
According to Durkheim (1984), solidarity is an inherent obligation of people, a part of the collective consciousness, the social bond that connects individuals with each other in mutual responsibility – as opposed to the maximisation of personal gain described by liberal economists of the age to describe contractual relationships. Durkheim did not regard solidarity as an unchanged reality; he described a transformation of solidarities from that of traditional societies (mechanic solidarity between similar individuals sharing the same norms) to that of modern societies (organic solidarity between individuals with different but complementing positions in society).
Solidarity is not the same as charity, or, at least, is not necessarily the same. Some scholars even contrast the two notions by stressing that solidarity is (or should be) a horizontal relation existing between equals that does not humiliate those who receive transfers in a certain situation and is (or should be) based on rights, participation and access (Filcak and Skobla, 2012). Lack of solidarity decreases cohesion and the sense of trust and reciprocity, and gives way to segregation and a hierarchical or ‘us and them’ way of thinking. Solidarity protects society from disintegration and anomie, and is regarded as an effective way of improving the social environment and the real quality of life (Filcak and Skobla, 2012).
Fenger and Van Paridon (2012) used two dimensions to distinguish between types of solidarities: motive (morality and reciprocity) and level (individual and institutional). Individual solidarity is based on the decision of a single person, while institutional solidarity refers to forms that are organised according to formal or informal rules. In the case of moral motivation, individuals (or groups) might contribute to the common good because of personal conviction or moral obligation – without expecting reward for this, just as in the case of charity. Others might perform acts of solidarity in order to improve their own situation – expecting that they will get something back immediately or in the future (reciprocal motivation). A typical example of this latter reciprocal solidarity is the modern welfare state.
Table C.1: Examples of four types of solidarity
| Motive |
| Level | Morality | Reciprocity |
| Individual | Charity | Neighbourhood watch |
| Institutional | Development aid | Welfare state |
Source: Fenger and Van Paridon (2012)
At present, another transformation is being observed by various scholars, a change that is related to the transition into ‘late’ or ‘second’ modernity. Individualisation and globalisation are the key elements that might cause challenges to traditional solidarities. Globalisation extends the potential community through class or national boundaries, while individualisation weakens the bonds between individuals. Thus, risk society erodes important aspects of solidarity (Taylor-Gooby, 2011; Deeming, 2017). However, not only the new risks, but also the changes in the perception of risks, have important impact on people’s willingness to share risks. Nevertheless, old social risks and problems have not ceased to exist; they just need to be addressed in a different context and with new approaches (Deeming, 2017; Hemerijck, 2017).
The case studies of this section support these assumptions. They concern homelessness, rural poverty and energy poverty. These are not new problems, but they are addressed in innovative ways. The Green Sticht community in the Netherlands (Chapter Nine) creates a mixed, involved and tolerant neighbourhood that integrates vulnerable citizens with the support of other residents who sometimes choose to live there due to being inspired by ideals. Green Sticht prevents habitual neighbourhood resistance (NIMBYism) and increases the quality of life for all residents. The Social Land Programme in Hungary (Chapter Ten) aims at raising the living standards of poor Roma newly arrived in highly disadvantaged rural areas. Moreover, it also aims at diminishing social exclusion by empowering these incomers to undertake agricultural activities and thus become independent from state transfers, as well as more accepted by the ‘original’ inhabitants who have strong agricultural traditions. The programme thus facilitates the building of horizontal relationships and reciprocity, which are the main cornerstones of solidarity. The support that it provides is conditional and reciprocal, in that participants need to sign contracts and also return some part of their produce. Increased social cohesion in the communities is recognised as one of its main results.
Alginet Electric Cooperative in Spain (Chapter Eleven) – as expressed in its statutes – is inspired by the ideals of self-responsibility and solidarity. The forms of solidarity observed in Alginet are clearly institutionalised, but they are motivated not only by reciprocal, but also by moral, principles. By providing flexible solutions for payment and education in saving energy, it supports individual techniques for coping with problems related to energy poverty. The cooperative also contributes to solving other local problems in various ways, including food tokens, electricity discounts, donations to local charities and internet access at a reduced price.
In conclusion, solidarity is a central notion in such programmes, and is predominantly institutionalised and reciprocal, but not exclusively. It can also build on voluntary support from individuals (as seen in the case of Green Sticht) and might contain less obligatory and reciprocal elements (as seen in the case of Alginet Electric Cooperative). Our cases confirm that since the vertical structures of the welfare state are weakened with new risks – or rather new approaches to old risks – the reciprocity motivations of horizontal solidarity are strengthened.
References
Deeming, C. (2017) ‘The politics of (fractured) solidarity: a cross-national analysis of the class bases of the welfare state’, Social Policy and Administration, Early view DOI: 10.1111/spol.12323
Durkheim, E. (1984) The division of labour in Society (trans W.D. Halls), New York, NY: The Free Press.
Fenger, M. and Van Paridon, K. (2012) ‘Towards a globalization of solidarity?’, in M. Ellison (ed) Reinventing social solidarity across Europe, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp 49–71.
Filcak, R. and Skobla, D. (2012) ‘Social solidarity, human rights and Roma: unequal access to basic resources in Central and Eastern Europe’, in M. Ellison (ed) Reinventing social solidarity across Europe, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp 227–48.
Hemerijck, A. (2017) ‘Social investment and its critics’, in A. Hemerijck (ed) The uses of social investment, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 3–42.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011) ‘Does risk society erode welfare state solidarity?’, Policy & Politics, 39(2): 147–61.
Van der Veen, R. (2012) ‘Risk and the welfare state – risk, risk perception and solidarity’, in R. van der Veen, N. Yerkes and P. Achterberg (eds) The transformation of solidarity – Changing risks and the future of the welfare state, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp 13–31.
![]()
NINE
The creation of a socially diverse neighbourhood in Utrecht, the Netherlands
Alfons Fermin, Sandra Geelhoed and Rob Gründemann
Introduction
The ‘Green Sticht’ project was developed between 1997 and 2002 in Utrecht, the fourth-largest city in the Netherlands. The small neighbourhood known as the Green Sticht was built in 2002/03 on a vacant lot of an old farm in the large new town extension of Leidsche Rijn before regular housing was constructed in the surrounding area. It combines a variety of residential and working functions, and mixes a group of people in a socially vulnerable position with people who want to live and work there out of idealism. The main objectives of the Green Sticht are to provide a safe haven and social support to homeless people in their process of reintegration, as well as a place to live for socially vulnerable people in general who are in need of a place in a neighbourhood where they are known, respected and actively involved in neighbourhood activities. In addition, the neighbourhood offers opportunities to work and meaningful daily activities for both local residents with a distance from the labour market and people with intellectual disabilities living elsewhere in the city.
The plans of the Green Sticht originate from the activities of the ‘Fringe’ (Rafelrand) civil society working group committed to realising concrete projects to help homeless people and those suffering from addiction. It is one of the projects that originated from a 1997 conference in Utrecht organised by the working group. Its charismatic chairman was Ab Harrewijn, a preacher and left-wing politician at that time, who died in 2002. He based his plans on insights from Emmaus Haarzuilens’ ‘living and working communities’ in the Netherlands (part of a solidarity-based movement acting against poverty and exclusion) and from homeless people themselves. The latter were represented by NoiZ (a self-organised group of homeless people) and by a non-governmental organisation that offers shelter and support to the homeless in Utrecht called the ‘Tussenvoorziening’ (literally the ‘In-between facility’). At this conference, various stakeholders committed themselves to support the development of the Green Sticht project. The directly involved organisations (the Tussenvoorziening, NoiZ and Emmaus Haarzuilens) were joined by a social housing corporation (Juliana, later merged into the national corporation Portaal), and some aldermen of the municipality of Utrecht. Plans were developed between 1997 and 2002 by the Foundation of the Green Sticht, in which the Tussenvoorziening, NoiZ, Emmaus Haarzuilens and the association of the future residents participated.
The term ‘Sticht’ denotes ‘a convent community’. As in convent communities in the past, some people choose to live in the Green Sticht due to being inspired by ideals, while others have little choice because they are temporarily or permanently unable to live independently. In addition, the name also refers to the ‘Sticht Utrecht’, the territory in the centre of Utrecht ruled by the bishops of Utrecht in the Middle Ages. The Green Sticht is located along the medieval road to Utrecht. In addition, ‘green’ refers to the green character of the neighbourhood; as many trees as possible have been retained and ecological sustainability is an important value of the neighbourhood (eg expressed in the thrift shop).
The Social Investment elements of the Green Sticht relate to its approach of investing in both the capacities of vulnerable citizens to reintegrate and participate in society, and the capacities of a neighbourhood to realise a form of community spirit, as well as solidarity with the vulnerable neighbours, thus providing them with a basis for reintegration and participation. A highly innovative element of the Green Sticht project is that it intended to circumvent the habitual neighbourhood resistance against every plan for a homeless shelter in a specific neighbourhood (‘not in my back yard’ [NIMBY] syndrome). It did this by reversing the order, first establishing homeless facilities in a new housing estate, and only then building houses in the surrounding area. Of course, this is only possible in new construction projects. It has been innovative from the start, when it filled a gap in the range of services at the time. After 20 years, it is still innovative because of the way in which it creates a community of solidarity and informal support. Also, the type of organisation and method of financing are innovative: the project has been realised and maintained by a partnership of third sector organisations, with a central role for the residents’ association, and it has been independent of structural public funding since the construction of the neighbourhood in 2003. This chapter will elaborate on these Social Investment and social innovation elements of the project.
Origins of the Green Sticht as a socially diverse neighbourhood
Background: combating homelessness in Dutch cities
The origin and development of the Green Sticht project closely reflect changes in the way of thinking about homelessness around the turn of the century. The project has its roots in the emancipatory movement of homeless people. In the mid-1990s, the situation of homeless people in Dutch cities became unsustainable: there was a chronic lack of (night) shelters for homeless people, the mere attempt to provide such a shelter led to fierce neighbourhood resistance and the government did not want to go ahead with and had no vision and policy for homeless people. For instance, in Utrecht, there lived around 800 rough sleepers in 1998 (at that time, Utrecht had a total population of 240,000). A substantial part of them were concentrated in a kind of ‘tunnel’ near the central train station and shopping centre of Utrecht (Van Scheppingen et al, 2013; interview with Jules van Dam).
Since the second half of the 1990s, societal and political awareness rose about a chronic lack of shelters for homeless people in the Dutch cities. Homelessness was increasingly perceived in relation to structural societal developments and risks, and not only as due to hopeless, incorrigible persons. The composition of the homeless population was also in the process of changing at that time: alongside the traditional category of homeless old men with alcohol problems, there were more and more youngsters, women, hard-drug addicts and rejected asylum seekers among them. Initially, mainly third sector organisations came into action. In addition, there was also a limited emancipation movement among homeless people themselves who no longer wanted to be patronised in night shelters. In Utrecht, a group of homeless people occupied a vacant building in order to set up a night shelter under self-management, and organised further (NoiZ). It was only after the turn of the century that the governments of the four major cities started to act, supported by an ambitious National Homeless Strategy from 2006.
Target groups and needs
Since its inception, the Green Sticht project has aimed at meeting the needs of various target groups: (1) a safe, tolerant and solidarity-based residential and working area for socially vulnerable citizens; (2) a temporary shelter for homeless people in a neighbourhood where they are accepted and that offers possibilities for meaningful daily activities and work; (3) a restaurant and thrift store that offers possibilities for meaningful daytime activities and work for people with intellectual disabilities; and (4) a neighbourhood that offers self-reliant and idealistic people the possibility to shape and to live their lives according to their ideals of solidarity and community spirit. The Green Sticht is set up as an integrative project, based on the insight that the integration of homeless people can only succeed if society and relevant people take their responsibility as well, and are willing to include them and offer opportunities to participate.
Homeless people in need of shelter and a place to recover and start their process of reintegration was the most urgent issue to be addressed. Thus, the needs addressed are:
•the lack of shelter and housing facilities for homeless people in Utrecht, especially for those prepared to reintegrate;
•a lack of provisions for the rehabilitation of homeless people, including opportunities to combine work or other meaningful daily activities with shelter, guidance and social support;
•overcoming strong neighbourhood resistance to the establishment of shelter facilities for homeless people;
•a lack of informal social support for socially vulnerable people who have problems ...
