Crisis, urban segregation and social innovation in Catalonia

Transcription

1 Crisis, urban segregation and social innovation in Catalonia ECPR General Conference Glasgow 3-6 September 2014 Panel P232: Alternative forms of Resilience in Times of Crisis Friday, 5 th September, 17:40 Building: Adam Smith Floor: 9 Room: 916 Ismael Blanco IGOP, UAB Barcelona Ismael.blanco@uab.cat Helena Cruz SOCOL Tecnologia Social Barcelona helena.cruz@uab.cat 1

2 Abstract This paper interrogates the contribution of social innovation to the capacity of disadvantaged communities to resist the effects of the crisis. It does so on the basis of a study on the dynamics of urban segregation and social innovation in the context of the crisis in Catalonia (Spain). The study adopts a multi- method approach that combines the statistical analysis of urban segregation dynamics in the period; the mapping of social innovation practices across the region; and a cross- case comparison of 6 case studies. The paper highlights the structural and metropolitan character of urban segregation in the region, which has seriously aggravated in the context of the crisis and of the residential transformations occurred during the years of the housing bubble. It also shows that social innovation practices do not concentrate in the most disadvantaged communities but in middle- income areas with a tradition of social mobilisation. Community resilience in disadvantaged urban areas is largely dependant on the capacity of governmental and non- governmental actors to work jointly to face the challenges of communities. All in all, the paper warns against the risks of transferring to social innovation the responsibility for social cohesion in cities and highlights the need of multi- scalar policies with redistributive effects between municipalities and urban areas. 2

3 Introduction The burst of the housing bubble in 2008 signalled the beginning of a long and profound economic crisis with dramatic social consequences in Spain. Overall unemployment rate had reached 26% by March Three and a half million jobs have been lost since the beginning of the crisis. In 2012, more than a half of those unemployed had been in that situation for more than one year (which in most cases means they are no longer entitled to unemployment subsidies). The percentage of households with all members unemployed is now over 10% of all Spanish households close to 2 million households at the end of Far from what is sometimes claimed, the impact of the crisis is very unevenly distributed among socio- economic groups. In terms of per capita income distribution, the difference between the top percentile (80) and the bottom percentile (20) has increased in almost 30% since the beginning of the crisis (FOESSA 2013). Together with the young, migrants have been especially affected by the crisis. After a period of massive entry (close to 5 million people in less than a decade) unemployment among workers of foreign non- EU origin is now close to 50% (Blanco and León, 2013). Several studies have put in evidence this type of social dynamics and the subsequent increase of different modalities of poverty and social exclusion 1. However, the spatial dimension of such social trends remains unexplored. We know that the social consequences of the crisis have unevenly impacted different Autonomous Communities, increasing the differences between them (ref.), but we still lack systematic studies on the local effects of the crisis and on the evolution of urban socio- 1 See, for example, the annual reports of the Social Observatory of Cáritas at 3

4 spatial inequalities (between municipalities and neighbourhoods). This paper addresses this gap in the literature, presenting the results of an on- going research called Barris i Crisi (Neighbourhoods and the Crisis) on the dynamics of urban segregation and social innovation in the region of Catalonia 2. The study shows a significant intensification of urban segregation in Catalonia over the last decade, not only as a consequence of the crisis but also as a result of the deep residential transformations that took place in the years of the housing bubble. Against this background, the paper interrogates to what extent (and under what circumstances) citizens initiatives can make a significant contribution to counteract the current dynamics of urban socio- spatial polarisation by strengthening the capacity of the most vulnerable communities to resist and to adapt to the crisis effects. Through the analysis of a map of social innovation practices in Catalonia elaborated in the frame of the Barris i Crisi project which includes more than 700 cases and a cross- case comparison of 6 case studies (neighbourhoods), the paper calls into question the centrality of social innovation as a factor of community resilience. The results of the statistical analysis show that urban segregation is a structural phenomenon with a metropolitan scale. When overlapping the maps of social innovation and urban segregation we observe that social innovation does not tend to concentrate in the most vulnerable areas but in middle- income areas with a tradition of social mobilisation. Moreover, variations in the effects of the crisis in the 6 areas analysed are mainly explained by the capacity of community actors governmental and non- governmental to provide joint responses to the challenges of communities. 2 The full title of the study is Disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the face of the crisis: urban segregation, social innovation and civic capacity. This research is coordinated by Dr. Ismael Blanco (Principal Investigator), Dr. Oriol Nel lo, Dr. Quim Brugué and Dr. Eduard Jiménez. It recieves the support of the Recercaixa Programme. For more information (mostly in Catalan) see: 4

5 The paper highlights the importance of multi- scalar public policies in dealing with the phenomenon of urban segregation and community decay, warning against the risks of transferring the responsibility of (urban) social cohesion to social innovation. In the first section of the paper, we put forward the theoretical problem addressed by this paper, focusing on the contribution of social innovation to community resilience in disadvantaged urban areas. In the second section, we identify the goals of the Barris i Crisi project and the different methods that we have used to fulfil them. In the third and fourth sections, we present the results of this research, emphasising on those elements that speak directly to the theoretical problem addressed in this paper. Finally, we close the paper by reflecting on the policy implications of our study. Social innovation as a response to urban social exclusion and segregation The concept of social innovation has gained prominence in European academic and political debates in recent years. In an increasingly complex and dynamic world (Beck, 1998; Kooiman, 2003), innovation has become an imperative for any kind of organisation. Public administrations must develop innovative ways of producing, managing and delivering public services to an increasingly sophisticated and diversified society (Osborne and Gaebler, 1994). Firms need to be innovative to survive in a more open and competitive economy. Social organisations and the citizens must also explore and put into practice innovative ways of satisfying social needs unmet by the market and the public sector. 5

6 It is in this latter sense that the literature talks about social innovation, understood as those socially led initiatives that try to satisfy social needs that are not adequately covered neither by the state nor by the market. Social innovation, therefore, is social in its ends as it tries to satisfy collective needs as well as in its means since it rests on cooperative practices led by the citizens (Murray et al, 2010). Social innovation has become a trendy concept, partly as a consequence of the dissemination task undertaken by the European Commission (see, for example, BEPA, 2010). But as it often happens with new innovative concepts different strands of the literature tend to use the social innovation notion in very different ways (for a review, see BEPA, 2010: 36-40). Of particular interest for this paper is what Oosterlynck et al (2013: 2) call the grassroots strand of social innovation, which defines social innovation as locally embedded practices ( ) that help socially excluded and impoverished individuals and social groups to satisfy basic needs for which they find no adequate solutions in the private market or macro- level welfare policies (ibid, 2). The SINGOCOM project Social Innovation, Governance and Community Building-, coordinated by Frank Moulaert, and financed by the European Commission within the Fifth Framework Programme, has contributed decisively to the theorisation of such approach (see Moulaert et al, 2010). In their definition, social innovation occurs when the mobilisation of social and institutional forces succeeds in bringing about the satisfaction of previously alienated human needs, the relative empowerment of previously silent or excluded social groups through the creation of new capabilities, and, ultimately, changes in the existing social and power relations towards a more 6

7 inclusive and democratic governance system (González et al, 2010: 54). Such definition, therefore, points to a set of aspects that allow to delimiting the basic characteristics of the grassroots approach. First, in their definition, the main purpose of social innovation is the satisfaction of alienated human needs, that is to say, needs which are not satisfied as a consequence of the dynamics of social exclusion. Social exclusion may refer to material needs (poverty, lack of housing) but also social (limited access to education and health), political (no citizenship, no access to decision- making) and existential (no access to self- expression and creative capacities) deprivation (Gonzalez et al, 2010: 54). More concretely, from this perspective, social innovation is expected to occur mainly in the context of deprived urban areas where factors of exclusion tend to concentrate: it is the very spatial concentration of exclusion factors and people reacting to them, Moulaert states (2010: 11), that works as a catalyst for seeking alternatives. Second, social innovation is not only about a set of products or services that allow to covering specific human needs, but it is also a process that entails the empowerment of previously silent or excluded social groups. It is in the frame of such process where previously demobilised and silent social groups are expected to gain consciousness of the social nature of their needs and rights, and to collectively articulate their demands on the grounds of new organisational capabilities. Social innovative practices, according to Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2008), are driven by processes of social learning, awareness raising and collective action and mobilisation. 7

8 Third, social innovation entails the transformation of power relations, something that may occur between social groups, among scales of government, and among civil society, the state and the market sectors (González et al, 2010: 55). More concretely, social innovation is expected to compensate pre- existing power inequalities in favour of the weakest social groups, the most deprived urban neighbourhoods and social organisations. Social innovation, therefore, aims to contribute to social inclusion and to the democratization of governance. To sum up, the grassroots approach focuses its attention on localized forms of social innovation aimed at overcoming poverty and social exclusion (Oosterlynck, 2013:2). It sees social innovation as a process of transformation of social relations among socially vulnerable or excluded groups and the rest of society which entails a transformation of power relations in favour of the former. In line with a vast strand of the literature emphasising on the spatial dimension of poverty and social exclusion (see, for example, Muster and Oostendorf, 2006), the grassroots approach sees neighbourhoods as pivotal sites for initiating and implementing social change that may ripple through the city (or ) sites from which emancipatory initiatives emerge. The main argument ( ) is that locally based initiatives, often much more so than official state- led programmes, can galvanise a range of publics in activities that have city- wide (if not greater) impacts on the dynamics of urban cohesion and social development (Moulaert, 2010: 5). Moulaert acknowledges that elements such as the long histories of disintegration, marked by the absence of enabling economic circuits, fragmentation of social capital, breakdowns of traditional and often beneficial professional relations, loss of quality of 8

9 collective action and policy delivery systems, among others, may undermine the potential of socio- spatial exclusion as breeding grounds for social innovation (Moulaert, 2010: 11). This paper aims to shed light to this problematic relationship between socio- spatial segregation and social innovation. Two alternative hypotheses can be posed. The first one establishes that social innovation is more likely to emerge in the margins of the mainstream society, and more concretely at the urban (and social) peripheries were market and state failure is more evident and the consequences of such failure are more dramatic. The second one suggests that despite social needs in these areas are more pressing; they tend to lack the resources that facilitate collective action. According to this second hypothesis, social innovation is more likely to emerge in middle- class and progressive urban environments than in the most deprived urban areas The will to find alternative ways of living, consuming, producing, exchanging, etc. motivated by ideological or ethical reasons might be a stronger driver of social innovation than the type of process of social exclusion the SINGOCOM project refers to. Neighbourhoods and the crisis: goals and methods The Barris i Crisi (Neighbourhoods and the Crisis) project allows us explore the dynamics of social innovation as a response to the urban socio- spatial consequences of the economic and financial crisis in Catalonia (Spain). More concretely, this study follows three main goals: 9

10 - First, to analyse the dynamics of urban segregation in Catalonia in the context of the crisis, thus exploring how the social and the spatial dimensions of the crisis interact at the urban level. - Second, to identify those factors that contribute to the capacity of disadvantaged urban areas to cope with the effects of the crisis. More concretely, the study addresses the contribution of social innovation practices to the resilience of communities in this context. - Third, to make proposals that stimulate the debate on the strategies that both public administrations and social and community organisations can develop to cope with the socio- spatial consequences of the crisis. To fulfil these goals, we have used three main research methods: - First, a statistical analysis of the evolution of a set of indicators of urban segregation (% of unemployment, % of foreign population, average housing prices and average size of dwellings) for the more than section units of Catalonia in the period. - Second, a mapping of social innovation practices in Catalonia such as time banking, community gardening, consumer cooperatives, etc. (see below) on the basis of pre- existing maps of specific modalities of social innovation and of an extensive website search. - Third, a cross- case comparison of 6 neighbourhoods in the outskirts of different metropolitan cities of Catalonia: Ciutat Meridiana (Barcelona); Bellvitge (L Hospitalet); Palau i Rocafonda (Mataró); Pardinyes (Lleida); Santa Eugènia and Salt (Girona). Through such case studies, we have analysed in- depth the 10

11 particularities of the effects of the crisis in each area and the responses given (jointly or separately) by public administrations and community organisations at the local level. In the remainder of this paper, we will explain the main results of this research by putting the emphasis on those aspects that help us to problematize the relationship between social innovation and urban segregation understood as the spatial segregation of differentiated and unequal social groups. Our study contributes to the understanding of the magnitude of the urban socio- spatial effects of the crisis (and of the residential transformations that occurred during the previous years of the housing bubble) in Catalonia. It also provides us with empirical evidence that allow assessing the potentials of social innovation for counteracting processes of socio- spatial deprivation in the most underprivileged communities. By means of overlapping the maps of social innovation and of urban segregation, we can observe the spatial distribution of social innovation practices and their relative presence in the most disadvantaged urban areas. Finally, the study also allows to compare the more standard practices of social innovation that have proliferated in the region over the last decade with the more particular practices that have emerged in the most deprived communities. Urban segregation and socio- spatial differentiation in Catalonia during the crisis (and before) The arrival of democracy in Catalonia (as in the rest of Spain) entailed significant improvements in the socio- spatial conditions of deprived urban areas, mainly as a 11

12 result of neighbourhood renewal policies undertaken by the City Councils since the beginning of the 1980s (ref.). Local governments led the provision of public services, facilities and infrastructures that ameliorated the living conditions of the most deprived areas. Differently from countries like the UK, where central government plays a pivotal role in urban (regeneration) policies (ref.), local governments in Catalonia had to rely on their own resources and the additional support from different sectorial programmes of the regional and the central governments and the EU to cope with the problems of urban segregation (Blanco et al, 2011). The combination of such local policies with the general improvement of the living conditions in the country thanks to economic growth and the building of the Welfare State resulted in significant improvement in the standards of living in the most deprived areas and contributed to keep urban segregation relatively low (Nel lo, 2010). Such situation started to change by the second half of the 1990s as a consequence of the combination of two main factors (Nel.lo, 2010: 689): the evolution of the real estate market prices, with a rapid increase since the 1996 until 2007; and the demographic growth, largely due to strong immigration flows. As Nel lo explains, the combination of these two factors ( ) gave rise, on the one hand, to the re- emergence of substandard housing situations (especially as a result of overcrowding) and, on the other hand, to the concentration of social groups with lesser purchasing power in places where housing was relatively more affordable. As a result, processes of social segregation accelerated since the end of the 1990s, particularly as a result of the concentration of incidences of greater social need in those very neighbourhoods experiencing the larger urban deficits: the old centres, 1960s and 1970s housing 12

13 estates and areas resulting from processes of marginal urbanization in the same years (ibid, p.689). The analysis of the evolution of urban segregation indicators in the period confirms such trends. Firstly, our research puts in evidence that despite starting with comparatively low levels of urban segregation, segregation has increased significantly in the period under study, pointing to a growing socio- spatial polarisation of Catalan cities 3. Secondly, the maps of the evolution of urban segregation in this period show the notable continuities (and intensification) of segregation trends already observed in the beginning of the period. Notwithstanding the efforts to counteract such tendencies by the regional government of Catalonia between 2004 and 2011 by means of the Law on Neighourhoods (Llei de Barris), the most vulnerable areas in the beginning of the period are those that have seen their standards of living to worsen the most (Figure 1). Thirdly, our study shows that the segregation of the better- off communities is even more intense than the segregation of the poor. That it to say, social mix occurs mainly between middle and low- income population, whereas upper- income social groups tend to concentrate in highly segregated and homogeneous urban areas, which in general occupy larger territories (with lower density) than the poorest areas (see also Figure 1). Fourthly, our study stresses the metropolitan scale of urban segregation: residential differentiation occurs mainly between municipalities, rather than within municipalities. As explained by Nel lo (2010: 688), this phenomenon entails a 3 The index of spatial segregation of foreign population in Catalonia in 2001 was 1,8 in Catalonia in 2001, almost half of France in 2002 (3,3). By, 2012, such index had reached 2,2 in Catalonia. In 2001, 42% of the census sections in Catalonia presented extremely low or high levels of foreign population (first and tenth percentile). In 2012, they had reached 60%. 39% had a very low % of foreign population (first percentile), whilst 21% had a very high % (tenth percentile). Here we are are using the index of spatial segregation proposed by Maurin (2004), which compares the real and the normal distributions of certain social groups across space. 13

14 redistribution problem, as municipalities with the biggest urban deficits and the greatest needs in terms of social services tend to have a more limited fiscal base, while areas where these needs are lower have more resources as a result of their capacity to levy fiscal charges. Figure 1. Evolution of upper- income and lower- income segregation in the metropolitan region of Barcelona Source: prepared by the authors on the basis of the 2001 and 2011 Population and Housing Census and the Property Register. Green areas indicate upper- income segregation areas. Red areas indicate lower- income segregation areas. Maps of the left correspond to Maps of the right correspond to For the sake of clarity, we only present the map of the region of Barcelona (the analysis of segregation trends in the rest of Catalan regions can be found in 1- resultatspreliminars.pdf The available statistical data do not allow us to isolate the effects of the crisis in such dynamics of urban segregation, since they encompass a broader period ( ). However, our six case studies indicate that the economic circumstances of the crisis are not enough to understand the current conditions of vulnerability of the most 14

15 disadvantaged areas. Such conditions are partly a consequence of a historical trajectory marked by concentration of low- income population, physical segregation and insufficiencies of public space, public facilities and public services. Furthermore, some of these areas went through an intense process of residential transformation during the years of the housing bubble. As we will comment later, the most vulnerable communities under the crisis are those that concentrated a high proportion of migrant population (mostly from the Magrib and South- America) during the years of housing boom. Ciutat Meridiana (together with Salt, Santa Eugènia and Palau i Rocafonda) exemplifies this trend (for an outstanding analysis of this case, see Palomera, 2013): in 2001, foreign population was under 5%; in 2006, it had reached 40%. Such process did not occur because of the building of new dwellings (only 160 newly- built dwellings in the years of the housing boom), but because the newcomers settled down in the vacant houses left behind by the locals who made the most of the rapid increase of housing prices to sell their dwellings and to move to other, better- off areas. The newcomers, mostly migrants from the Magrib and from South- America, found in Ciutat Meridiana (and in other similar areas) the opportunity to buy their own- house, since despite their sharp increase, housing prices in that area were much lower than in the rest of the city. This segment of the population, who mostly worked in the construction sector, was the first and the most affected by the burst of the housing bubble in Many of the migrants that bought their homes in the years of the housing boom lost their jobs and they are now unable to keep up with their mortgage payments. Ciutat Meridiana is known as the neighbourhood with more cases of foreclosures and housing evictions across Spain (Blanco and León, 2013; Palomera, 15

16 2013). Similar trends took place during the same years in other urban areas studied in the Barris i Crisi project like Palau i Rocafonda and Salt (see below). To sum up, our study puts in evidence the structural nature of urban segregation in Catalonia and its intensification during the years of the crisis, mainly as a consequence of a set of residential transformations that took place in the years of the housing boom. It also shows that the increasing segregation of disadvantaged communities is accompanied by a more intense segregation of the better- off. And it highlights the metropolitan, inter- municipal, character of processes of socio- spatial differentiation. This analysis reveals major urban policy and spatial planning challenges such as the need for spatial planning policies that promote social and urban mix as well as the need for supra- local redistributive policies benefiting those areas (and municipalities) that concentrate the poorest segments of the population. Social innovation against socio- spatial segregation? The Barris i Crisi project analyses the dynamics of social innovation as a response to the crisis in Catalonia. Conceptually, we define social innovation as those practices initiated and led by social actors (with or without the support of other institutional and private actors) that: a) aim to satisfy basic social needs; b) put forward social and political alternatives to the status quo; and c) aim at transforming power relations. Our definition does not include any reference to social exclusion, since we do not take for granted that social innovation occurs mainly in the frame of disadvantaged communities. We think of the relationship between social innovation and the 16

17 empowerment of the poorest communities as a research question, rather than as a premise. In order to explore such relationship, we have used two main research tools. The first one is the Map of Social Innovation in Catalonia ( which includes more than 700 practices of social innovation grouped in four main categories and 8 sub- categories: a) Solidarity: community banks and local assemblies of the anti- eviction movement assemblies that aim to stop foreclosures and housing evictions. b) Energy and the environment: community gardens, energy cooperatives and civic telecommunications networks 4 c) Economy and alternative consume: social finance and consumer cooperatives d) Self- organised spaces (civic and autonomous management of spaces like urban abandoned slots, buildings and facilities) We focus on such categories and practices because they can be considered as typical examples of social innovation mentioned in the literature. They all represent horizontal and cooperative citizen practices that try to satisfy social needs such as housing, food, energy and space autonomously from the market and from the state. At the same time, they are spaces of political resistance, from which the citizens do not only put into practice alternative ways of living and of interacting, but also formulate (more or less explicitly) socio- political alternatives to the status quo. Finally, through such type of actions, citizens (an the social movements in which they are involved) 4 Open and free telecommunications networks to access Internet. For more information see 17

18 challenge dominant institutions and practices, aiming at transforming the power relations upon which they rest. Figure 2. Map of social innovation in Catalonia (for a more detailed vision, see: ) Source: prepared by the authors on the basis of website search. For more details on the methodology, see: innovacio- social/ We are aware that such types of practices do not cover the huge variety of innovative responses to the crisis initiated by the citizens in the last years. Mapping all these practices across the whole country would have been extremely difficult both for conceptual and for operational reasons. However, we can complement such information with our six case studies. Our case studies correspond to peripheral urban areas of different metropolitan cities from Catalonia that can be labelled as disadvantaged areas because of their historical trajectories and their socio- spatial characteristics. They are all areas built in the 1960s and 70s to house the immigrants 18

19 that were arriving to Catalonia from other Spanish regions to find job opportunities in an expanding industrial sector. Since then, they concentrate residents with relatively low- income levels, low- levels of educational attainment and high rates of unemployment. Their evolution under the period of study, however, has been significantly different (see tables 1 and 2): today, for example, unemployment rates in neighbourhoods like Pardinyes (Lleida) and Bellvitge (L Hospitalet) are lower than the average of their city, whereas the consequences of the crisis have been much more dramatic in areas like Ciutat Meridiana (Barcelona), Palau i Rocafonda (Mataró), and the municipality of Salt (Girona) being the case of Santa Eugènia (Girona) in an intermediate point. Our study allows to identify the type of responses to the crisis that have emerged in this type of area and, by means of the comparison of their recent trajectories, to explore the significance of social innovation as an explanatory factor for their uneven capacity to resist and to adapt to the circumstances of the crisis. In order to simplify the analysis, we put our initial focus on the city of Barcelona, for which we have a detailed knowledge of processes of socio- spatial differentiation and of spatial patterns of citizen participation. This preliminary analysis puts in evidence that most practices of social innovation mapped in our cartography concentrate not in the better- off nor in the poorer areas, but in middle- income areas with a significant level of social mix and with a strong tradition of social mobilisation. The clearest example of this trend is the district of Gràcia, a district characterised by the mixture of old and new generations, with a high cultural vitality, and with a very dense network of social and community organisations. Gràcia is far from being a disadvantaged area, although it is not amongst the richest districts of the city either (Figure 3 the district 19

20 of Gràcia corresponds to the cluster of initiatives concentrated in the centre of the city). Tables 1 and 2. % of foreign population in the six case studies 5 and % of unemployment 6 5 Barri means neighbourhood. Ciutat means city. 6 Unemployment rates are calculated as % of registered unemployed population over total population at working age (16-65). Real unemployment rates are higher, since they are normally calculated amongst the active population (people working + people looking for a job) 20

21 Figure 3. Social innovation practices in the city of Barcelona: community gardens, social finance projects and local assemblies of the anti- eviction movement Source: Map of Social Innovation of Catalonia The superposition of the maps of social innovation and of urban segregation allows us to make a more systematic analysis of the patterns of spatial distribution of social innovation and its correlation with processes of socio- spatial differentiation (Figure 4). The results are very revealing: 87% of social innovation practices locate in areas of non- segregation, independently from the type of practice and from the region (see also table 1). In other words, such type of practices does not tend to emerge neither in upper- income areas nor amongst the poorest communities, but in areas of low- segregation middle- income areas or with significant levels of social mix. Far from being a strategy of the socially excluded and impoverished individuals and social groups (Oosterlynck et al, 2013), social innovation practices emerge mostly in socially integrated areas and accordingly to the analysis of the specific case of Barcelona 21

22 they are led by progressive social groups that aim at experimenting with alternative ways of consumption, social interaction and political participation. Figure 4. Segregation intensity vs. social innovation location (Barcelona Metropolitan Region Source: Maps of Social Innovation and Urban Segregation (2011). Metropolitan Region of Barcelona. Table 1. Number and % of practices of social innovation in upper- income and lower- income segregation areas Region Alt Pirineu and Aran Region Barcelona Metropolitan Region Comarques Centrals Region Comarques Gironines Region Upper- income segregation Without segregation Lower- income segregation Total Segregation Total Social Innovation % Total Segregation % Lower income segregation ,2% 18,2% ,4% 2,8% ,6% 9,1% ,9% 7,8% Ponent Region ,2% 3,8% Camp de Tarragona Region ,9% 0,0% Terres de l'ebre Region ,5% 37,5% Total ,3% 4,2% 22

23 Source: Maps of Social Innovation and Urban Segregation However, the analysis of the six case studies reveals that the poorest communities do not remain passive, but also mobilise in reaction to the crisis. The most common social responses to the crisis in such areas can be classified in two main groups: - First, practices of social mobilisation and resistance against public sector cuts and housing evictions. In almost all cases there have been strong mobilisations against cuts in public health, public education and social services. Two significant examples of such mobilisations are the demonstrations against the closure of community health centres in Palau i Rocafonda (2014) and Ciutat Meridiana (2013). Local assemblies of the anti- eviction movement have been very strong in Ciutat Meridiana, Palau i Rocafonda, Santa Eugènia and Salt. - Second, solidarity and exchange networks trying to satisfy basic social needs such as food, clothes, school materials and child care. A significant part of the population of these areas, for example, make use of food banks, get clothes in community clothing swaps, acquire scholar materials through community exchange networks and access to child care services thanks to solidarity networks and NGOs. Such kinds of practices do not necessarily have the transformative power that is presumed in social innovation actions, but they simply try to satisfy pressing social needs. The type of social innovation practice identified in the Map of Social Innovation have a residual presence in our 6 case studies with the exception of the local assemblies of the anti- eviction movement. Moreover, many of the practices detected in these areas 23

24 receive a strong support or are initiated by either by public administrations or by external NGOs. Social finances, community consumer groups, energy cooperatives, etc. seem to be more adapted to middle- income progressive social groups with a relatively high level of political sophistication and with sufficient resources to afford the extra- costs of such practices ecological food in consumer cooperatives, for example, tends to be quite more expensive than in conventional supermarkets. Social innovation, therefore, does not necessarily emerge in the most deprived communities, but in the communities with more resources for collective action i.e. knowledge, income and time. The type of social responses to the crisis that predominate in the most deprived communities, according to our data, are more focused either on the provision of welfare or on the fight against public sector retrenchment. When comparing the trajectories of deprivation of the areas analysed and their uneven capacity to resist the effects of the crisis, (current) social innovation practices do not appear as a determinant factor. The most vulnerable areas according to unemployment rates are those areas that attracted the highest proportions of immigrant population since the end of the 1990s, during the years of the housing boom. Such areas particularly Salt, Ciutat Meridiana and Palau i Rocafonda have in common low levels of community pride, fuelled by the perception of a historical marginalisation on behalf of public administrations. Low levels of community pride and identity motivated that, during the years of the housing bubble, a large part of its population decided to make the most of the circumstances of real estate market to move out from their neighbourhoods. Such process became more intense as a consequence of the massive arrival of immigrants, which fuelled the perception of a ghettoification process. The objective conditions of vulnerability of these areas 24

25 worsened dramatically as a consequence of such an intense process of population replacement, as observed later in the years of the crisis. The neighbourhoods of Bellvitge and Pardinyes followed opposite trends during the same years, despite starting from a very similar position from that of Ciutat Meridiana, Salt and Palau i Rocafonda. These neighbourhoods present lower rates of foreign population than their respective cities (L Hospitalet and Lleida). In Bellvitge, strong community pride and strong community identity favoured that the traditional residents stayed in the neighbourhood during the years of the housing boom. Pardinyes not only managed to keep their traditional population but it also attracted new young middle- class families to the new dwellings built since the end of the 1990s. Both neighbourhoods have historically benefited from strong public investments in public space, public facilities and public services that have entailed significant improvements in the quality of the environment. High levels of community pride are also a consequence of the strong organisation of the communities and of the influence of the citizens on urban policies. Such influence is a result of both social mobilisations (especially in the years of the democratic transition) and collaboration with local public administrations. Civic capacity - understood as the capacity of governmental and non- governmental actors to work jointly to face the challenges of communities (Stone et al, 2001; De Souza Briggs, 2008) seems a much more powerful explanatory factor for the resilience of these communities than the emergence of social innovation practices in recent years. Cross- case comparison indicates that collective action has a great explanatory power of the resilience of communities. However, collective action is important insofar as it 25

26 sustains itself for a long- time; it is embedded in collaborative arrangements with public administrations; and it has clear impacts in terms of improvement of the living conditions in the area. Concluding remarks This paper challenges the most optimistic accounts of the grassroots approach of social innovation those emphasising the value of social innovation as a strategy to compensate for market and state failure in the context of spaces of socio- spatial deprivation. Our analysis highlights the structural character of socio- spatial segregation. Intensification of residential segregation of the most vulnerable social groups in Catalonia over the last decade is due to the complex combination of a set of factors including: the massive arrival of immigration in a short period of time; strong institutional stimulus for home purchase during the years of the housing bubble; a bias towards the construction of middle and upper- status housing and lack of social housing; the speculative nature of economic growth during the years of the housing bubble and a sharp drop of employment since its burst in 2008; the disproportionate effects of public sector cuts amongst the most needed social groups and urban areas. Moreover, our study reveal that processes of socio- spatial differentiation occur mainly at a metropolitan (inter- municipal) scale, rather than within municipalities. All this observations point to the need of multiscalar policies that counteract the residential segregation of the poor and that have strong redistributive effects between municipalities and urban areas. 26

27 Our study also reveals that social innovation does not necessarily emerge in the most needed communities, but in the areas the concentrate more resources for collective action. Putting the emphasis on citizen horizontal and cooperative practices as a response of state and market failure may reinforce the redistributive problem that lies behind processes of socio- spatial differentiation, generating a burden that is more difficult to cope with by the most disadvantaged communities. When looking at the different trajectories of disadvantaged urban areas and the factors accounting for their uneven capacity to resist and to adapt to the effects of the crisis, we observe the importance of collaborative relationships between governmental and non- governmental actors to provide joint solutions to the challenges of communities. Civic capacity is a much more powerful explanatory factor for the uneven resilience of communities than social innovation. As recognised by Oosterlynck et al (2013: 24-26), the mainstream literature on social innovation sees socially innovative practices as a reaction to state failure and considers the relationship between social innovation and public institutions as very difficult and problematic. Others, to the contrary, highlight the possibility of generating positive synergies among public institutions, private organisations and civil society. Our paper supports this second perspective, as it illustrates how the most resilient communities have been those with a historical trajectory of strong collaborative relations between public administrations and community organisations. Such collaborative relations, which do not exclude conflict, have resulted in significant developments in the quality of the environment and of public services and, in turn, have strengthened community identity and community pride. 27

28 Our study does not deny nor the increasing difficulties of state action to tackle with the challenge of social cohesion in cities neither the need for socially innovative practices that complement (and challenge) public policies. However, our study provides a set of arguments that warns against the risk of transferring to social innovation the responsibility for guaranteeing urban social cohesion. REFERENCES Blanco, I. and León, M. (2013) Who s the containment dike? The Spanish Mortgage Victims Platform (Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca PAH) as a driver of social innovation, paper presented at the conference Interrogating Urban Crisis: Governance, Contestation and Critique, De Montfort University, Leicester (UK), 9-11 September Available at and- law- documents/research/lgru/ismaelblancoandmargaleon.pdf Blanco, I., Bonet, J., Walliser, A. (2011) Urban governance and regeneration policies in historic city centres, Urban Research and Practice, 4(3): Cáritas (2013) VIII Informe del Observatorio de la Realidad Social (Octubre 2013). Madrid: Fundación FOESSA. Available at De Souza Briggs, X. (2008). Democracy as problem solving. Civic capacity in communities across the globe. The MIT Press. González, S., Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F. (2010) ALMOIN: how to analyse social innovation at the local level? in Moulaert et al (eds.) (2010) op.cit. pp Maurin, E. (2004) Le ghetto français : Enquête sur le séparatisme social. Paris: Seuil, La République des Idees. Moulaert, F. (2010) Social innovation and community development: concepts, theories and challenges in Moulaert et al (eds.) (2010) op.cit. pp Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., González, S. (eds.) (2010) Can neighbourhoods save the city? Community Development and Social Innovation. London: Routledge 28

29 Nel.lo, O. (2010) The challenges of urban renewal. Ten lessons from the Catalan experience, Analise Social vol. xlv (197): Palomera, J. (2013) How did the finance capital infiltrate the world of urban poor? Homeownership and social fragmentation in a Spanish neighbourhood, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1): Stone, C., Henig, J., Jones, B., Pierannunzi, C. (2001) Building Civic Capacity. The politics of reforming urban schools. University of Kansas Press. 29