Abstract
The concept of social mix is perceived as an attempt to minimize social exclusion by enhancing individual social capital. Related policies have been implemented in many countries to prevent isolation of certain groups and achieve social integration. However, few studies have examined their impacts on various income groups. This study uses data from the National Social Capital Survey in South Korea to empirically investigate the impact of the social mix policy on trust, networks, and norms, which are the three types of social capital that promote social integration. Multiple regression models present that the income mix is negatively associated with neighborly trust and networks, while being positively associated with norms. These models also suggest that mixing of income groups improves the norms of low-income groups but reduces the trust of high-income groups. Thus, this study argues for the need to establish specific goals and targets when promoting a social mix policy and understanding the side effects of introducing such a policy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The average size of the dongs selected for this study (3.45 km2 or 24,394 people) is quite larger than median size of them. It is because that the six largest dongs, normally located in the outskirt of Gyeonggi province, are extraordinarily larger than the others. The average size of these six dongs and the others (92 dongs) are 28.8 and 1.8 km2, respectively.
References
Abe, A. K. (2010). Social exclusion and earlier disadvantages: An empirical study of poverty and social exclusion in Japan. Social Science Japan Journal, 13(1), 5–30.
Andrews, H. F. (1986). The effects of neighbourhood social mix on adolescents’ social networks and recreational activities. Urban Studies, 23(6), 501–517.
Arbaci, S., & Rae, I. (2013). Mixed-tenure neighbourhoods in London: Policy myth or effective device to alleviate deprivation? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 451–479.
Arthurson, K. (2002). Creating inclusive communities through balancing social mix: A critical relationship or tenuous link? Urban Policy and Research, 20(3), 245–261.
Arthurson, K. (2008). Australian public housing and the diverse histories of social mix. Journal of Urban History, 34(3), 484–501.
Bacque, M., Fijalkow, Y., Launay, L., & Vermeersch, S. (2011). Social mix policies in Paris: Discourses, policies and social effects. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 256–273.
Bae, K. (2012). Reconstruction in Seoul faces ‘social mix’ challenges. Asia Economic Daily.
Bae, S., Chun, H., Jin, J., Jeon, S., & Kim, S. (2006). Strategies for social integration in urban residential spaces. Anyang: Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
Barnes, M. (2005). Social exclusion in Great Britain: An empirical investigation and comparison with the EU. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Baum, S., Arthurson, K., & Han, J. (2014). Tenure social mix and perceptions of antisocial behaviour: An Australian example. Urban Studies, 52(12), 2170–2185.
Baum, S., Arthurson, K., & Rickson, K. (2010). Happy people in mixed-up places: The association between the degree and type of local socioeconomic mix and expressions of neighbourhood satisfaction. Urban Studies, 47(3), 467–485.
Bayram, N., Bilgel, F., & Bilgel, N. G. (2012). Social exclusion and quality of life: An empirical study from Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 105(1), 109–120.
Besser, M., Marcus, M., & Frumkin, H. (2008). Commute time and social capital in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(3), 207–211.
Blanc, M. (2010). The impact of social mix policies in France. Housing Studies, 25(2), 257–272.
Boon, B., & Farnsworth, J. (2011). Social exclusion and poverty: Translating social capital into accessible resources. Social Policy & Administration, 45(5), 507–524.
Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 30–48.
Brueckner, K., & Largey, G. (2008). Social interaction and urban sprawl. Journal of Urban Economics, 64(1), 18–34.
Buck, N. (2001). Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2251–2275.
Bullen, P., & Onyx, J. (2005). Measuring social capital in five communities in NSW. Sydney: Management Alternatives Pty Ltd.
Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (1999). Social exclusion in Britain 1991–1995. Social Policy and Administration, 33(3), 227–244.
Byrne, D. (1999). Social exclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Chun, H., Kang, M., Seo, S., & Lim, H. (2009). A study on social integration of the nest-housing district. Anyang: Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
Cohen, A. (1983). Comparing regression coefficients across subsamples: A study of the statistical test. Sociological Method & Research, 12(1), 77–94.
Cole, I., & Goodchild, B. (2001). Social mix and the ‘balanced community’ in British housing policy—A tale of two epochs. GeoJournal, 51(4), 351–360.
Coleman, S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dahl, E., Flotten, T., & Lorentzen, T. (2008). Poverty dynamics and social exclusion: An analysis of Norwegian Panel Data. Journal of Social Policy, 37(2), 231–249.
Daly, M., & Silver, H. (2008). Social exclusion and social capital: A comparison and critique. Theory and Society, 37(6), 537–566.
de Tocqueville, A. (1835). Democracy in America (Trans: Reeve, H). University Park, PA: The Penn State University Press.
Dietz, R. D., & Haurin, D. R. (2003). The social and private micro-level consequences of homeownership. Journal of Urban Economics, 54(3), 401–450.
DiPasquale, D., & Glaeser, E. (1999). Incentives and social capital: Are homeowners better citizens? Journal of Urban Economics, 45(2), 354–384.
Ellen, I., & Turner, M. (1997). Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), 833–866.
Frey, H. (1999). Designing the city: Towards a more sustainable urban form. London: E & FN SPON.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Galster, G., Andersson, R., & Musterd, S. (2010). Who is affected by neighbourhood income mix? Gender, age, family, employment and income differences. Urban Studies, 47(14), 2915–2944.
Gingrich, L. G. (2008). Social exclusion and double jeopardy: The management of lone mothers in the market-state social field. Social Policy & Administration, 42(4), 379–395.
Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Graves, E. (2011). Mixed outcome developments. Comparing policy goals to resident outcomes in mixed-income housing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(2), 143–153.
Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Hibbitt, K., Jones, P., & Meegan, R. (2001). Tackling social exclusion: The role of social capital in urban regeneration on Merseyside-From mistrust to trust? European Planning Studies, 9(2), 141–161.
Hochschild, T. R., Jr. (2015). The Cul-de-sac effect: Relationship between street design and residential social cohesion. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(1), 1–6.
Joseph, M. (2006). Is mixed-income development an antidote to urban poverty? Housing Policy Debate, 17(2), 209–234.
Joseph, M., & Chaskin, R. (2010). Living in a mixed-income development: Resident perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of two developments in Chicago. Urban Studies, 47(11), 2347–2366.
Kil, Y. (2006). Demolishing barriers between the rich and poor. The Hankyoreh 21.
Kim, K. (2006). Rental apartments still underappreciated. Seoul Economic Daily.
Kim, S.-N., Ahn, K., & Kim, J. (2011). The effect of residential site development on residents’ social capital: A comparison between neighborhood social capital and general social capital. The Korea Spatial Planning Review, 71, 47–68.
Kim, H., & Kim, S. (2016). Shaping suburbia: A comparison of state-led and market-led suburbs in Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea. Urban Design International, 21(2), 131–150.
Kim, S.-N., Mokhtarian, P., & Ahn, K. (2012). The Seoul of Alonso: New perspectives on telecommuting and residential location from South Korea. Urban Geography, 33(8), 1163–1191.
Kleinhans, R. (2004). Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: A review of recent literature. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19(4), 367–390.
Kleinhans, R., Priemus, H., & Engbersen, G. (2007). Understanding social capital in recently restructured urban neighbourhoods: Two case studies in Rotterdam. Urban Studies, 44(5–6), 1069–1091.
Kleit, R. G., & Carnegie, N. B. (2011). Integrated or isolated? The impact of public housing redevelopment on social network homophily. Social Networks, 33(2), 152–165.
Levitas, R. (1998). The inclusive society? Social exclusion and new labour. London: Macmillan.
Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E., & Patsios, D. (2007). The multi-dimensional analysis of social exclusion: A research report for the social exclusion task force. Bristol: Bristol Institute for Public Affairs, University of Bristol.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manturuk, K., Lindblad, M., & Quercia, R. (2012). Homeownership and civic engagement in low-income urban neighborhoods: A longitudinal analysis. Urban Affairs Review, 48(5), 731–760.
Miles, N., & Tully, J. (2007). Regional development agency policy to tackle economic exclusion? The role of social capital in distressed communities. Regional Studies, 41(6), 855–866.
Moffatt, S., & Glasgow, N. (2009). How useful is the concept of social exclusion when applied to rural older people in the United Kingdom and the United States? Regional Studies, 43(10), 1291–1303.
Morris, A., Jamieson, M., & Patulny, R. (2012). Is social mixing of tenures a solution for public housing estates? Evidence Base, 1, 1–21.
Musterd, S. (2008). Residents’ views on social mix: Social mix, social networks and stigmatization in post-war housing estates in Europe. Urban Studies, 45(4), 897–915.
Musterd, S., & Andersson, R. (2005). Housing mix, social mix, and social opportunities. Urban Affairs Review, 40(6), 761–790.
OECD. (2010). OECD factbook 2010: Economic, environmental and social statistics. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ostendorf, W., Musterd, S., & De Vos, S. (2001). Social mix and the neighbourhood effect. Policy ambitions and empirical evidence. Housing Studies, 16(3), 371–380.
Park, J. (2011). Conflicts between residents in social mix of new town project in Seoul. The Financial News Daily.
Parkinson, M. (1998). Combating social exclusion: Lessons from area-based programmes in Europe. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Pierson, J. (2010). Tackling social exclusion. London: Routledge.
Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Rhim, J. (2006). The land use characteristics of rail transit station area influencing transit demand: A case study of Seoul. Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University.
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.
Sarkissian, W. (1976). The idea of social mix in town planning: An historical review. Urban Studies, 13(3), 231–246.
Seo, S. (2002). The role and task of urban planning for building social capital: Approaches and policy implications. The Korea Spatial Planning Review, 33, 73–87.
Seo, S., Kim, J., Jung, K., & Seol, J. (2004). Planning strategies for social mix in national rental housing estates. Seongnam: Housing and Urban Research Institute, Korea National Housing Corporation.
Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133, 529–576.
Smets, P., & den Uyl, M. (2008). The complex role of ethnicity in urban mixing: A study of two deprived neighbourhoods in Amsterdam. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1439–1460.
Social Exclusion Unit. (2001). Preventing social exclusion. London: Crown.
Tach, L. M. (2009). More than bricks and mortar: Neighborhood frames, social processes, and the mixed-income redevelopment of a public housing project. City & Community, 8(3), 269–299.
Talen, E. (2005). Land use zoning and human diversity: Exploring the connection. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131(4), 214–232.
Van Kempen, R., & Bolt, G. (2009). Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24, 457–475.
Walks, R. A., & Maaranen, R. (2008). Gentrification, social mix, and social polarization: Testing the linkages in large Canadian cities. Urban Geography, 29(4), 293–326.
Watt, P., & Jacobs, K. (2000). Discourses of social exclusion. An analysis of bringing Britain together: A national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. Housing, Theory and Society, 17(1), 14–26.
Wilson, W. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, P. A. (1997). Building social capital: A learning agenda for the twenty-first century. Urban Studies, 34(5–6), 745–760.
Wong, D. W. S. (2004). Comparing traditional and spatial segregation measures: A spatial scale perspective. Urban Geography, 25(1), 66–82.
Zenou, Y. (2011). Spatial versus social mismatch: The strength of weak ties. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5507. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012R1A1A2009216 & 400-20120071).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, S., Kim, H., Kim, SN. et al. What is achieved and lost in living in a mixed-income neighborhood? Findings from South Korea. J Hous and the Built Environ 33, 807–828 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-017-9586-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-017-9586-x