{ "items": [ "\n\n
There is a wide swathe, and indeed long history, of UK literature featuring attempts to theorise differentials in housing position and shifting spatial settlement patterns in relation to ethnicity and 'race' (and also, more recently, faith group). Most of the earlier accounts were based on simplified versions of the structure-agency dualism or one or other variant of rational choice theory. Responding to criticisms that these relied too heavily on overly static notions of 'choice' and 'constraint', a few then turned to a form of theorisation that deployed a modified version of Giddens' structuration theory. This paper seeks to take the debate further by developing a model that retains much of the essence of structuration yet embodies a more dynamic and theoretically nuanced interpretation of both structure and agency. Structure, normally seen predominantly as a form of social regulation, will be seen as multi-layered and multi-dimensional and also, importantly, as subject to often unpredictable exogenous factors. The concept of social agency will also be subjected to a radical re-conceptualisation that reflects, amongst other things, recent shifts in social capital theory interpreted in the light of rapid demographic change (influenced by geo-political factors), ongoing social inequality, racism, and heightened inter- and intra-communal tensions in some areas. \u00a9 2009 Taylor & Francis.
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper interrogates a concept at the core of a social policy agenda that has dominated thinking in the UK over the past decade. It argues that the notion of 'community cohesion' is based on a fundamentally flawed interpretation of the sources of tension and conflict in Britain's towns and cities. It overly ethnicizes societal divisions and essentializes ethnicity. Examining the development of government policy since 2001 the paper shows that the result has been a predominantly culturalist agenda that obscures key sources of division, most notably those related to social class and material inequality. It is argued that the hegemonic status of this policy stream has also undermined the equalities agenda. The paper concludes with a reflection on the implications of the emergence of a Conservative-led coalition government in May 2010. \u00a9 The Author(s) 2012.
\n \n\n \n \nThe concern of this article is with action at the local level to combat racial inequality in employment. It draws on the authors' evaluation of the 'West Midlands Common Standard', an innovative policy introduced by a consortium of West Midlands councils to ensure their contractors have, and implement, an equal opportunities in employment policy. The article assesses the impact of the initiative and its potential transferability. It is argued that the Common Standard provides a highly promising model for other local authorities to adopt.
\n \n\n \n \nEthnic segregation is at the centre of debates about 'race' and 'difference', integration and citizenship in multicultural Britain. This paper critically examines discourses of segregation and challenges interpretations based on cultural 'otherness', normative assumptions about patterns of social and spatial integration and the 'whiteness' of the city. Drawing on research in Leeds and Bradford, the paper presents insights into how British Asians perceive, and make sense of, the spaces in which they are living and through which they are being enjoined to disperse. Their narratives of the city reveal multiple readings of ethnic segregation, the multi-ethnic inner city and the suburbs. \u00a9 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation \u00a9 Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007.
\n \n\n \n \nIn 2003 the UK government set an objective that in ten years' time Britain's minority ethnic groups should not face disproportionate barriers in the labour market. A key 'barrier' is discrimination by employers. This article examines one potential way forward: the use of contract compliance. First, the article presents findings from the authors' study of an innovative use of contract compliance by a group of local authorities in the West Midlands. If contract compliance can be made to work and New Labour is committed to addressing racial inequality in employment, this suggests that contract compliance is an approach that the government should be seeking to develop. The second part of the article therefore considers New Labour's stance on contract compliance, which can be seen to be highly ambiguous. It is argued that if contract compliance is located within the broader context of New Labour policy development, what is apparent is that the professed aspiration for social change is compromised by a dominant commitment to the maintenance of neo-liberal economic policies. The conclusion is that it is likely that only limited progress will be made in achieving racial equality in employment. \u00a9 2005 Cambridge University Press.
\n \n\n \n \nThis article examines the impact of urban policy on Britain's inner city areas, and specifically on the various communities living within them. It is suggested that policies need to address the issue of \u2018racial\u2019 inequality directly, rather than relying on trickle-down effects from conventional economic regeneration models. Problems with current urban renewal service delivery policies are highlighted, and proposals are put forward for models of \u2018good practice\u2019. \u00a9 1992, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
\n \n\n \n \nColonial Immigrants in a British City (1979) analyses the relationship between West Indian and Asian immigrants and the class structure of a British city. Based on a four-year research project in the Handsworth area of Birmingham, the book is a study of race and community relations \u2013 political, social, economic and personal \u2013 in a major centre of immigrant settlement. It considers the relationship between housing class and class formations and consciousness in other sectors of allocation, such as employment and education. It includes a consideration of the changing political climate on race relations between 1950 and 1976.
\n \n\n \n \nApplications of rational choice theory in the sociological literature on \u2018race\u2019 and ethnicity are relatively scarce, and have tended to be implicit rather than explicit. They have been confined largely to the work of ethnographers and social anthropologists, and have been showcased in edited volumes such as Watson (1977) and Wallman (1979). In a more theoretical vein, there are the significant contributions of Banton (1983) and Hechter (1986). Over the past decade, the approach has to all intents and purposes disappeared, in terms of macro-sociological work at least, although vestiges of it remain in particular substantive areas, as we shall see. Even its strongest adherents, such as Hechter (1986: 265), have expressed some serious misgivings about its usefulness.
\n \n\n \n \nThe British government has instituted a wide range of educational reforms to tackle ethnic inequality. This article argues that over the past half century most of these have been driven by immediate political considerations and have failed to incorporate a broader, historical perspective. This has invariably led to short-term, and short cut, solutions to long-term, deeply entrenched problems that, in reality, transcend the world of education. The article evaluates all the major reform programs, ranging from assimilationism to multicultural education to anti-racist education. It concludes with discussion of the merits/demerits of faith schools and the use of school reorganization as a means of tackling ethnic segregation.
\n \n\n \n \nThe aim of this chapter is to examine multidimensional approaches to equality from a variety of perspectives: theoretical, policy, and practice. In particular, it examines the e?cacy of a certain mode of interventionism. First, however, we need to clarify what we mean by multidimensionality. Schiek rightly points out that the term is open to some confusion in that it may, for example, refer to di?erent conceptions of equality or to di?erent sets of grounds speci?ed in order 'to achieve equality for multi-faceted human beings in social reality'.1
\n \n\n \n \nThe analysis which follows stems from a growing concern at the apparent inability of the literature, both beyond the discipline and within it, to provide a convincing theorisation of the structural position of Britain\u2019s minority populations within the housing market. Given that large-scale post-war migration from Africa, the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent began in the 1950s, and that significant numbers of black citizens had settled in Britain many decades earlier (Fryer 1984; Hiro 1991; May and Cohen 1974), this is somewhat surprising. Within the obvious confines of such a brief chapter, I shall endeavour to sketch out the basis for a re-evaluation of existing debates, and demonstrate how newly available empirical data can provide insights into the value (or otherwise) of various substantive theoretical positions.
\n \n\n \n \nPolyethnic societies present some key implications for planners. Discrimination against, and harassment of, minorities is worryingly universal, and planning professions in all societies need to recognize and address these issues. Planning practice needs to reflect an awareness of the implications of difference while incorporating an understanding of processes of social change in relation to minority and migrant groups, specifically, changes in household size and/or structure and orientation toward the housing market. The core empirical data of the paper comes from the 1991 Census of Population and a major study of housing needs in a large district in northern England. Although focused substantively on British debates and data, most of the concerns addressed in this paper have an element of universality.
\n \n\n \n \nThis article focuses on explanations of housing inequality in relation to key social divisions such as 'race' and ethnicity. Much of the recent debate about these issues, both in the academic literature and in the sphere of politics (especially within the European Union) has been framed in terms of 'social exclusion'. It is argued that the term is used in a number of distinct senses, which leads to considerable confusion at a conceptual level and obscures rather than clarifies key theoretical issues. Its use also leads to oversimplified accounts of complex processes, and can in extremis lead to the pathologization of communities. In the latter case, its dangers mirror those of related concepts such as the 'underclass'. Illuminating the theoretical arguments in the current literature by reference to British data, the article concludes that the 'paradigm of social exclusion' should be jettisoned by social scientists in favour of a return to a serious analysis of social divisions within a context of debates about structure and agency.
\n \n\n \n \n