Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-489z4 Total loading time: 0.528 Render date: 2022-05-22T16:46:26.321Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

‘All in it Together’? Social Cohesion in a Divided Society: Attitudes to Income Inequality and Redistribution in a Residential Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2014

ADE KEARNS
Affiliation:
Urban Studies, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK email: ade.kearns@glasgow.ac.uk
NICK BAILEY
Affiliation:
Urban Studies, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK email: nick.bailey@glasgow.ac.uk
MARIA GANNON
Affiliation:
Urban Studies, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK email: maria.gannon@glasgow.ac.uk
MARK LIVINGSTON
Affiliation:
Urban Studies, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK email: mark.livingston@glasgow.ac.uk
ALASTAIR LEYLAND
Affiliation:
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow email: alastair.leyland@glasgow.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper asks whether where someone lives bears any association with their attitudes to inequality and income redistribution, focusing on the relative contribution of neighbourhood income, density and ethnic composition. People on higher incomes showed higher support for redistribution when living in more deprived neighbourhoods. People with lower levels of altruism had higher levels of support for redistribution in neighbourhoods of higher density. People living in more ethnically mixed neighbourhoods had higher levels of support for redistribution on average, but this support declined for Whites with low levels of altruism as the deprivation of the neighbourhood increased. Current trends which sustain or extend income and wealth inequalities, reflected in patterns of residence, may undermine social cohesion in the medium- to long-term. This may be offset to some extent by trends of rising residential ethnic diversity.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, G. W. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bailey, N., Gannon, M., Kearns, A., Livingston, M. and Leyland, A. (2013), ‘Living apart, losing sympathy? How neighbourhood context affects attitudes to redistribution and to welfare recipients’, Environment and Planning A, 45: 9, 2154–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, L. and Dekker, K. (2012), ‘Social trust in urban neighbourhoods: the effect of relative ethnic group position’, Urban Studies, 49: 10, 2031–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamfield, L. and Horton, T. (2009), Understanding Attitudes to Tackling Inequality, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Barry, B. (1989), Does Society Exist? The Case for Socialism, London: Fabian Society.Google Scholar
Baumberg, B., Bell, K., Gaffney, D., Deacon, R., Hood, C. and Sage, D. (2012), Benefits Stigma in Britain, London: Turn2Us.Google Scholar
Blinder, S. (2012), Briefing – UK Public Opinion toward Immigration: Overall Attitudes and Levels of Concern, Oxford: Migration Observatory, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (2006), ‘The value of civility?’, Urban Studies, 43: 5/6, 863–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M., Gambin, L., Joyce, R. and Wilson, R. (2012), Who Gains from Growth? Living Standards in 2020, London: Resolution Foundation.Google Scholar
Bridge, G. (2005), Reason in the City of Difference, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (2012), ‘Councils plan to move tenants out of London’, Inside Housing, 27 April.Google Scholar
Catney, G. (2013), Has Neighbourhood Ethnic Segregation Decreased? Manchester: Centre for Dynamics of Ethnicity, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Centre for Multilevel Modeling (CML) (2011), Weighting in MLwiN, Bristol: University of Bristol, http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmm/software/support/support-faqs/weighting.pdf (accessed 8 January 2013).Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (2010), Bicycle Diaries, London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Clery, E. (2012), ‘Welfare: are tough times affecting attitudes to welfare?’, in Park, A., Clery, E., Curtice, J., Phillips, M. and Utting, D. (eds.), British Social Attitudes the 29 Report, London: NatCen Social Research, pp. 126.Google Scholar
Costello, A. B. and Osborne, J. W. (2005), ‘Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis’, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10: 7, 1–9.Google Scholar
Dorling, D. (2010), Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists, Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorling, D. (2012a), ‘Inequality constitutes a particular place’, Social and Cultural Geography, 13: 1, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorling, D. (2012b), ‘Inequality and Injustice: some news from Britain’, Urban Geography, 33: 5, 621–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorling, D. and Rees, P. (2003), ‘A nation still dividing: the British census and social polarisation 1971–2001’, Environment and Planning A, 35: 1287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, M. (2013), ‘Why have the White British left London?’, BBC News UK, 20 February, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk (accessed 20 February 2013).Google Scholar
Fincher, R.-M. and Jacobs, J. M. (1998), Cities of Difference, New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Finney, N. and Simpson, L. (2009), ‘Sleepwalking to Segregation?’: Challenging Myths about Race and Migration, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Flint, J. and Robinson, D. (2008), ‘Conclusions’, in Flint, J. and Robinson, D. (eds.), Community Cohesion in Crisis? Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. (2001), ‘Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood’, Urban Studies, 38: 12, 2125–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galster, G. (2007), ‘Should policy makers strive for neighbourhood social mix? An analysis of the Western European Evidence Base’, Housing Studies, 22: 4, 523–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galster, G. (2012), ‘The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: theory, evidence and policy implications’, in van Ham, M.et al. (eds.), Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 2356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galster, G., Andersson, R., Musterd, S. and Kauppinen, T. M. (2008), ‘Does neighbourhood income mix affect earnings of adults? New evidence from Sweden’, Journal of Urban Economics, 83: 858–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gijsberts, M., van der Meer, T. and Dagevos, J. (2011), ‘“Hunkering down” in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? The effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion’, European Sociological Review, DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcr/022.Google Scholar
Hanely, L. (2007), Estates: An Intimate History, London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
Hasenfeld, Y. and Rafferty, J. A. (1989), ‘The determinants of public attitudes toward the welfare state’, Social Forces, 67: 1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedman, L. (2011), ‘The impact of residential mobility on measuring neighbourhood effects’, Housing Studies, 26: 4, 501–19.Google Scholar
Hedman, L. and van Ham, M. (2012), ‘Understanding neighbourhood effects: selection bias and residential mobility’, in van, M. Ham, Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L. and Maclennan, D. (eds.), Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives, London: Springer, pp. 7999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, M. J., Mai, N. and Crowley, H. (2012), Migration and Social Cohesion in the UK, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R., Poulsen, M. and Forrest, J. (2013), ‘Multiethnic residential areas in a multi-ethnic country? A decade of major change in England and Wales’, Environment and Planning A, 45: 753–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R., Propper, C., Burgess, S., Sarker, R., Bolster, A. and Jones, K. (2005), ‘Spatial scale and the neighbourhood effect: multinomial models of voting at two recent British general elections’, British Journal of Political Science, 35: 487514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R., Jones, K., Sarker, R., Propper, C., Burgess, S. and Bolster, A. (2004), ‘Party support and the neighbourhood effect: spatial polarisation of the British electorate, 1991–2001’, Political Geography, 23: 367402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. (2000), ‘Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance’, Urban Studies, 37: 5/6, 9951017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, J. (2011), ‘The effect of ethnic diversity and community disadvantage on social cohesion: a multi-level analysis of social capital and interethnic relations in UK communities’, European Sociological Review, 27: 1, 7089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letki, N. (2008), ‘Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods’, Political Studies, 56: 1, 99126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linos, K. and West, M. (2003), ‘Self-interest, social beliefs, and attitudes to redistribution’, European Sociological Review 19, 393409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local Government Association, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Home Office and Commission for Racial Equality (2002), Guidance on Community Cohesion, London: LGA.Google Scholar
Manley, D., van Ham, M. and Doherty, J. (2011), Social Mixing as a Cure for Negative Neighbourhood Effects: Evidence Based Policy or Urban Myth? Discussion Paper IZA DP No. 5634, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labour.Google Scholar
Marsh, P., Bradley, S., Love, C., Alexander, P. and Norham, R. (2007), Belonging, Oxford: The Social Issues Research Centre.Google Scholar
Meen, G., Gibb, K., Goody, J., McGrath, T. and Mackinnon, J. (2005), Economic Segregation in England: Causes, Consequences and Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Newman, I. and Ratcliffe, P. (2011), ‘Conclusion: towards a theory of change for social cohesion’, Ratcliffe, P. and Newman, I. (eds.), Promoting Social Cohesion: Implications for Policy and Evaluation, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 261–76.Google Scholar
OECD (2011), Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising: An Overview of Growing Income Inequalities in OECD Countries: Main Findings, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Orton, M. and Rowlingson, K. (2007), Public Attitudes to Economic Inequality, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Pahl, R. E. (1991), ‘The search for social cohesion: from Durkheim to the European Commission’, European Journal of Sociology, 32: 345–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, R., Rose, D. and Spencer, L. (2007), Inequality and Quiescence: A Continuing Conundrum, ISER Working Paper 2007–22, Essex: ISER.Google Scholar
Papadakis, E. and Bean, C. (1993), ‘Popular support for the welfare state: a comparison between institutional regimes’, Journal of Public Policy, 13: 227–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, A., Curtice, J., Clery, E. and Bryson, C. (2010), British Social Attitudes 27th Report: Exploring Labour's Legacy, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Park, A., Phillips, M. and Robinson, C. (2007), Attitudes to Poverty: Findings from the British Social Attitudes Survey, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. (2011), ‘UK will reject benefit tourists says Iain Duncan Smith’, BBC News Politics, 3 October 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15152315 (accessed 2 March 2013).Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. and Tropp, L. R. (2006), ‘A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90: 5, 751–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piketty, T. (1995), ‘Social mobility and redistributive politics’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110: 551–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillai, R., Kyambi, S., Nowacka, K. and Sriskandaajah, D. (2007), The Reception and Integration of New Migrant Communities, London: IPPR.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2007), ‘E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century, The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30: 2, 137–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W. J., Healy, M. and Cameron, B. (2010), MLwiN Version 2.16, Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, P. (2011a), ‘From community to social cohesion: interrogating a policy paradigm’, in Ratcliffe, P. and Newman, I. (eds.), Promoting Social Cohesion: Implications for Policy and Evaluation, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 1539.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, P. (2011b), ‘Housing, spatial patterns and social cohesion’, in Ratcliffe, P. and Newman, I. (eds.), Promoting Social Cohesion: Implications for Policy and Evaluation, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 163–84.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. (2005), ‘The search for community cohesion: key themes and dominant concepts of the public policy agenda’, Urban Studies, 42: 8, 1411–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rokeach, M. (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sefton, T. (2005), ’Give and take: attitudes to redistribution’, in Park, A.et al. (eds.), British Social Attitudes, 22nd Report, London: Sage, pp. 132.Google Scholar
Sennett, R. (2012), Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Shils, E. (1997), The Virtue of Civility and Other Essays, edited by Grosby, S., Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, L. (2012), More Segregation or More Mixing? Manchester: CoDE.Google Scholar
Stern, P. C., Kalof, L., Dietz, T. and Guagnano, G. A. (1995), ‘Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 1611–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., Read, S. and Allum, N. (2010), ‘Does ethnic diversity erode trust? Putnam's “hunkering down” thesis reconsidered’, British Journal of Political Science, 41: 1, 5782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, A., Lloyd, T., Sankey, S., Carlyon, T., Marshall, G., Jefferys, P., Williamson, K. and Chung, S. (2012), The Housing Report Edition 3: The Coalition's Mid-term Review, London: Chartered Institute of Housing, National Housing Federation, Shelter.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. (2011), ‘Property wealth gap widening’, Financial Times, 7 January.Google Scholar
Turok, I., Kearns, A., Fitch, D., Flint, J., McKenzie, C. and Abbotts, J. (2006), State of the English Cities: Social Cohesion, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
Uslaner, E. M. (2010), ‘Segregation, mistrust and minorities’, Ethnicities, 10: 4, 415–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ham, M., Hedman, L., Manley, D. and Coulter, R. (2012), Intergenerational Transmission of Neighbourhood Poverty in Sweden: An Innovative Analysis of Individual Neighbourhood Histories, Discussion Paper IZA DP No. 6572, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labour.Google Scholar
Vervoort, M., Flap, H. and Dagevos, J. (2010), ‘The ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts: three unresolved issues’, European Sociological Review, 27: 5, 586605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009), The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. (2013), Stimulating Housing Supply – Government Initiatives, Standard Note SN/SP/6416, London: House of Commons Library.Google Scholar
Wirth, L. (1938), ‘Urbanism as a way of life’, American Journal of Sociology, 44: 1, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

‘All in it Together’? Social Cohesion in a Divided Society: Attitudes to Income Inequality and Redistribution in a Residential Context
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

‘All in it Together’? Social Cohesion in a Divided Society: Attitudes to Income Inequality and Redistribution in a Residential Context
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

‘All in it Together’? Social Cohesion in a Divided Society: Attitudes to Income Inequality and Redistribution in a Residential Context
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *