Advertisement

Are Mixed Community Policies Evidence Based? A Review of the Research on Neighbourhood Effects

  • Paul Cheshire

Abstract

Mixed community policies are frequently justified by a belief in neighbourhood effects. As such they are essentially faith-based since there is scant evidence that increasing socio-economic diversity significantly improves the life chances of poorer residents. A key question that has to be addressed is whether living in a poor neighbourhood is a separate, independent cause of poverty? The chapter reviews the evidence from a wide range of neighbourhood effects studies designed to overcome problems with selection bias: studies based on quasi-experimental data and longitudinal individual level data from a variety of countries. The evidence supporting the significance and even the existence of neighbourhood effects is remarkably thin when subjected to rigorous evaluation. Based on this review it is argued that policies for mixed neighbourhoods treat the symptoms rather than the causes of poverty and that efforts to improve the lives of the poor would be more effectively directed towards people themselves rather than moving people around to mix neighbourhoods. Moreover, it was found that there are real welfare and productivity benefits from living in specialised neighbourhoods. Mixed neighbourhood policies risk of destroying these and the possible losses must be balanced against any potential benefits of reduced negative ‘neighbourhood effects’.

Keywords

House Price Housing Market Social Housing Neighbourhood Effect Property Crime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alonso, W. (1964). Location and land use. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. T., & West, S. E. (2006). Open space, residential property values and the spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36(6), 773–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, P., & Eversley, J. (Eds.). (2000). Multilingual capital: The languages of London’s schoolchildren and their relevance to economic, social, and educational policies. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
  4. Bayer, P., Ross, S. L., & Topa, G. (2005). Place of work and place of residence: Informal hiring networks and labour market outcomes. NBER Working Paper, No. 11019.Google Scholar
  5. Black, S. (1999). Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 578–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blau, D., & Robins, P. (1992). Job search outcomes for the employed and unemployed. Journal of Political Economy, 98(3), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolster, A., Burgess, S., Johnston, R., Jones, K., Propper, C., & Starker, R. (2007). Neighbourhoods, households and income dynamics: A semi-parametric investigation of neighbourhood effects. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowes, A., Dar, N., & Sim, D. (1997). Tenure preference and housing strategy: An exploration of Pakistani experiences. Housing Studies, 12(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brueckner, J. K., Thisse, J. F., & Zenou, Y. (1999). Why is Central Paris rich and Downtown Detroit poor? An amenity-based theory. European Economic Review, 43(1), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheshire, P. C., & Sheppard, S. (1995). On the price of land and the value of amenities. Economica, 62(258), 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheshire, P. C., & Sheppard, S. (1998). Estimating demand for housing, land, and neighbourhood characteristics. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 60(2), 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheshire, P., & Sheppard, S. (2004). Capitalising the value of free schools: The impact of supply constraints and uncertainty. Economic Journal, November, F397–F424.Google Scholar
  13. Cheshire, P. C., & Sheppard, S. (2005). The introduction of price signals into land use planning decision-making: A proposal. Urban Studies, 42(4), 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coniglio, N. D. (2004). Migropolis: Migration networks and the formation of ethnic clusters in cities. 44th ERSA Congress.Google Scholar
  15. Deluca, S., Duncan, G. J., Keels, M., & Mendenhall, R. (2011). The notable and the null: Using mixed methods to understand the diverse impacts of residential mobility programs. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Durlauf, S. (2004). Neighborhood effects. In J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. IV). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Edin, P. A., Fredriksson, P., & Åslund, O. (2003). Ethnic enclaves and the economic success of immigrants – Evidence from a natural experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. A. (2003). Do neighborhoods matter and why? In J. Goering & J. D. Feins (Eds.), Choosing a better life?: Evaluating the moving to opportunity social experiment (pp. 313–338). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Galster, G., Andersson, R., Musterd, S., & Kauppinen, T. M. (2008). Does neighbourhood income mix affect earnings of adults? New evidence from Sweden. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(3), 858–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbons, S. (2004). The costs of urban property crime. Economic Journal, 114(449), F441–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibbons, S., & Machin, S. (2005). Valuing rail access using transport innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(1), 148–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaeser, E. L. (2001). ‘The future of urban research: Nonmarket interactions.’ Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 101–149.Google Scholar
  23. Goering, J., & Feins, J. D. (2003). Choosing a better life: Evaluating the moving to opportunity experiment. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goodin, R., & Le Grand, J. (1987). Not only the poor: The middle classes and the welfare state. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  25. Gordon, I. R., & Monastiriotis, V. (2006). Urban size, spatial segregation and inequality in educational outcomes. Urban Studies, 43(1), 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon, I. R., & Monastiriotis, V. (2007). Education, location, education: A spatial analysis of English secondary school public examination results. Urban Studies, 44(7), 1203–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goux, D., & Maurin, E. (2007). Close neighbours matter: Neighbourhood effects on early performance at school. Economic Journal, 117(523), 1193–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hardman, A., & Ioannides, Y. (2004). Neighbors’ income distribution: Economic segregation and mixing in US urban neighborhoods. Journal of Housing Economics, 13(4), 368–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hårsman, B. (2006). Ethnical diversity and spatial segregation in the Stockholm region. Urban Studies, 43(8), 1341–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haurin, D., & Brasington, D. (1996). School quality and real house prices: Inter – and intrametropolitan effects. Journal of Housing Economics, 5(4), 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hedman, L., van Ham, M., & Manley, D. (2011). Neighbourhood choice and neighbourhood reproduction. Environment and Planning A, 43(6), 1381–1399.Google Scholar
  32. Hilber, C. A. L. (2010). New housing supply and the dilution of social capital. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(3), 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iaonnides, Y. M., & Loury, L. D. (2004). Job information networks, neighborhood effects and inequality. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1056–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Irwin, E. (2002). The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics, 78(4), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Katz, L. F., Kling, J., & Liebman, J. (2001). Moving to opportunity in Boston: Early results of a randomised mobility experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 607–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kling, J., & Liebman, J. (2004). Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects on youth. IRS Working Paper No 483, Princeton.Google Scholar
  37. Kling, J., Liebman, J. B., & Katz, L. F. (2007). Experimental analysis of neighbourhood effects. Econometrica, 75(1), 83–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kling, J., Ludwig, J., & Katz, L. F. (2005). Neighbourhood effects on crime for female and male youth: Evidence from a randomised housing voucher experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(1), 87–130.Google Scholar
  39. Krupka, D. J. (2007). Are big cities more segregated? Neighbourhood scale and the measurement of segregation. Urban Studies, 44(1), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krupka, D. J. (2008). The stability of mixed income neighbourhoods in America. IZA Discussion Paper No 3370, Bonn: IZA.Google Scholar
  41. Luttmer, E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 963–1002.Google Scholar
  42. Manley, D., & van Ham, M. (2011). Neighbourhood effects, housing tenure and individual employment outcomes. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Massey, D. S., & Fischer, M. J. (2003). The geography of inequality in the United States. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 1–40.Google Scholar
  44. Meen, G. (2006). Modelling local spatial poverty traps in England. International Centre for Housing and Urban Economics Discussion Paper No 1, University of Reading.Google Scholar
  45. Meen, G., Meen, J., & Nygaard, C. (2007). A tale of two Victorian cities in the 21st century, mimeo. International Centre for Housing and Urban Economics, University of Reading.Google Scholar
  46. Musterd, S. (2006). Segregation, urban space and the resurgent city. Urban Studies, 43(8), 1325–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oates, W. (1969). The effects of property taxes and local public services on property values: An empirical study of tax capitalisation and the Tiebout hypothesis. Journal of Political Economy, 77(6), 957–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ODPM. (2005). Sustainable communities: People, places and prosperity, Cm 6425. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  49. Oreopoulos, P. (2003). The long-run consequences of living in a poor neighbourhood. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1533–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schelling, T. C. (1969). Models of segregation. American Economic Review, 59(2), 488–493.Google Scholar
  52. Small, M. L., & Feldman, J. (2011). Ethnographic evidence, heterogeneity, and neighbourhood effects after moving to opportunity. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Troy, A., & Grove, J. M. (2008). Property values, parks, and crime: A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, M.D. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(3), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Ham, M., & Manley, D. (2010). The effect of neighbourhood housing tenure mix on labour market outcomes: A longitudinal investigation of neighbourhood effects. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weinhardt, F. (2010). Moving into the projects: Social housing neighbourhoods and school performance in England. Spatial Economics Research Centre No 22, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass and public policy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and EnvironmentLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations