Introduction

There is a widely held belief by government, policy makers and academics that living in deprived neighbourhoods has a negative effect on residents’ life chances over and above the effect of their individual characteristics. There is a large body of literature on these so-called neighbourhood effects and neighbourhood effects have been claimed in relation to a variety of outcomes: school dropout rates (Overman, 2002); childhood achievement (Galster et al, 2007); transition rates from welfare to work (van der Klaauw and Ours, 2003); deviant behaviour (Friedrichs and Blasius, 2003); social exclusion (Buck, 2001); and social mobility (Buck, 2001). The current interest in the assumed negative effect of living in deprived neighbourhoods was stimulated by Wilson (1987, 1991), and several theoretical explanations of neighbourhood effects have been developed in the last two decades. These explanations include role model effects and peer group influences, social and physical disconnection from job-finding networks, a culture of poverty leading to dysfunctional values, discrimination by employers and other gatekeepers, access to low-quality public services and high exposure to criminal behaviour (for an overview see van Ham and Manley, 2011: in press).

Policy makers embraced the concept of neighbourhood effects because if concentrations of poverty can make individuals poor(er), then reducing concentrations of poverty would solve the problem. Creating neighbourhoods with a balanced socioeconomic mix of residents is an often used strategy to tackle assumed negative neighbourhood effects. Mixed housing tenure policies are frequently espoused as a vehicle to create more socially mixed neighbourhoods. The idea is that mixing homeowners with social renters will create a more diverse socioeconomic mix in neighbourhoods, removing the potential of negative neighbourhood effects (Musterd and Andersson, 2005). Mixed housing strategies – often involving large-scale demolishment of social housing estates – have been explicitly adopted as part of neighbourhood improvement schemes by many governments including those in the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, France, Finland and Sweden (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2002; Kearns, 2002; Musterd, 2002).

Despite the apparent consensus that neighbourhood effects exist, there is a growing body of literature that questions the status quo (see Oreopoulos, 2003; Bolster et al, 2007; van Ham and Manley, 2010; van Ham et al, 2011: in press).

Introduction

There is a long history of an association between housing researchand housing policy in Britain. However, recent evaluations of thisassociation show it to be uneven and inconsistent. Maclennan andMoore (1999), for example, conclude that “evidence has had aninconstant impact on UK housing policy and practice” (p 23). Theyattribute this inconstancy to deficient data “spread thinly on theground” and to “a persistent unwillingness” on the part of policymakers to “clarify ends and means, so that key policy questions haveremained unresolved” (pp 23 and 17). The blame, it appears – ifblame is to be attributed – lies with both researchers and policymakers. Deficiencies on the part of researchers are attributed tothe adoption of inadequate methodologies and to the relative neglectof policy relevant concepts such as “effectiveness” and“cost-benefit” analysis (p 23). Deficiencies in policy are revealedin the ambiguity and obfuscation that surround the formulation andimplementation of housing policy. While successive governments haveadopted and proclaimed universalistic objectives such as theprovision of ‘decent’ and ‘affordable’ homes, these terms have neverbeen clearly defined and the means and methods for their achievementhave not been adequately specified (Maclennan and Moore, 1999, p22).

This chapter starts with an historical overview which suggests that,with some exceptions, the current inconstancy, identified byMaclennan and Moore, has been a common characteristic of therelationship between housing research and British housing policyduring the past 150 years. Building on this overview, a moredetailed examination of the present day relationship reveals anapparent paradox whereby, at a time of unprecedented output,research evidence – although central to the evaluation of housingpractice – seemingly rarely percolates through the machinery ofgovernment to impact directly on housing policy formulation andimplementation. Two potential and complementary contributions tothis paradox are examined:

• • the changing nature of housing policy and its increasingcomplexity as it is implicated in a multitude of social,economic and political problems beyond the mere provision ofshelter;

• • the ‘filtering’ role played by political ideology indetermining the relationship between evidence and theshaping of policy agendas.