Social mix and passive revolution A neo-Gramscian analysis of the resilient marginality of the social mix rhetoric in Flanders, Belgium Maarten Loopmans, Pascal De Decker and Chris Kesteloot Working paper (please do not quote without permission of the authors). A revised version has been published as: Loopmans, Maarten P. J. , de Decker, Pascal and Kesteloot, Chris(2010) 'Social Mix and Passive Revolution. A Neo-Gramscian Analysis of the Social Mix Rhetoric in Flanders, Belgium', Housing Studies, 25: 2, 181 —200 1 1. Intro Advocacy of 'social mix' (also referred to as 'social diversity' or 'social balance') has a long history going back to the mid nineteenth-century (Arthurson, 2008; Sarkisian and Warwick, 1978). Sarkissian (1976) demonstrated how the idea that at a certain spatial scale the composition of the population should reflect the diversity of wider society, was an ideal in planning throughout the 20th century (see also Arthurson, 2008). Recently renewed interest in ‘social mixing’ in Europe has re-invigorated scientific debate on is effects (Ostendorf, Musterd & De Vos, 2001; Kleinhans, 2004; Ruming, Mee & McGuirk, 2004; Musterd & Andersson, 2005; Galster, 2007). Generally, these studies echo earlier analyses (e.g. Orlans, 1952; Kuper, 1953; Gans, 1961) in being critical of social mixing policies. Their sophisticated models show moderately positive results at best, raising the question whether such meager results legitimize widespread policy attention. Puzzled by the unchallenged popularity of social mix amongst policy makers, observators have started ‘unpacking’ the concept and its variegated uses. Social mix covers numerous overlapping population indicators, including class, income, employment status, age, ethnicity and lifestyle. The concept is applied to various spatial scales: -municipality, neighborhood, housing project or apartment building. Social mix can reflect a variety of objectives –from fighting social exclusion to stabilizing a municipal tax base- and can be embraced by those espousing ideologies ranging from egalitarian to neo-liberal (Cole and Goodchild, 2001). We start our analysis with the finding that in Flanders social mix, while being on the agenda since the 1970’s, has maintained a marginal position in policy making. Deploying a neo-Gramscian approach to the social mix rhetoric, we reveal how in a 2 context of entrenched anti-urbanism, the inherent flexibility of the social mix idea was instrumental to pacify and co-opt counter-hegemonic forces challenging Flemish urbanization policies status quo. However, such co-optation did not result in the translation of the social mix ideal into policy practice. In the following section, we present an overview of the literature on social mix. We conclude that previous analyses have neglected the political role of the concept. Hence, in a second section, we turn to Gramscian theory on the political role of discourse and introduce the concepts of hegemony and passive revolution. These concepts are deployed in the sections thereafter to understand how social mix was instrumental in deflecting challenges to the hegemonic anti-urban model. In a final section, we analyze how social mix affects the power of the traditional counterhegemonic model of social rental housing in urban settings. 2. The discourse of social mix in policy formulation Various suggestions have been made to explain why and how social mix has entered mainstream policy discourse. Sarkissian (1976) argued how the use of social mix is related to crises in the management and control of inner cities. Deploying poststructuralist discourse analysis, Goodchild and Cole (2001) emphasize how the social mix discourse is multilayered and cannot be understood as resulting from a sole political ideology developed in an autonomous power centre; rather, social mix is interpreted and used differently in discourses at various levels of social reality. Shying away from an analysis of power and the state, they do not explain how social mix forms part of a political ideology or of central state discourses. Uitermark (2003) does address the question as to why and how social mix becomes an element of central state policies. Zeroing in on the Netherlands, he argues that the social mix discourse should be analyzed in relation to the dynamics of the State’s regulatory framework –the set of interrelated institutions working together to regulate social life-. 3 Uitermark emphasizes how inter-institutional relations are dynamic, as actors and social forces actively try to (re)organize them. It follows that two interrelated questions need to be answered: ‘First, how, when and why do actors identify certain problems and develop a reaction to these problems (see van Dijk, 1997)? And, secondly, how does their position within a dynamic regulatory framework allow them to make their discourse dominant and to mobilize the state apparatus?’ (Uitermark, 2003, p. 536). The (re-)appearance of social mix in the context of Dutch Urban Restructuring Policies is resulting from growing interdependencies between central state actors and actors involved in neighborhood social management (in particular the powerful Dutch housing corporations), and the difficulties these actors face to carry out key tasks. Uitermark emphasizes the importance of bureaucratic networks between different state scales to explain how local social mix can become a goal in central state policy, but, working from the bureaucratized context of the Netherlands, neglects the purely political role of ideas. His perspective is too narrow to explain the salience of social mix in current political discourse. Fairclough (1989) explains how the real importance of policy statements goes beyond the reflection of social practices; rather, Fairclough emphasizes their concrete political relevance as politicians try to appropriate notions of common sense as a means of justification and persuasion. “Social phenomena are linguistic, in the sense that language activity. . . is not merely a reflection or expression of social processes and practices, it is a part of those processes and practices. For example, disputes about the meaning of political expressions are a constant and familiar aspect of politics… such disputes are sometimes seen as merely preliminaries to or outgrowths from the real practices and processes of politics. . . they are not: they are politics.” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 23) 4 Drawing upon neo-Gramscian theory, we develop a framework to understand the use of social mix as a political project. Gramsci (2001) is an interesting source of inspiration for this question as he combines institutional and economic analysis with less tangible questions of ideology and discourse (Loopmans, 2008). We claim that from this perspective social mix in Flanders can be understood as a repeatedly used instrument for establishing what Gramsci calls a passive revolution. 3. Gramsci, hegemony and discourse One of the most influential ideas in Gramsci’s political theory is hegemony. Gramsci introduced the concept of ‘hegemony’ to capture the “ideological predominance of bourgeois values and norms over the subordinate classes” (Carnoy, 1984). Hegemony allows the state to rule by consent rather than coercion, and connects to Gramsci’s understanding of the state as deeply intertwined with civil society (the integral state). In a diverse society with a variety of different and opposing interests, hegemony is always potentially unstable. There is always the risk that counterhegemonic discourses are produced by social groups whose interests are not furthered by the operations of the state. These discourses threaten to undermine widespread popular consent. To sustain hegemony, the state engages in a hegemonic project, a permanent “consciously planned struggle for hegemony” (Gill, 2003, p. 58; Jessop, 1997, p. 62) involving the active search for compromises, shared interests, common goals, institutional links with various social forces in civil society and the development of a common, congruent discourse to win the public’s hearts and minds. Ives (2004) explains how the transformation, reinterpretation and reordering of words and concepts is an important political activity. For Ives “the goal is to achieve a common language, not a singular dominant interpretation of everything that happens in the world and all human activity. Various and opposing perspectives can be expressed in such a language”. 5 Using military terminology, Gramsci (2001) describes such an active and conscious development of alliances around a common worldview a ‘war of position’ (Simon, 1991, p. 25) and emphasizes how it is more important than and must precede a ‘war of manoeuvre’ to take over state power. Like in actual warfare, the trench war ultimately determines success or failure of the war of manoeuvre. Gramsci introduces ‘passive revolution’ to refer to the situation where such a war of position results in ‘a revolution without revolution’: “changes occur and often they are reactions to problems and tensions of previous political and economic arrangements, but they rarely resolve such problems and are not really democratic in the true sense of the term –they do not come from the people. Rather leaders propose policies that the people do not reject”(Ives, 2004, p. 104). A passive revolution is realised by creatively re-shaping state discourses to incorporate the claims of adversaries without changing the core of the hegemonic project. Hence, the potential development of counter-hegemonic discourses is curbed, without, however, preserving the active support of civil society. In the following section, we contend that social mix (in Flanders) has been instrumental for a passive revolution as it has been deployed to undermine the development inherent of potentially flexibility of the destabilizing concept counter-hegemonic has enabled discourses. repeated tackling The of counterhegemonic attacks, without altering the dominant path of urbanization policies: the heavy state-funding of suburbanization and homeownership. The above theoretical discussion offers us a framework for this analysis. Central elements to this analysis are the discursive actions of organisations challenging the hegemonic state project, and the re-formulation of their claims by state actors. The development of policy ideas and concepts is analyzed in relation to the interactions between state actors and civil society, and to the problem of consent in civil society. 6 In the following sections, we analyze how the usage of ‘social mix’ by state actors in Flanders was instrumental for the establishment of passive revolution. First, we describe the development of the hegemonic postwar project on urbanization in Flanders. We will uncover the social forces behind it, describe its core concepts and explain the relative powerlessness of the main historical counter-hegemonic model. Then we discuss three moments since 1970 when this hegemonic project is challenged, and analyze how social mix has been deployed to disempower challengers. First, a coalition arose between local government actors and urban social movements contesting the destruction of the housing function in the city centre by ‘citification’ and suburbanization. Social mix was a solution to ameliorate housing conditions in the inner city, and social housing is to guarantee social mix at the neighborhood level. Second, intercultural conflicts arise in inner city neighborhoods affected by disinvestment as newly arriving immigrant groups settle primarily in these areas. Social mix becomes ethnic mix and social housing is to decrease ethnic concentrations in private rental neighborhoods. Simultaneously, urban local governments are complaining about suburbanization’s social selectivity and decreasing central city tax bases. The concept of social mix renders the stimulation of gentrification –or the suburbanization of the centre- acceptable to the wider urban population. In a final section we present the effect of the various uses of social mix on the main historical counter-hegemonic model of urbanization, inner city social rental housing. Whereas first, it appears to regain strength through the introduction of social mix, in the third phase social rental housing is progressively marginalized. 4. Institutionalized anti-urbanism as a background of the social mix debate 7 Flemish urbanization is characterized by sprawl. The origins of this can be traced back to the geography of the 19th century Belgian industrial revolution and its political consequences (Saey e.a., 1998; De Decker et al, 2005). The industrial revolution gave rise to a Walloon industrial axis where the concentration of workers in cities incited secularization and socialism, threatening catholic cultural and political domination. Industrialization and urbanization arrived much later in Flanders. Meanwhile, the papal encyclical letter Rerum Novarum (1891) paved the way for the Church in Flanders to prevent socialism gaining ground by developing catholic labor organizations (Joye & Lewin, 1967; Gerard, 1998). This created Belgium’s regional pillarization into a Flanders-based catholic and a Wallonia-based socialist pillar (Terhorst & Van den Ven, 1997). To defend its dominance in industrializing Flanders, the Catholic pillar fiercely resists the concentration of workers in large cities. Catholics consistently proposed, first, interventions to increase mobility so as to stimulate commuting instead of migration to the city and second, the stimulation of homeownership of single family houses on rural land. Whereas these catholic measures promoted the centrality of family values and community cohesion, the socialist movement intended to stimulate class cohesion. Hence, socialists promoted the concentration of workers in (urban) working class neighborhoods, preferably in mass public housing to prevent workers to get a taste of capitalist property-ownership. Whereas socialists were numerous in the Walloon industrial axis, catholic hegemony retained its strongholds in more populous Flanders and Wallonia’s rural south. Resultantly, the catholic pillar remained hegemonic in unitary Belgium and could successfully implement its containment strategy vis-à-vis the socialist movement through housing and planning policies (Mort Subite, 1990; Marissal et al., 2007). In 1869, the Catholics introduced cheap railway tickets, stimulating 8 commuting and suburbanization along the dense railway network (Van der Haegen, 1984). In 1889 the catholic party wrote a housing law encouraging homeownership for workers. In 1918 the socialist party entered government for the first time and installed the National Society for Cheap Housing supporting housing cooperatives (Goossens, 1983). However, its effect was limited and in 1922, the Catholic party introduced a law to subsidize private homeownership. In 1948, the Catholic law ‘De Taeye’ installed a premium for the construction of ‘moderate’ houses by private owners. In 1949, the Socialist Brunfaut reacted with a law stimulating large scale social housing construction, but he cannot compete with the De Taeye premium. In 20 years time, more than 400 000 De Taeye premiums were conceded; More than one-third of all post war new housing construction is co-financed this way (Theunis, 2006). Furthermore, Belgian town planning legislation was purposively generous designating land for housing to guarantee housing affordability while post-war Keynesian infrastructure provision supported the development of remote areas. Together, planning legislation, Keynesian development and De Taeye resulted in unprecedented sprawl. State support for homeownership was underpinned by a massive Catholic ideological campaign to install a ‘rural Flemish housing culture’ around the rural single family house ideal (Floré, 2006). Meanwhile, urban mass social housing remained the main ideological alternative, but never achieved cultural hegemony and could not rival with private homeownership in terms of housing production. 5. New challengers: (urban) social movements of the 1960s-1970s In the late 1960s, suburbanisation was challenged by new contenders. First, urban social movements arose campaigning against the combination of sprawl and demolition of urban heritage sites and residential neighbourhoods. These struggles 9 united heritage conservationists with progressive intellectuals and feminist activists reclaiming public space from traffic and local shopkeeper organisations loosing clients as inner city housing is under pressure (De Smit, 2003; Verschueren, 2003, p. 165; Buyck, 1988). Moreover environmentalism awoke, criticizing urban sprawl for the loss of open space and the stimulation of car traffic. These critics found support amongst young urban planners (e.g. Vanhavre; 1967; Anselin, 1967). In Antwerp, a local non-governmental planning organ ‘Schelde-Dijle vzw’ summarized their arguments in a report on the inner city (Schelde-Dijle vzw, 1971). When in 1971 one of its members (Bob Cools) was appointed alderman for spatial planning, these ideas also entered official planning discourse (Loopmans, 2008; see Stad Antwerpen, 1973). The Schelde-Dijle study identifies ‘the degradation of the living environment’ as the main problem for the city, and points to suburbanization and ensuing disinvestment in urban housing, as well as the pressure from tertiary sector investment and a growing demand for traffic and parking space as its causes. There is little or no mention of the social selectivity of suburbanization. When inner city problems takes root in municipal planning circles, the tone of the debate alters. The first Flemish secretary of state for spatial planning, the Christian democrat Luc Dhoore (1973-1977), writes three policy notes on urban renewal but never implemented them. Knops (1979), describes how Dhoore transforms the original concerns over suburbanisation and urban decay into a problem of physical deterioration of the built environment coinciding with a marginalising inner city population. The call to renew the built environment is translated in a need to renew the population, and the concept of social mix is introduced. To improve inner urban social mix, Dhoore suggests attracting higher income groups (Van den Broeck & Baelus, 1992). 10 In 1981, Ghent planners write a note called ‘Housing setting the tune’ (Stad Gent, 1981). It introduces ‘the immigrant question’ and problematizes a high share of foreigners in some neighbourhoods for possibly stimulating social conflict (Stad Gent, 1981, p. 14). The note suggests improving neighbourhood diversity. “One can state that it is necessary to have an age structure similar to the city average to have a lively neighbourhood. The same counts for the distribution of social classes: the city should combat class segregation. And in order to stop the decrease of the household size, more households with children should move to the city” (p. 38). Foreigners “should be spread to adjacent neighbourhoods” (p 38). “In neighbourhoods were the share of foreigners is too high (more than 15%), the concentration should be lowered. The situation should be stabilised in wards with a share between 11% and 15%. The wards with a share between 6% and 10% can function as reception areas for foreign people. In areas with shares lower than 5% a further growth is not necessary” (p 5051). 6. Social mix and social urban renewal In 1980, a campaign for social urban renewal starts initiated by the European Council to stimulate awareness. A small ‘steering group’ of engaged academics and bureaucrats developed the social renewal campaign in Flanders and delivered the first elaborate working papers on the future of Flemish cities. The interests of urban residents, depicted as the prime victims of suburbanization, are their prime concern: “[t]he population and the policy makers have to be convinced, first, that it is necessary to stop suburbanisation and to give priority to the liveability of existing cores, and second, that it is necessary to put the problems and interests of the inhabitants first” (Van den Broeck & Baelus, 1992, p. 55). 11 In the steering group’s reports, neighbourhood segregation is a major problem: “The population of unattractive neighbourhoods is increasingly onesided: elderly, singles, and marginal households who cannot (yet) afford a suburban house.” (Secretariaat Stadsvernieuwingscampagne, 1982, p. 5).). Segregation is explained by economic developments (the city is a site for speculation) and socio-cultural tendencies, reinforced by politics: “In looking back at the urbanisation process, one can see that who could afford it, moved to the fringes of the city. (…) Government, planners, developers followed this development and reinforced it through policies. We built and planned urban decay” (Secretariaat Stadsvernieuwingscampagne, 1982, p.7 ). Concentrating on segregation, proposed policy measures reflect some important shifts in discourse. First, policy formulation involves a transformation of scale: Instead of tackling the regional problem of suburbanization head-on, the policy scales the problem down to a problem of deficient local ‘inner city communities’. The Steering group emphasizes the need for “the creation of balanced communities, based on social justice’ (Secretariaat Stadsvernieuwingscampagne, 1981, p 9-10). Balanced communities are not just a model for a more solidary society: the aim is first, like with Dhoore, to counter inner city decay. Hence the discourse also transforms the culprit. Instead of blaming suburbanization, the remaining inner city population is related to urban decay: “The financially well off can afford a villa. Workers and middle classes go to social housing located at the city fringes. The remaining urban population consist, consequently, of marginal and poor people: elderly, singles, young families with small children and particularly migrants. (…) With limited finances and, for some, no intention to stay in the city, these don’t renovate their dwelling. Deterioration of the dwelling and the surroundings follow. 12 Leading, finally, to the decay of the city?” (Secretariaat Stadsvernieuwingscampagne, 1981, p 19). The Steering group links urban liveability with population diversity and hence social mix becomes a prime goal of the social renewal campaign. “If the balance cannot be restored, this can be fatal for the survival of the city” (p 19). The campaign awakens government interest in urban renewal and in 1982, the new Christian democrat minister Paul Akkermans, installs a regional urban renewal policy. For Akkermans, the housing circumstances and participation of the most vulnerable groups in the city are key concerns and social mixing is one of the instruments to achieve better living conditions. The “attraction of newcomers must focus on a demographic rejuvenation and revival of neighbourhoods, for the benefit of those who already live in the neighbourhood” (Akkermans, 1983, p57). “The renewal process must result in: better dwellings, more pleasant surroundings, and… a socially mixed population. A mix of diverse social classes is favourable above homogeneous populations” (Akkermans, 1983, p 75). As social mix is to be achieved for the betterment of the sitting population, displacement should be avoided. “We need to attract new inhabitants to poor neighbourhoods. [...] Newcomers can lead to a more diverse population, which will contribute to better and more diverse services in the neighbourhood. One thing should be prevented: that newcomers displace the sitting tenants” (Akkermans, 1983, p 7475). To prevent displacement social housing is to be provided for those who can’t afford to buy their own residence. In the wake of the Flemish policy, the cities develop new policy visions. Of particular importance is the Antwerp Global Structure Plan. The Global Structure Plan is developed in the course of the 1980s, and shifts the discourse from a focus on physical urban renewal to wider concerns of social and economic improvement. In the course of preparation, De Brabander et al. (1992) are entrusted a study on 13 the fiscal consequences of suburbanization which will become highly influential in the decade to come. This study reveals how in Antwerp and Ghent selective suburbanisation of more well-to-do residents undermines the inner city’s tax base. The study makes the municipality itself, instead of its lower income residents, a victim of Flemish anti-urbanism. It will become an important argument to restore social mix through gentrification. In practice, Akkermans’ policy did little to alter Flemish anti-urbanism. Compared to the ongoing de Taeye-subsidies, the social renewal campaign struggles with tight budgets. Consequently, the objective of improving the urban living environment and social mix is hardly met. Rather to the contrary: the policy further stimulated planner’s blight by quickly designating areas for redevelopment while turning to action belatedly with limited budgets (De Decker, 1987). When in the end, housing got constructed, social mix wasn’t reached: in the context of continued suburbanization, the renewal campaign did not succeed in stimulating homeowners to renovate and nearly all renovation was done by social housing companies for sitting lower income residents. By emphasizing social mix, Akkermans’ policy, and the preceding Social Urban Renewal Campaign, did change the discourse on the urban question considerably. It altered the scale at which the problem was described (from a regional problem of suburbanization to a local or neighborhood problem of degeneration), and changed the culprit: by emphasizing the need of a social mix, the problem was no longer suburbanization, but the concentration of elderly and low income groups (and in some instance, also ethnic minorities) who were not able to invest in the amelioration of their living conditions. Finally the larger cities succeed in changing the victim as well: instead of lower income groups, municipal government portrays itself as the main victim of the loss of social mix on its territory by loosing tax revenue. While not yet sanctioned 14 through the social renewal policy, this would become a central argument in later phases of urban policy formulation. 7. Addressing the immigrant question through neighbourhood social mix The issue of ethnic mix was rarely mentioned in the 1970s-1980s, but this would change drastically in the 1990s. By the late 1980s, the extreme right party Vlaams Blok introduces a virulent anti-immigrant discourse in electoral campaigns. Gaining strength election after election, they turn the ‘immigrant question’ into a major urban problem and force government parties to react. Firstly, federal government installs a royal commissioner to investigate the immigrant question, who will make the link between social mix and the immigrant question. Secondly, Flemish government initiates an official urban policy. Flemish policy discourse introduces social mix as a way to address the concerns of Vlaams Blok voters while at the same time striving for immigrant emancipation. 7.1. The Royal Commissioner on Migration 9 October 1988 is the first time when the Vlaams Blok gains substantially in (local) elections (De Decker et al, 2005). In Antwerp the party jumps to 17%, in Ghent 5%. In its campaign, the party emphasized an anti-immigrant stance linking minorities with crime and urban decay. It explains the ‘immigrant problem’ as ‘uprootedness’ and redundancy; there is no work for them anymore. Vlaams Blok calls for closed borders and the deportation of non-nationals from Belgian territory. The federal government appoints former catholic minister Paula D’Hondt as Royal Commissioner on Migration (further RCM) with the task to analyze causes and propose measures to deal with the problems of migration. In her report, she downscales and transforms the ‘immigrant question’ from what Vlaams Blok had called failed assimilation into national culture to a problem of deprivation in 15 particular urban neighbourhoods. She emphasizes the lack of opportunities for young urbanites of immigrant descent “The problems of social cohesion are caused by social exclusion, in particular of youngsters, in urban contexts” (RCM, 1993, p 1112). Focusing on the issue of youngsters in deprived neighbourhoods, RCM formulates proposals to stimulate coexistence of natives and aliens focused on education, work and housing. RCM criticizes the unfairness of housing policies for the middle classes which force immigrant households into low quality housing concentrated in rundown neighbourhoods. She claims that concentration of immigrants harms their integration into mainstream society. She emphasizes how their concentration results from housing market forces and racial discrimination. Hence, social housing is presented as a strategic but underused instrument to achieve social mix. RCM emphasizes how immigrants’ inability to enter social housing reinforces concentration in areas dominated by a residual private rental market. She criticizes housing companies for purposively deploying subtle exclusion mechanisms to keep out immigrant families, even though nationality does not figure among legally defined eligibility criteria; she pleads for stricter controls on allocation procedures. She argues that the share of immigrant households in social housing estates should be comparable to the city average; this would improve immigrants’ housing conditions and prevent ‘irresponsibly high concentrations’ (RCM, 1989, p. 25). 7.2. Bridging integration and urban policies More than federal government, Flemish regional government feels the urge to react to Vlaams Blok. Analysts of the Flemish socialist party depict the Vlaams Blok success as the revenge of urban poor (Huyse, 1992). Vlaams Blok is popular, not because of immigrants’ lagging cultural integration, but because of urban decay, 16 social deprivation and lack of adequate housing for urban poor in general: the urban poor (native ànd immigrant) have been neglected for long, and take revenge by supporting an ‘anti-establishment party’. These analyses result in a number of hasty measures (Loopmans et al., 2003). First, in 1990, Flemish government starts a fund for ‘the integration of the underprivileged’ (Vlaams Fonds voor de Integratie van Kansarmen or VFIK), to stimulate a territorial approach to social exclusion in cities with many deprived and immigrant households. Second, after a long period of neglect, Flemish government re-engages with social housing. Eligibility criteria and allocation procedures are streamlined and enforced to give low income households priority, irrespective of nationality or descent. An emergency program of social housing construction is to catch up with demand after a decade of near zero production and reduce immigrant concentrations in neighbourhoods with a large private rental stock. 10 000 extra social housing units are constructed in 4 years, but to the detriment of housing quality. The minister’s policy letter specified that “the creation of ghettos should be avoided and that the necessary attention should be given to costs, housing quality, housing comfort, architectural design, the living environment” (De Batselier, 1992, p 130), but comfort and quality was generally low and the ambitious scale of the projects creates new concentrations of poverty. A more structural response is developed in 1995, when a new Flemish government fuses its older discourse on inner city decline with the immigrant question. A minister for urban policy (socialist Leo Peeters) is put in charge of a ‘Social Impulse Fund’ (SIF). The SIF replaces VFIK and subsidizes “specific actions of urban regeneration and the improvement of the quality of life in deprived neighbourhoods” (Van den Brande et al, p. 5). The aspiration is that ‘our cities must again be good and safe to live in. We need an integrated approach, fitting smaller projects and actions in a coherent and global vision. The communities themselves are best 17 positioned to indicate where to take which measures, giving due consideration to the needs of the very poor.’ (Van den Brande et al, 1995, p. 4) Peeters writes an elaborate policy note introducing two innovations to official discourse. First, Peeters integrates the concerns of urban municipalities about their declining tax base into a discourse on urban regeneration. The minister emphasizes warns for socially selective suburbanization. This undermines the city’s tax base and contains the danger of social closure: ‘the danger exists that suburban municipalities create their own safe havens of affluence. [...] There are plenty of foreign examples of affluent neighbourhoods protecting themselves with cctv and private security” (p64). To turn the tide, the minister sees opportunities to exploit the attractions of urban life for the new class of young urban professionals: “For the (new) household types, highly educated and well earning, the (inner) city provides better opportunities. Double income households have limited time budgets and benefit from the proximity of facilities (shops, schools, work, culture). The challenge is to create neighbourhoods that keep these people in the city in such a way that also the poor and vulnerable people take advantage of it” (Peeters, 1995, p. 64)). Indeed, a second concern of Peeters is concentrated deprivation. For Peeters, concentration exacerbates social deprivation: “The chance to become poor is higher if a child grows up in a deprived neighbourhood. There is a poverty spiral: a limited interest for education and inferior schools result in low educational outcomes. The final consequences are: irregular or badly paid work, a low income and a rental house in poor neighbourhoods” (Vandenberghe et al, 1997, p. 12). Peeters stresses that inhabitants of poor neighbourhoods do not have the capacity to improve. “The social composition of neighbourhoods and the spatial fragmentation of cities imply that poor urban neighbourhoods can only regenerate through an energetic policy” (Peeters, 1995, p 62). 18 ‘Deprived neighbourhoods’ appear as a pivotal concept. An ‘Atlas of deprived neighbourhoods’ (Kesteloot et al., 1996) delimits neighbourhoods on the basis of demographic and housing indicators. The Atlas is used for the distribution of subsidies and cities with ‘deprived neighbourhoods’ are to develop a ‘development plan’ for them. Poverty concentrations are combated by attracting better-off residents, improving the housing stock and the living environment and welfare and employment measures. Higher income groups will support the local economy by their spending capacity and deliver better role models for children. (Vandenberghe et al, 1997, p. 13). In practice, minister Peeters’ policy emphasizes the betterment of living conditions for the urban poor; Attracting middle classes to the city is a secondary preoccupation. This is changing drastically when a new government comes to power in 1999. The new policy statement reads “Such a policy should halt suburbanization in the first place. In the past decades, this flight to the suburbs has resulted in middle and upper class families changing their inner city residence for a house in the leafy fringe. This has resulted in smaller families and more in general in the impoverishment of the city. Hence the fiscal basis of the city, but also the social tissue and community life is weakened. Simultaneously increased auto mobility undermines the ecological basis. Therefore, cities need to be turned into attractive living environments for families again” (Dewael et al, 1999, p. 91). The new policy turns the city itself into the prime victim of suburbanization, instead of the urban poor. Hence, also focus and scale of the policy alters: “Today we concentrate efforts on the most dilapidated neighborhoods, with no care for areas in early stages of decline. Today postwar neighborhoods are losing population. Disinvestment in the housing stock (ageing population) and inadequate public spaces render these districts unattractive to families. Using the SIF-budget and deploying an integral, neighborhood oriented approach, we can make these houses and public 19 spaces attractive again and prevent further degradation.” (Dewael et al, 1999, p. 93). When the urban poor are no longer the main policy beneficiaries, deprived neighborhoods lose primordiality too; the city itself is the first and foremost scale at which to establish a social mix. The SIF changes into the ‘City Fund’ (Loopmans, 2007). The City Fund is to attract middle classes to the city again by improving the quality of life and reducing ‘dualisation’ in the city (Anciaux, 2000, p. 3-4). 8. Preaching the passive revolution through social mix: consequences for the social rental housing model At first instance, the historical counterhegemonic model of inner city social rental housing seemed to profit from the social mix discourse. Social mix diverts protest against suburbanization policies to concerns over particular neighbourhoods, but equally paves the way for social rental housing as a problem-fixer. Social renewal policy needed social housing to prevent displacement and realize social mix; RCM asks for more accessible social housing to diminish concentrations of poor immigrants neighbourhoods with private rental dwellings. But in the course of the 1990s, social mix turns against social housing. Stricter enforcement of eligibility rules allows poor immigrant families access to social rental housing and higher income groups increasingly aspire homeownership. The average income in social housing declines sharply, bringing social housing companies in troubled financial waters. By the second half of the 1990s, they adopt the same discourse as urban governments: we need a better social mix to increase rental income. Their claims are echoed by the mainly white organized estate residents. Relating the rapid influx of poor and immigrant residents to liveability problems, they mobilize side-by-side with social housing companies to restrict access for immigrants and poor people. Geerts, secretary of a syndicate of social housing companies, explains that (De Morgen, 30 Nov. 2001), “Antwerp social housing 20 tenants are fed up with the poor, mostly foreign risk groups who threaten the liveability of their dwellings. (…) Poor people have another culture, which is hard to live with for original inhabitants of social housing. These neighbourhoods no longer reflect the social mix of before. Income eligibility rules have decreased, changing the social composition of estates.” Pressured by the electorate, local politicians join the choir. In the built-up to the 1998 local elections, Antwerp Christian-Democrat Marc Van Peel discusses social mix in social housing estates under the heading ”security, tolerance and justice”: “The presence of ethnic minorities is a richness, not a threat. Nevertheless we should, by 2002, realize a ‘social mix’ in urban areas. The share of vulnerable people, migrants and other socially weaker persons should not be higher than 20%. A higher concentration of migrants and other vulnerable persons can be a major source of intolerance. We need a policy of dispersal and mix.” Van Peel, 26 march 1998) In response, Flemish social housing legislation underwent considerable changes. First, eligibility income levels rose expecting to attract more prosperous households. Furthermore, access at the bottom is increasingly restricted. Asylum seekers and undocumented migrants face restrictions, while since 2005, access is dependent upon the will to learn Dutch. The negative discourse on social mix in social housing estates puts the very concept of social housing under strain. Large estates are increasingly considered a threat to ‘social mix’ in cities. Since Domus Flandria, the construction of large estates is stopped. Rather, social housing is to become ‘invisible’: minister Peeters presented small-scale, mixed tenure estates as the future social housing model (see Peeters & De Decker, 1997; Vervloesem et al, 2008). Minister Anciaux repeats: “Previously too many large scale, unattractive social housing estates are developed without much consideration. We produced neighborhoods, in particular in cities, that are too one- 21 dimensional, holding a population of largely vulnerable residents. […] This resulted in various problems of livability (insecurity, vandalism, social isolation,…), stigmatizing the residents. The earlier policy change in this respect will be continued and reinforced” (Anciaux, 2000, p. 3) His successor Gabriels puts it more bluntly: ‘In some dwellings, I wouldn’t even house my rabbits’ [...]I don’t want to renovate these high-rises, because than I would maintain them, while they are a regular eye-sore” (Minister Gabriëls in Dag Allemaal, 26 january 2002). By 2000, urban development discourse equals social mix with gentrification. Concentrating lower income groups, social housing itself is now increasingly problematic from a social mix perspective. At the local level, policy makers refuse to construct new social housing for reason of a better social mix. Instead, sub-urban communities are told to take responsibility, as they have refrained from constructing social rental housing in the past. Antwerp refuses to increase its social housing stock until it can decide autonomously on the allocation procedure (Vandenberghe & Claeys, 2008). Moreover new construction is refused in neighbourhoods where its share already exceeds the city average of 12% but stimulated in large projects in areas with lower proportions. Ghent still wants more social housing but under certain conditions. This includes tenure and size mix for dwellings and sufficient quality. In neighbourhoods with over 30% of social housing no further construction is allowed except where the private housing quality is very bad. Large development projects are required to provide for 20% social housing, but an upper limit of 100 dwellings is enforced for social housing projects. 9. Conclusion 22 Gramsci’s theoretical articulation of hegemony emphasizes the role of discourse in shaping the way we understand the world. Policy discourse is instrumental for hegemonic forces, not just to get to grips with ‘real’ social problems, but also for shaping and developing consent in civil society around a common understanding of the world. The concept of social mix in Flanders is a case in point. Social mix has been introduced in relation to the hegemonic struggle over related themes of how to organize urban development and provide housing for the masses. Social mix was instrumental for what Gramsci calls passive revolution as it has been deployed to undermine potentially destabilizing counter-hegemonic discourses by integrating them in the hegemonic discourse on urbanization. By introducing the social mix concept, hegemonic government actors are not merely addressing concrete policy problems; the concept of social mix is also deployed to shape and reframe understanding of the policy problem itself in the face of counterhegemonic challengers. The dominant post-war model for the provision of housing for the masses was homeownership support for detached single family houses in rural settings. This model was introduced by the hegemonic catholic pillar and opposed the less influential socialist pillar model of collective social rental housing in dense urban settings. In the late 1960s, urban social movements criticized this model for producing urban decay and neglecting the interests of poor inner city residents (table 1). Catholic policy makers reacted not by reversing actual policies; instead they introduced the concept of social mix to alter the definition of ‘the urban problem’. Downscaling the regional problem of suburbanization to a question of social mix in inner city neighbourhoods, deflected the challenge to the hegemonic model to a particular and clearly located problem. The urban social renewal policy installed to 23 respond to this problem, was oriented in such a way that it posed little threat to the suburbanization-cum-homeownership model. Focusing on particular urban neighbourhoods, not suburbanization but a concentration of poor people was held to be the main problem. Whereas the living conditions of inner city residents were the main reason for mobilisation, these residents themselves are now presented as causing urban decay as they have no means to invest in their living environment. A second challenge comes from the extreme right Vlaams Blok which mobilizes against the presence of immigrants with a different cultural background in cities, considering them incompatible with national culture. Two instances mobilize the social mix concept to deflect this discourse. First, describing ethnic concentration in opportunity-poor, deprived urban neighbourhoods as the crucial hindrance to integration, RCM changes the scale at which the issue is to be addressed from the national to the neighbourhood, and introduces social (i.e. ethnic) mix as an instrument to stimulate interethnic integration. Linking the urbanization question to the integration debate, the SIF-approach expands this reasoning to all poor citizens. While recognizing suburbanization as the final cause of urban decay, the SIF focuses on the way deprived urban neighbourhoods affect the living conditions of poor inhabitants of varying cultural backgrounds. SIF addresses poverty by improving the neighbourhood context. But the SIF-approach to social mix is also a preliminary attempt to deal with a third challenger: central city governments calling for a halt to suburbanization as it undermines their tax-base. Presenting social mix as a means to improve the neighbourhood context for the urban poor through the attraction of more wealthy inhabitants, the SIF attempts to address three issues at once. When SIF is transformed into the City Fund, the concerns of urban governments are taking prominence. More than before, social mix equals the attraction of higher income groups to reinforce the city’s tax base and create a ‘more lively city’. The 24 neighbourhood is no longer the focus of attention, but social mix is to be attained at city level. As such, it deflects attention away from the living conditions of inner city residents to an issue of ‘urban attractiveness’. The main victim of ‘unattractive neighbourhoods’ is now the city itself, instead of the poor resident. Rather, this poor residents are increasingly regarded as the cause of the city’s troubles, for they don’t contribute to the city’s attractiveness. The above analysis of social mix reveals the use of the concept as an instrument for passive revolution. When faced with contenders, the hegemonic model of suburbanization is rarely questioned. The De Taeye-subsidies have survived well into the 1990s, only to be replaced by other forms of support for suburban homeownership. Today, suburbanisation is still the dominant process (Moortgat and Vandekerckhove, 2007) and Flemish government is discussing a legislation allowing more Greenfield development by private builders. The use of social mix helps those in power to deflect attention away from the main causes of problems to a different set of explanations operating at other scales, with different culprits and victims involved. The faith of the main counter-hegemonic model has been variable. In the 1980s and early 1990s, social housing was turned to as one of the main instruments to realize social mix. Gradually social mix turned against social rental housing as the concept was deployed to reconcile the Vlaams Blok and urban governments’ claims. Problems of social housing estates were related to a unsatisfactory ethnic and social mix. When urban governments complained about shrinking tax bases, social mix was translated as attracting higher income groups to the city and social housing estates are depicted as making cities unattractive. To conclude, the use of social mix has merely reinforced the hegemony of the suburbanization-cum-homeownership model, not just because it served to undermine potentially counter-hegemonic claims by new challengers, but also 25 because it gradually disempowered the main counter-hegemonic model which it has always had to compete with: social rental housing in urban settings (see also De Decker, 2005). 4. Tabel 1: social mix and passive revolution: summary Challenger Critique raised Urban social movements Suburbanization Social and urban homeownership renewal cause inner city disinvestment and worsen the living and housing conditions Vlaams Blok electorate Cultural RCM differences of immigrant groups are unwelcome in Flemish society Urban municipal government s Social mix and passive revolution a) Social mix is to increase investment in housing b) Change of scale: from regional to neighbourhood c) Change of culprit: from subsidizing of suburban homeownership to urban poor who can’t afford to invest themselves a) Ethnic mix will improve integration b) Change of scale: national to neighbourhood c) Change of culprit: from non-assimilating immigrants to opportunitypoor neighbourhood SIF a) Social mix will improve social and economic integration b) Change of scale: regional to neighbourhood City Fund a) Social mix will improve tax base and create ‘lively city’ b) Change of scale: from region to city c) Change of victim: from poor resident to city government d) Change of culprit: from suburbanization to poor Suburbanization undermines central city’s tax bases Consequences for social rental housing model Social rental housing supports social mix by preventing displacement Social rental housing supports social mix by channelling immigrants away from private rental housing Social rental housing estates suffer from lack of social mix (cultural differences and financial revenues) Social rental housing threatens social mix at city level. 26 resident References Akkermans, P. (1983): Gaat het om stenen of mensen? Sociale stads- en dorpsvernieuwing in Vlaanderen. Publikatie van het Kabinet van de Gemeenschapsminister voor Ruimtelijke Ordening, Leefmilieu en Natuurbehoud, Brussel. Anciaux, B. (2000): Stedenbeleid. Beleidsnota 2000-2004, Vlaams minister van Cultuur, Jeugd, Stedelijk Beleid, Huisvesting en Brusselse Aangelegenheden, Brussel. Arthurson, K. (2008) Australian Public Housing and the Diverse Histories of Social Mix, Journal of Urban History, 34 (3), pp. 484-501. Buyck, J. (1988) De jaren ’60 van zero tot VAGA [The sixties from zero to VAGA], in: J. Weverbergh (Ed.) Antwerpen: De Jaren 60 [Antwerp: the sixties], pp. 181–202. Schoten: Hadewijch. Carnoy, M. (1984) Gramsci and the state, in: M. Carnoy (Ed.) The State and Political Theory, pp. 65–88. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cole, I., & B. Goodchild (2001), Social mix and the 'Balanced Community' in British housing policy - a tale of two epochs. GeoJournal 51 (4), p 351-369. De Batselier, N. (1992): Huisvesting. Beleidsbrief 1992, Vice-Voorzitter van de Vlaamse Regering en Gemeenschapsminister van Leefmilieu en Huisvesting, Brussel. De Brabander, G., Vervoort, L. & F. Witlox (1992): Metropolis. Over mensen, steden en centen, Kritak, Leuven. De Decker P. (1987): Over het gebrek aan uitvoeringsgerichtheid bij stadsvernieuwing en het verval van woningen, in: Planologisch Nieuws, jg.7, nr.2, p. 66-71. De Decker, P. (2005): ‘In sommige sociale woonblokken zou ik mijn konijnen nog niet durven steken’. Over sociaal verhuren, de creatie van een reputatie en haar gevolgen, in: De Decker, Goossens & Pannecoucke (red.), Wonen aan de onderkant, Garant, Antwerpen, p. 283-298. De Decker, P., C. Kesteloot, De Maesschalck, F. & J. Vranken (2005): Revitalising the city in an antiurban context: extreme right and the rise of an urban policy in Flanders-Belgium, in: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 29, nr 1, p. 152-171. 27 Dewael, P. et al (1999): Regeerakkoord, Vlaams Parlement, Brussel. Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power, London-Longman. Floré, F. (2006) Goed wonen in de jaren vijftig. De woonopvoeding van de Christelijke Arbeidersbeweging en de Belgische Boerinnenbond, in Van Herck, K. & T. Avermaete (eds.) Wonen in Welvaart, woningbouw en wooncultuur in Vlaanderen, 1948-1973, Rotterdam, Uitgeverij 010, pp. 111146. Galster, GC (2007). Should policymakers strive for neighbourhood social mix? Housing studies, 2007(4), 523-545. Gans, H.J. (1961): The balanced community. Homogeneity or heterogeneity in residential areas?, in: Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 27, p. 176-184 Gerard E. (1998) the Christian workers’ movement as a mass foundation of the Flemish movement, in Deprez, K. & L. Vos (eds.) Nationalism in Belgium, shifting identities 1780-2000, Antwerp: Houtekiet, pp. 127-138. Gill, S. (2003) Power and Resistance in the New World Order. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. GOODCHILD, B. and COLE, I. (2001) Social balance and mixed neighbourhoods in Britain since 1979: a review of discourse and practice in social housing, Environment and Planning D, 19, pp. 103–122. Goossens, L. (1983): Het sociaal huisvestingsbeleid in België. Een historisch-sociologische analyse van de woonproblematiek sinds 1830, in: Tijdschrift voor Sociale Wetenschappen, jg. 28, nr. 2, p. 83-110. Gramsci, A. (1975/2001) Quaderni del Carcere [Prison notebooks]. Turin: Einaudi. Huyse, L. (1992): 24 november 1991. De betekenis van een verkiezingsuitslag, Kritak, Leuven. Ives, P. (2004) Language and Hegemony in Gramsci. London: Pluto Press. Jessop, B. (1997) A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes: accumulation strategies, hegemonic projects and governance, in: M. Lauria (Ed.) Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy, pp. 51–73. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Joye P & R. Lewin (1967) L’Eglise et le movement ouvrier en Belgique, Brussels: Société Populaire d’Editions. Kleinhans, R. (2004) Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: a review of recent literature, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19 (4), pp. 367-390. 28 Knops, G. (1979): Stedelijke vervalprocessen en stadsvernieuwing. Een sociaal-geografisch onderzoek met een toepassing op de wijk Klein Begijnhof-Heembeemd in Mechelen, 2 volumes, proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor in de Wetenschappen (Aardrijkskunde), ISEG-KUL, Leuven. Kuper L (1953), Living in Towns London: Cresset Press. Loopmans, M. (2008) Relevance, Gentrification and the Development of a New Hegemony on Urban Policies in Antwerp, Belgium, Urban Studies, 45 (12), pp. 2499-2520. Loopmans, M. (2007) From SIF to City Fund: a new direction for urban policy in Flanders, Belgium, Journal for Housing and the Built Environment, 22 (2), pp. 215-225. Loopmans, M., J, Uitermark & F. de Maesschalck (2003) Against all odds:poor people jumping scales and the development of an urban policy in Flanders, Belgium, Belgeo, 2 (3), pp. 243-258. Marissal, P., Lockhart, P.M., Van Hamme, G. & C. Vandermotten (2007) Atlas van België: Politieke Geografie, Gent: Academia Press Mort Subite (1990) Barsten in België, Antwerpen: EPO. Musterd, S. & R. Andersson (2005) Housing Mix, Social Mix and Social Opportunities. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 761-790 Orlans H, (1952), Stevenage: a sociological study of a new town Westport: Greenwood Press. Ostendorf, W., Musterd, S. and De Vos, S. (2001) Social Mix and the Neighbourhood Effect. Policy Ambitions and Empirical Evidence, Housing Studies, 16 (3), pp.371-380 Peeters, L. & P. De Decker (1997): Het woonbeleid in Vlaanderen op een tweesprong, EPO, Berchem. Peeters, L. (1995): Voor steden en mensen, Beleidsbrief 1995, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Brussel. RMC (Koninklijk Commissariaat voor het Migrantenbeleid/KCMB) (1993): Tekenen voor gelijkwaardigheid. Eindrapport van het Koninklijk Commissariaat voor het migrantenbeleid, Inbel, Brussel. Ruming, K., K. Mee & P. Mc Guirk (2004) Questioning the Rhetoric of Social Mix: Courteous Community or Hidden Hostility?, Australian Geographical Studies, 42 (2), pp. 234-248. SARKISSIAN, W. (1976) The idea of social mix in town planning: an historical view, Urban Studies, 13, pp. 231–246. 29 Sarkissian, Wendy and Warwick Heine (1978) Social Mix: The Bournville Experience. Birmingham, U.K.: Bournville Village Trust and South Australian Housing Trust. Schelde-Dijle vzw (1971) Leidraad voor de ontwikkeling van de kernstad Antwerpen. Schelde-Dijle vzw, Antwerp. Secretariaat Stadsvernieuwingscampagne (1981): Stadsvernieuwing is ieders zaak. Een werkboek voor plaatse-lijke groepen, Brussel. Secretariaat Stadsvernieuwingscampagne (1982): Sociale stadsvernieuwing: uitgangspunten, doelstellingen, knelpunten, Brussel. Secretariaat Stadsvernieuwingscampagne (1982): Sociale stadsvernieuwing, daar gaat het om. Motivering en concrete voorstelling. Vruchten van een jaar doordenken, Brussel. Simon 1991 Smit, K. de (2003) Hoe dol was Dolle Mina? De geschiedenis van de Dolle Mina’s in Vlaanderen [How crazy were the Crazy Minas? The history of the Crazy Minas in Flanders]. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Ghent. Stad Antwerpen (1973) Binnenstad Antwerpen: structuurschets [Structure plan for the Antwerp inner city]. Stad Antwerpen. Stad Gent (1981): Ontwikkelingsprogramma Wonen, Gent. Stad Gent (w.d): Ruimtelijk Structuurplan (2 delen), Gent. Terhorst, P. & J. Van de Ven (1997) Fragmented Brussels and Consolidated Amsterdam: A Comparative Study of the Spatial Organisation of Property Rights, Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Society. Theunis, K. (2006) De Wet De Taeye. De individuele woning als bouwsteen van de welvaartstaat (1948), in Van Herck, K. & T. Avermaete (eds.) Wonen in Welvaart, woningbouw en wooncultuur in Vlaanderen, 1948-1973, Rotterdam, Uitgeverij 010, pp. 67-78. Van den Brande, L., De Bastelier, N., Kelchtermans, T., Weckx, H., Van den Bossche, L., Sauwens, J., Detiège, L. & W. Demeester-De Meyer (1993): Vlaanderen-Europa 2002. Een project van de Vlaamse regering, Lannoo, Tielt. 30 Van den Broeck, J. & J. Baelus (1992): Met de steun van de wet: op zoek naar een massale en sociale stads-vernieuwing, in: Koning Boudewijnstichting (1992): Stadsvernieuwing in beweging, Brussel, p. 52-144. Van der Haegen, H. (1982) Honderd jaar pendel naar Brussel, evolutie en evaluatie, De Aardrijkskunde, 2, pp. 119-128. Dijk, T. Van (1997) The study of discourse, in: T. Van Dijk (Ed.) Discourse as Structure and Process, pp. 1–35. London: Sage. Uitermark, J. (2003) Social mixing and the Management of Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods: The Dutch Policy of Urban Restructuring Revisited, Urban Studies, 40 (3), pp. 531-549. Vandenberghe, J. & R. Claeys (2008): Hoezo onzichtbaar?, presentation at the conference Onzichtbaar Aanwezig. Sociale Huisvesting in Vlaanderen vandaag, Antwepen, 29 April. Vandenberghe, J., De Coninck, M.& P. De Decker (1997): Voor steden en mensen. Beschouwingen bij twee jaar stedelijk beleid, in: Hautekeur, G. (red.): Naar en levende stad, Die Keure, Brugge, p. 9-24. Verschueren, J. (2003) Plaats voor de homo ludens! Vlaamse provo’s als nieuwe sociale beweging in een ruimtelijk wereld-systeem-analytisch perspectief [Make way for the homo ludens! Flemish provo’s as a new social movement in a spatial world-system perspective]. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Ghent. Vervloesem, E., Ryckewaert, M., De Decker, P., De Meulder, B., Meijsemans, N., Kesteloot, C., K. Van Herck & K. Landuyt (2008): Onzichtbaar aanwezig. Sociale woningbouw in Vlaanderen vandaag, Vlaamse Bouwmeester, Brussel. Vlerick, E.. (2006-2007): Sociale mix: tussen disours en realiteit; dissertation Spatial Planning, Universititeit Gent, Gent. 31