Advertisement

Aiming at Social Cohesion in Cities to Transform Society

  • Mikael Stigendal
Chapter

Abstract

However one defines social cohesion—and several alternatives will be presented in this chapter—it does not characterise contemporary cities. On the contrary, cities are plagued by inequality, while at the same time being at the forefront of economic development. The EU cohesion policy has been instrumental in this divided development. As it directs the structural funds, what the EU means by cohesion has had a profound impact on cities. In the last decades, cohesion has been sought on market conditions, in line with neoliberalism, where the life of the included middle class people has served as a norm to aspire for. This has instead unleashed the potential causes of inequality inherent in the capitalist system and thereby aggravated inequality, most seriously concerning health. Transport and urban planning measures have deepened a community severance between the socially included and the socially excluded by favouring the more profitable transport modes. A social cohesion of cities on current conditions is not a solution because that would aggravate and preserve the problems causing inequalities. Therefore, the causes of inequality should be combated and that should be done in ways where the people affected by the causes are seen as potentials and where these potentials (in particular their experience and knowledge) are taken advantage of. The social cohesion to strive for in cities, thus, is a collective empowerment of people who wants to combat these causes and thereby transform society.

References

  1. Arrighi, G. (2007). Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the twenty-first century. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, J., Jäger, J., Leubolt, B., & Weissenbacher, R. (2010). Peripheral financialization and vulnerability to crisis: A regulationist perspective. Competition and Change, 14(3–4), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming reality. A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. Verso: London.Google Scholar
  4. Danermark, B. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Eizaguirre, S., Pradel, M., Terrones, A., Martinez-Celorrio, X., & García, M. (2012). Multilevel governance and social cohesion: Bringing back conflict in citizenship practices. Urban Studies, 49, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission. (1996). First cohesion report. Brussels: European Commission (Directorate-General Regio).Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. (2010). Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Brussels: European Commission (Directorate-General Regio).Google Scholar
  8. Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2002). Critical realism and semiosis. Alethia, 5(1), 2–10. Retrieved Jun 20, 2017, from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/fairclough-jessop-sayer-critical-realism-and-semiosis.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fine, B. (2007). Eleven hypotheses on the conceptual history of social capital: A response to James Farr. Political Theory, 35(1), 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gamble, A. (2016). Can the welfare state survive? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, S. (2011). Cities under siege: The new military urbanism (Pbk ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Hermant-de-Callataÿ, C., & Svanfeldt, C. (2011). Cities of tomorrow. Challenges, visions, ways forward. Luxembourg: European Commission - Directorate General for Regional Policy.Google Scholar
  13. Hooghe, L. (1998). EU cohesion policy and competing models of European capitalism. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(4), 457–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jessop, B. (2005). Critical realism and the strategic-relational approach. New Formations, 56, 40–53.Google Scholar
  16. Jessop, B. (2012). Neoliberalism. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Jessop, B. (2015). The symptomatology of crises, reading crises and learning from them: Some critical realist reflections. Journal of Critical Realism, 14(3), 238–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khreis, H., Warsow, K. M., Verlinghieri, E., Guzman, A., Pellecuer, L., Ferreira, A., Jones, I., Heinen, E., Rojas-Rueda, D., & Mueller, N. (2016). Health impacts of urban transport policy measures: A guidance note for practice. Journal of Transport & Health, 3, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khreis, H., May, A. D., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). Health impacts of urban transport policy measures: A guidance note for practice. Journal of Transport & Health, 2006, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liedman, S.-E. (1999). Att se sig själv i andra. Om solidaritet. Bonnier: Stockholm.Google Scholar
  21. Marmot, M. (2015). The health gap: The challenge of an unequal world. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  22. Massey, D. (2007). World city. Cornwall: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Miciukiewicz, K., Moulaert, F., Novy, A., Musterd, S., & Hillier, J. (2012). Introduction: Problematising urban social cohesion: A transdisciplinary endeavour. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1855–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (Eds.). (2012). Towards a social investment welfare state?: Ideas, policies and challenges. Bristol: Policy.Google Scholar
  25. Novy, A., Swiatek, D. C., & Moulaert, F. (2012). Social cohesion: A conceptual and political elucidation. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1873–1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Novy, A., Habersack, S., & Schaller, B. (2013). Innovative forms of knowledge production: Transdisciplinarity and knowledge alliances. In F. Moulaert et al. (Eds.), The international handbook on social innovation. collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Novy, A. (2011). Unequal diversity – On the political economy of social cohesion in Vienna. European Urban and Regional Studies, 18, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Novy, A. (2017). Emancipatory economic deglobalisation: A polanyian perspective. Brazilian Journal of Urban and Regional Studies, 19, 558–579.Google Scholar
  29. OECD. (2011). Divided we stand – Why inequality keeps rising. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science. A realist approach. Worcester: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sen, A. (2013[1999]). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Stigendal, M., & Östergren, P.-O. (2013). Malmö’s path towards a sustainable future. Malmö: Malmö Stad.Google Scholar
  35. Stigendal, M. (2010). Cities and social cohesion. Popularizing the results of Social Polis. Malmö: MAPIUS 6/Malmö högskolas publikationer i urbana studier.Google Scholar
  36. Stigendal, M. (2016). Samhällsgränser. Ojämlikhetens orsaker och framtidsmöjligheterna i en storstad som Malmö. Kina: Liber.Google Scholar
  37. Stigendal, M. (2018). Combatting the causes of inequality affecting young people across Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stuckler, D., & Basu, S. (2013). The body economic: Why austerity kills : Recessions, budget battles, and the politics of life and death. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Sum, N.-L., & Jessop, B. (2013). Towards a cultural political economy: Putting culture in its place in political economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Therborn, G. (2013). The killing fields of inequality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. World Health Organization. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  42. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level : Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Malmö UniversityMalmoSweden

Personalised recommendations