Log in


Forgot your password?
 
You are here: Home / Other RW Issues / Public Housing / Redevelopment / Social Mix - Will it solve the problems? / Social Mix does not cure poverty, inequality or inequity

Social Mix does not cure poverty, inequality or inequity

Social Mix is a generic buzzword term used by various governments to disguise their policy failures. Failures that have resulted in Poverty, Inequality and Inequity becoming endemic in some sectors of the community. The term is used to create images of manufactured nirvana in the suburbs and to portray those proposing its implementation as champions of social justice writes Ross Smith in TSN's Rimfire Review of 16 August 2010.

The term’s true purpose is to divert attention from the underlying cause of the need for a cure. Analyse of the ‘need’ for Social Mix identifies the adoption of deficient reactive practices by the government, and also highlights the negative outcomes of failing to act in a proactive manner.

Like most Fuzzy Warms there is a definite lack of specifics when one reads the list of contents on the outside of the Social Mix packaging. When the can is opened and the contents shaken onto the plate for examination the lack of identifiable contents is readily apparent. There are parts of every known social aliment intrinsically interwoven into a single homologous mass whose total denies description, much less categorisation. It is the substance of nightmares for those it is to be inflicted on, and anathema for Social Justice.

The buzzword phrase of Social Mix is bipolar as first enunciated. It is initially presented with two concealed distinct personas that are only revealed when one asks what concept(s) Social Mix refers to. The first concept is that of social status/ranking, with the second being that of economic status/ranking. These revelations are usually followed by an attempt to merge the separate personas into a single new unified one named ‘Socio-Economic’.

The powers that be actively discourage any discussion as to why the need for Social Mix has arisen. History in most locations where Social Mix has been considered for implementation shows that there was a strong community in the area whose decline is clearly linked to actions, or lack of them in some cases, on the part of the government. History itself records that artificially induced Social Mix is a product of Ivory Tower idealism that flies in the face of nature. History shows that sustainable communities grow from the bottom up over a long period of time.

Dialogue as to the cause of the community’s decline and how that decline can be repaired is also actively discouraged. All requests for information as to how the underlying issues of Poverty, Inequality and Inequity will be addressed are met with a blank stare and total indifference from the ‘Implementers’. One favoured way of discouraging discussion utilised by those charged with the implementation of Social Mix to say that it was a government decision and they can not engage with the community on that decision, however they can talk about the colour schemes for the buildings.

The ‘Implementers’ are very experienced at playing the ‘Pass the Hot Potato’ game and frequently are contracted consultants, which serves to further isolate them from those who made the decision to implement Social Mix. Their first task is to manipulate the residents of the target area into not challenging the decision to inflict Social Mix. They are very experienced dog whistlers who empathise with the community, and then present themselves as the sole hope for the community to have any input as to how the decision will be implemented. The decision to implement is rapidly removed from view.

The evaluation of Social Mix implementation is in itself another very big can of worms. The current government trend in evaluation methodology is known as Results Based Accountability. This method of evaluation is based on comparison of statistics gathered at various points along the implementation timeframe. The hidden fishhook is that the statistics are conveniently presented in terms of a percentage of the population experiencing a particular lifestyle issue at each of the designated checkpoints.

The evaluation is distorted by the influx of ‘new’ people into the target area due to the implementation of Social Mix. This influx significantly alters the demographics of the area. The impact of the influx will in itself distort the evaluation to give the outward appearance of success for the particular Social Mix implementation.

Those that made the initial decision to impose Social Mix will generate an evaluation outcome that justifies and lauds their initial decision to impose Social Mix, whilst avoiding the issue of what has been done to address the underlying issues of Poverty, Inequality and Inequity.

Frequently those experiencing the underlying issues see their personal situation deteriorate due to the variation in the area’s services, shops, educational facilities, employment opportunities etc to meet the needs of the new community created by the implementation of social mix and the attendant influx of those deemed ‘better off’.

Social Mix has the potential to be a self perpetuating myth of lifestyle improvement whilst in fact accentuating the adverse impacts of Poverty, Inequality and Inequity, the underlying issues behind the decision to implement Social Mix, on the individuals of the area.

If a Social Mix proposal comes to your neighbourhood ask the decision makers, the politicians, when are they going to address Poverty, Inequality and Inequity instead of applying the Band Aid of Social Mix in an effort to avoid accountability.

Remember the actions of the Consultant and Implementer are controlled by the political decision. The Consultant and Implementer are the ‘How’, not the ‘Why’, of the decision to implement Social Mix. The time honoured advice in similar circumstances is to talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey, when asking questions around the decision to impose Social Mix.

Ross Smith - Waterloo 

References:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/are-mixed-communities-answer-segregation-and-poverty
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2066-segregation-mixed-communities.pdf
http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20100623_Social_Housing_Full_Report.pdf
http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20100623_Social_Housing_Summary.pdf
http://www.shelternsw.org.au/docs/sem1006estates-darcy.pdf
http://www.shelternsw.org.au/docs/sem1006estates-macfie.pdf
http://www.shelternsw.org.au/docs/sem1006estates-pinnegar.pdf
http://www.shelternsw.org.au/docs/sem1006estates-arthurson.pdf

Source: The RIMFIRE Review is the weekly opinion publication of the National Tenant Support Network. It offers readers an opportunity to say what should be said, as distinct from what can be said, with anonymity, in  the public arena.  You are welcome to submit considered and robust opinion pieces for publication in the RIMFIRE Review, however, final editorial privilege will be vested in the Coordinator of the National TSN.  2007©RIMFIRE REVIEW.

The TSN provides a email service on housing and tenant issues tracking news stories on this issues of interest to tenants and people working in the field. To join the list contact TSN@thenexus.org.au Coordinator: Garry Mallard