Social Vulnerability in European Cities

The Role of Local Welfare in Times of Crisis

C. Ranci, T. Brandsen, S. Sabatinelli, C. Ranci, T. Brandsen, S. Sabatinelli

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137346919
• eBook ISBN: 9781137346926
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

What has been the impact on social cohesion of contemporary cities in Europe, of the rise of new social risks and of the recent economic crisis? Focussing on 20 European urban contexts, this book provides an empirical analysis of the socio-economic transformations driving the emergence of new social risks and of the capacity of welfare policies.

Part I
Macro Trends

1

New Social Risks and the Role of Local Welfare: An Introduction

Costanzo Ranci, Taco Brandsen, and Stefania Sabatinelli

The issues at stake

Historically, European cities have been characterized by a strong link between economic competitiveness and social cohesion. This association is one of the most relevant peculiarities of European cities as compared to cities in other continents. According to many urban scholars (Bagnasco and Le Galès 2000; Häussermann and Haila 2005), this distinctiveness depends on a number of factors, among which are the role played by national welfare states in forging the social and economic organization of modern and contemporary cities in Europe, the high importance given by European citizens to social solidarity and equality, and the strong political investment of local governments in supporting local solidarity initiatives aimed at helping the most deprived population.

From the 1990s onwards, though, this close link between social cohesion, economic development and political consent has weakened significantly in large parts of Europe. Social inequalities, after a long period of declining trends, have begun to increase again. According to OECD (2011), inequality had already started to increase in English-speaking countries (including the UK) in the 1970s and 1980s, but the 2000s also showed a widening gap between the rich and the poor in traditionally low-inequality countries such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden and other Nordic countries. Moreover, new social exclusion problems have arisen in many European cities, especially in urban peripheries, paving the way for revamped inter-ethnic conflicts and social revolts (as happened in France and the UK in recent years).

These new social facts have come with an ideological turn. The previously dominant wisdom, which designated social cohesion as a crucial ingredient of urban development (Buck et al. 2005), has been replaced by a new, more radical neo-liberal approach according to which welfare intervention and public expenditure aiming to enhance social cohesion are obstructing any form of economic market-based growth. The current economic crisis has not weakened this approach, as many expected to happen eventually, but has paradoxically reinvigorated it (Crouch 2011).

Faced with increased social inequality in cities, stronger policy orientation towards market interests and values, and reduction in the growth rate of welfare expenditures, some scholars have started to wonder if we are witnessing the ‘end of the European city’ as we have known it in the last 50–60 years (Häussermann 2005). Against the European social model, which has been based on a combination of social cohesion and economic growth, it seems that the ‘dual city model’ (Sassen 1991, 2000; Castells 1996) which has been dominant in American cities is also starting to prevail in Europe. An increasing dualization currently seems to characterize the social as well as the political scenario in Europe (Emmenegger et al. 2012).

In fact, recent research has shown that European cities are still more equal and inclusive than American cities, thanks to the strong role played by local and national welfare programs, but the functional link between urban competiveness and social cohesion has significantly weakened or even disappeared altogether. A comparison between the economic performance and social equity of a group of 50 big cities (Ranci 2011) showed that levels of urban inequality and social exclusion were not statistically correlated to the levels of urban attractiveness, economic globalization and productivity. These two aspects are today detached from each other: social cohesion does not foster economic growth any more, and economic success does not necessarily reduce inequality and social exclusion in European cities.

The current scientific and political debate has mainly pointed out the ideological battle underpinning this issue, with special attention paid to epigones and critics of neo-liberalism (Harvey 2010; Crouch 2011); debate has focused on the opposition between state intervention and market freedom. In many respects the decline in equality and social integration has been seen as the product of cost-containment and privatization policies. Cuts in social spending and rising inequalities were seen as two necessarily concomitant trends shaped by the same common social and political atmosphere.

In this debate, mainly dominated by ideological concerns, only a few analyses have explored the social and economic transformations that actually change the social structure in contemporary cities. The literature on ‘new social risks’ (NSRs) (Taylor-Gooby 2004; Armingeon and Bonoli 2006) has pointed out that welfare states in Europe are challenged today not only by cost-containment pressures, but also by the rise of social needs that are poorly met by current state-based social programs. Changes in the labor market, in the demographic structure of the population, and in the distribution of income and other basic resources (such as housing or social care) have altered the risk structure of contemporary societies, calling for radical changes in social protection programs. Innovation both at national and local levels has become necessary in order not only to adapt welfare programs to rising fiscal constraints in a regime of ‘permanent austerity’ (Pierson 2001), but also to give answers to new problems and social needs spreading in society. Squeezed between the need for cost-containment and more social demands for public intervention, national and local authorities that are responsible for welfare programs have to recalibrate and innovate in their programs (Ferrera and Hemerijck 2003). It is a difficult if not impossible task, even more so in the current period of economic and social crisis. In the quest for ways to bypass the dominant neo-liberal paradigm, a debate has gained momentum over the last decade about the ‘social investment’ logic in social policies: the idea that social policies can not only provide an economic return for the investment of public financial resources, but can also have long-term beneficial impacts both on economic growth and social equality (Morel et al. 2012).

Big cities are generally considered as the epicenters of these tensions. As Power (2000: 1) stated, ‘social exclusion is almost entirely an urban problem … cities concentrate and intensify social problems.’ In the US, recent research has shown that, in the last ten years, wage inequalities and poverty have increased more in big cities than elsewhere (Glaeser et al. 2008). In Europe, information about the spatial distribution of new social risks, and their possible concentration in urban areas, is only recent. Ranci (2010) has shown that social risks are not distributed homogeneously throughout Europe and that the rise of new social risks has also increased regional disparities. This result suggests that ‘locality’ does still matter, and that regional or urban specificities can play a relevant role in the configuration of social risks. Yet, so far, there has been no research aiming to identify the peculiarity of such configuration of risks in cities, and to analyze the impact of that on the material living conditions of the urban population. Moreover, the challenge to respond to new social risks and to develop a social investment strategy implies a huge activation of local welfare bodies, which are the main providers of social services and programs (such as childcare facilities, activation schemes, social inclusion activities, housing support) that may have a social and economic value added.

This book precisely aims to focus on these issues. Its main goal is to provide basic information and an analytical interpretation of: the configuration of social risks in different European cities; the main factors and mechanisms shaping such configuration; the distribution of such risks among European cities; and the impact of these risks on the material conditions and everyday strategies of the most vulnerable population groups. The attention is focused on the one hand on the local variety of social, economic, and political factors determining social risks, and on the impacts of such determinants on specific groups of population. On the other, the role of local welfare systems, in the backdrop to the contribution of multi-level (national, regional and local) actors, will be evaluated in order to consider the capacity of social policies to contrast social inequalities, answer new social risks, and promote a social investment orientation.

New social risks: basic facts

In recent decades, European welfare states have been facing a long-term transformation of both their endogenous and exogenous premises and changes in social needs and risk profile (Ferrera et al. 2000; Esping-Andersen 2002; Bonoli 2005). European countries consolidated their welfare systems in decades when socio-demographic structures were stable, social expectations were moderate, and economic growth was strong and steady, based on full (male) employment coupled with a strongly gendered division of labor. Since the 1970s, the de-industrialization process, the spread of the globalization process, and the increase in female employment participation have deeply changed the economic bases of Western economies. The tertiarization of economic systems only partly absorbed the jobs that were lost in industry and the new female employment supply, so that unemployment and long-term unemployment increased and became structural ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Notes on Contributors
• List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
• Part I Macro Trends
• Part II Structural Mechanisms and Social Policy in Local Welfare Systems
• Part III Vulnerable Groups: Coping with Uncertainty
• Part IV Conclusion
• Index