A Glass Half Empty or Half Full? On the Perceived Gap between Urban Geography Research and Dutch Urban Restructuring Policy

Abstract

The Dutch urban restructuring policy, initiated in 1997, has generated much urban geography research. As with so many other fields, the associated debate has witnessed the perception of a gap between policy and research among both researchers and policymakers. Using four examples, this paper argues that this perception of a gap fails to reflect properly what is happening in the interchange between research and policy. Drawing on a broader typology of the use of research in policy-making (Stevens, 2007), the paper shows that the relationship is more complex and critically highlights the role of researchers herein. Moreover, ignoring or ‘cherry-picking’ of research by policymakers does not necessarily reflect a lack of relevance, which is a fundamental discussion within current geography research. The four discussed examples are: ambivalent outcomes of relocation research, the selection of renewal target areas, potential negative spillover effects on other areas, and the stubbornness of the concept of social cohesion in policy.

Key Words:

• Urban restructuring
• demolition
• social housing
• relocation
• social cohesion
• spillover effects
• Netherlands

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to two anonymous referees, whose comments on an earlier draft have helped me to improve this version.

Notes

1. Although the researchers responsible for the described examples are predominantly urban geographers (as is the author of this paper), the confinement to this field is, to a certain extent, arbitrary. It is highly likely that other fields, such as housing, economics and sociological research, have comparable examples.

2. For a more extensive discussion, see Weiss (1986), Stevens (2007) and Monaghan (2009).

3. Although the practice of cherry-picking also appears here: a main feature of Stevens’ political model.

4. These include: a priority status, a right to a comparable dwelling in the social rented sector, a relocation costs allowance and extra counselling in finding a dwelling (see e.g. Kleinhans, 2003; Bolt et al., 2009).

5. A very important data source of current longitudinal research is the Social Statistics Database (Sociaal Statistisch Bestand) of Statistics Netherlands. This database contains a range of socioeconomic, demographic and housing data on a four-digit post-code level of all registered Dutchmen (Wittebrood & Permentier, 2011).

6. An important example in this respect is the Moving to Opportunity demonstration in the US.

7. Several authors have shown that the Dutch policy discourse mirrors a broad concern to decrease the socioeconomic disadvantages of people in the least attractive social housing (Musterd & Ostendorf, 2008, p. 89; Curley & Kleinhans, 2010, p. 376; Dekker & Varady, 2011).