 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
Social differentiation of residential areas is nothing new to Germany. For a long time former "worker's neighbourhoods" stemming from the second half of the 19th century have been considered disadvantaged. Especially in Eastern Germany, but also in the big cities of the West - in spite of decades of urban renewal policies - there still exist a lot of these quarters with substandard housing and a very low environmental quality. The large housing estates of the post-war period have also turned out to be problematic because of their anonymous and monotonous architecture, their lack of mixed use and their deficits in social infrastructure.
Social segregation has become more definitive in the 1990s, though. On the one hand the inhabitants of many inner city areas and social housing estates are collectively experiencing the decline caused by the structural economic change and crisis of the welfare state. On the other hand the social patchwork of the neighbourhoods is getting torn by selective movements in inner-urban migration. Well-off middle-class families turn their backs towards most parts of the inner city and the large housing estates. There are attempts to combine state-subsidised and privately financed housing in order to create 'new city extensions' where different social groups can mix. But the vast majority of new housing is single-family homes in suburbs and the cities' peripheral regions. This development not only results in ecological destruction; it is also undermining the social and cultural basis of cities and municipalities.
There is a growing interest in "Social Urban Development" but the self-determined isolation of households that are well off is rarely seen as a problem. Almost always it's the so-called "problematic areas" that are discussed in this context. At least partly they are a result of the deregulation of the housing sector because market forces and municipal policies of social housing tend to concentrate poor and socially discriminated households in neighbourhoods that are unattractive for private investors. These areas are characterised by individual deficits of housing provisions and a quality of living that is far below the German average. Moreover, in some areas the accumulation of social problems has serious consequences on the quality of education. In that way areas are created that have little perspective and cause further disadvantages for their inhabitants. It's the recipients of social aid, natural German immigrants from Eastern Europe and other migrants who suffer most from this kind of marginalisation.
In the Federal Republic of Germany for more than 30 years now there have been programmes of urban renewal jointly funded and implemented by the Federal Government, the Länder (states) and the municipalities. Alongside the aim of the cities' physical renewal they have always been guided by social policies. At the beginning, the ideas of renewal were rather authoritarian and the predominant strategy was to replace "backward quarters" with modern housing estates. After civil protests and growing criticism against the destruction of "the old city" the idea came to be accepted that social progress can only be fostered by a gradual renewal of the existing building stock that also respects the existing social milieus. For this reason civil participation and procedures of social assistance have been made obligatory.
As long as the modernisation of rented apartments was heavily subsidised and rents were kept modest by state legislature, urban renewal policies had an impact of social homogenisation. But since the 1980s the state has progressively reduced its intervention in the housing sector. Today, earlier strategies of urban renewal that tried to cover whole districts of a city are no longer regarded as viable. The modernisation of the housing stock is now predominantly financed by private owners while the municipalities co-ordinate and control this process. They also contribute to it by the improvement of urban infrastructure, the support of the local economy and a reorganisation of local traffic. Since public intervention into urban renewal is meant to be in line with the market they cannot prevent (and sometimes may even add to) the growing gap between inner-city areas that are getting gentrified and others that experience social decline.
In the 1990s several German states developed neighbourhood-oriented policies in order to stabilise disadvantaged parts of the city. In 1999, after the last change of government the Federal Ministry of Traffic, Construction and Housing designed a new programme under the title "Neighbourhoods with a Special Need for Development - the Social City". A yearly budget of 300 million DM is available for the support of different policies developed on the local level. They are supposed to co-ordinate and create synergies between public works, social services and employment policies. They should include new co-operations between public and private agents and local initiatives. They are meant to improve the consultation and active participation of the inhabitants at all planning processes that concern the neighbourhood.
Some German cities have introduced so-called intermediary organisations whose duty is to bridge the gap between local citizens, businesses and initiatives on the one hand and the different branches of the administration on the other. So far what has been funded are measures to improve the habitat or housing environment, non-commercial centres for the youth or elderly, intercultural projects, new activating methods of participation or neighbourhood councils. Concrete projects to "fight poverty" and new jobs in municipal or state-subsidised enterprises are rather an exception. The local "exchange circles" and "social department stores" mentioned in the "National Report Istanbul +5" are very rare in reality and have mostly been created independently from the government's programme.
In general the approach of the "Social City Programme" should be judged positively. Politicians have learned that public works are not sufficient to improve people's living conditions. Local government often lacks teamwork and co-ordination between different branches of the administration; now there are many attempts for reforms according to local needs. Last but not least the program opens up new opportunities for people's self-determination because many of the projects mentioned above are the result of local NGO initiatives.
In spite of this, the official presentation of these topics in Germany's National Report for UNGASS has to be criticised. Germany is not on the way towards a sustainable development of human settlements since it does little to ensure social cohesion. The funds used for this goal are totally insufficient and the overall tendency to cut social spending is counteracting local achievements. Many of the planners and politicians involved in the programme concede that much larger parts of their respective cities need similar actions. And there is no way to tell how positive experiences made by the programme's special funding could ever be transferred to all the neighbourhoods in question.
Therefore the most important point of criticism is the limited view of "social urban development" that never takes into account the entire city or agglomeration. While concrete improvements in some neighbourhoods are funded, in general, the state tends to leave the housing provisions of economically weak households up to the real estate market.
At the same time there are still massive tax incentives for house ownership that will surely add to the deepening of social segregation. A social counterbalance between disadvantaged and rich parts of the city has not even been discussed. Therefore, the problems manifested in the disadvantaged areas and the solutions proposed are mere symptoms of basic unsolved conflicts within the German society.
Many neighbourhoods that have been singled out as "social hot spots" have a very high percentage of foreign population. The creation of ethnic 'ghettos' is a consequence of a series of discriminations in the housing and job market. It is accompanied by constraints on foreigners' political rights and their cultural exclusion from the overall society. The unemployment rate among former guest workers and their relatives is significantly higher than on average. Recent research has shown that their children reach lower school grades and have less access to apprenticeships in vocational training than German youth. Since most of them are from Turkey or other non-EU-member-states they do not even have the right to vote on the local level. Those applying for political asylum and war refugees are not allowed to work, either.
The fact that Germany has become a country of immigration is only slowly and with great reluctance gaining acceptance. The migrants have to be granted equal political rights and economic liberties if a further disintegration of the society is to be prevented. Nothing would contribute more to the development of the neighbourhoods in question. Additionally, special efforts have to be made in the education and formation of the foreign youth.
There is a broad consensus that the most important resource for the development of poor neighbourhoods lies within the activation of their endogenous potentials. The political strategies for the endowment of community work range from emancipative concepts of empowerment to very repressive ones. In many places local initiatives and social services organised on a self-help basis are getting public support. But at the same time certain preconditions are raised for those entitled to receive social aid. In Berlin, for example, some recipients have been forced into programmes that are supposed to provide "integration through work" and have to carry out low-paid jobs to improve habitat conditions (like the gardening of public green spaces). There are also offers of consultancy and special credits for unemployed who try to establish their own enterprise. In these cases services for a local market are first subsidised but are supposed to become economically viable in the long run.
Generally speaking one is looking for exits from the crisis of the western working society that do not require a new increase in public spending. But most of the proposed solutions ignore the fact that voluntary activities require material security. Or they are unaware that new forms of local economy can only develop where people have the necessary buying power to pay for social services such as the delivery of groceries for the old or homework assistance for pupils.
|
|
||
|
(c) Knut Unger 2001. mailto:unger@mvwit.de |
||