Search

In the following, we analyse policy documents from the urban, suburban and rural localities of Aarhus, Horsens and Lemvig with a focus on analysing how territorial cohesion is articulated in the different localities. This means that there is a focus on analysing the relation between territo-rial capital, collective efficacy and territorial governance. Overall, the policy discourses are shaped by the path dependency of the Danish welfare state favouring a focus on equality and therefore a balance not only between development in urban and rural areas but also a balance be-tween growth and liveability in local areas. At the same time, Danish territorial cohesion dis-courses is like other European countries placing increased emphasis on growth and strategic de-velopment of soft and fuzzy spaces of government that facilitate such growth. However, the anal-ysis shows that history and identity together with local material conditions shape the strategic selectivities of such new forms of cross-sectoral partnerships and alliances, and that the involve-ment of community in different ways in the three localities are positioned as a strategic partner in territorial development.

The purpose of report D4.3 is to present the case study selection and the cases for Denmark. The case study selection was based on a two-step procedure. Initially, a region was chosen. In Denmark, main responsibility for governance is located at the national and municipal level while the regional level has more limited responsibility. By choosing a region and municipalities as cases, the cases will correspond to statistical and administrative units meaning that 1) in relation to statistics, the rich register data of Denmark can be utilised and 2) in relation of administrative units, the regional and municipal level of governance can be more aptly taken into account. The Central Denmark Region was chosen as case, the choice being between this region and the Capital Region as they are the only two regions with sufficiently large cities for subsequently selecting a metropolitan case. The final argument for selecting the Central Denmark Region was that it is more representative and less radical than the Capital Region, and that the Central Denmark Region demonstrates more innovative cases in terms of collaboration across civil society, business and municipality.Within the Central Denmark Region, a metropolitan, a suburban and a rural case was selected. The metropolitan case was a given as there is only one metropolitan municipality in the region, namely Aarhus. While the municipality is small for a metropolitan municipality, it is the second largest in Denmark and interesting precisely for the reason of not being the main, capital region. It is a city in growth and of growth but also a city of spatial segregation with three deprived areas on the so-called “ghetto”-list. For the suburban case, Horsens was selected. Horsens represents a case of spatial inequalities, of overall population growth but with a decline in some parishes as well, of active policies to secure financial growth and of challenges in specific social housing areas that has led to two areas being on the government’s list of vulnerable areas, one of them being amongst the 16 hardest ghettos of Denmark. Finally, Lemvig was chosen as the rural case. Lemvig is a peripheral municipality with challenges related to a shrinking population, changing demography and local economy. At the same time, it is a case of potentials in the sense of a high number of start-ups and of business potentials within the primary sector (fishery) and the wind-power market as well as a municipal vision of developing its west coast to a recreational area with a thematic focus on surfing, the geological history and the nature in general.Looking across the three cases based on the desk study of D4.3, several interesting themes stand out already. The three localities share the position of being part of the same intermediate region, in the sense that it is neither the main region of growth nor the one struggling the most. This defines the position of all three localities within the region. They all face challenges but at the same time offer potentials and identifiable routes for future development. The challenges and potential differ however. For the metropolitan and suburban case, main challenges relate to spatial segregation and specific social housing areas marked by concentrated deprivation. Both the suburban and the rural case are interesting with respect to growth policies; both trying to some extent to reinvent themselves. The purpose of report D4.3 is to present the case study selection and the cases for Denmark. The case study selection was based on a two-step procedure. Initially, a region was chosen. In Denmark, main responsibility for governance is located at the national and municipal level while the regional level has more limited responsibility. By choosing a region and municipalities as cases, the cases will correspond to statistical and administrative units meaning that 1) in relation to statistics, the rich register data of Denmark can be utilised and 2) in relation of administrative units, the regional and municipal level of governance can be more aptly taken into account. The Central Denmark Region was chosen as case, the choice being between this region and the Capital Region as they are the only two regions with sufficiently large cities for subsequently selecting a metropolitan case. The final argument for selecting the Central Denmark Region was that it is more representative and less radical than the Capital Region, and that the Central Denmark Region demonstrates more innovative cases in terms of collaboration across civil society, business and municipality.Within the Central Denmark Region, a metropolitan, a suburban and a rural case was selected. The metropolitan case was a given as there is only one metropolitan municipality in the region, namely Aarhus. While the municipality is small for a metropolitan municipality, it is the second largest in Denmark and interesting precisely for the reason of not being the main, capital region. It is a city in growth and of growth but also a city of spatial segregation with three deprived areas on the so-called “ghetto”-list. For the suburban case, Horsens was selected. Horsens represents a case of spatial inequalities, of overall population growth but with a decline in some parishes as well, of active policies to secure financial growth and of challenges in specific social housing areas that has led to two areas being on the government’s list of vulnerable areas, one of them being amongst the 16 hardest ghettos of Denmark. Finally, Lemvig was chosen as the rural case. Lemvig is a peripheral municipality with challenges related to a shrinking population, changing demography and local economy. At the same time, it is a case of potentials in the sense of a high number of start-ups and of business potentials within the primary sector (fishery) and the wind-power market as well as a municipal vision of developing its west coast to a recreational area with a thematic focus on surfing, the geological history and the nature in general.Looking across the three cases based on the desk study of D4.3, several interesting themes stand out already. The three localities share the position of being part of the same intermediate region, in the sense that it is neither the main region of growth nor the one struggling the most. This defines the position of all three localities within the region. They all face challenges but at the same time offer potentials and identifiable routes for future development. The challenges and potential differ however. For the metropolitan and suburban case, main challenges relate to spatial segregation and specific social housing areas marked by concentrated deprivation. Both the suburban and the rural case are interesting with respect to growth policies; both trying to some extent to reinvent themselves.

This working paper analyses results from field work conducted in three case areas in the Central Region Denmark: the rural Lemvig, the suburban Horsens and the urban Aarhus. All three areas are independent municipalities within the same region. The analysis is preceded by an introduction presenting the objectives of the report and the contextual conditions that characterize the Danish case, as well as the methodological considerations. The analysis is structured along the themes of territorial capital, collective efficacy and life chances and territorial governance. In the concluding section we draw out similarities and differences between the three case areas as well as preliminary conclusions based on the qualitative data presented in this working paper.

How are we to understand the spread of the notion of capacity building inneighbourhood regeneration and policies to fight social exclusion? In this article,capacity building is understood as central to the mode of contemporary governance and the strategies of ‘the third way’ in England and Denmark. The article explores the concept of community capacity building and its relations to social capital. It argues that the Foucaultian concept of ‘management of possibilities’ is a useful ‘grid of intelligibility’ for a mode of government that works by constructing particular subjectivities of inclusion. It argues further that Bourdieu’s notion of ‘habitus’ enables analysis of how processes of capacity building are embodied and how the capacity building approach is legitimized. Using local experiences of neighbourhood regeneration, it discusses how community capacity building depends on particular forms of social capital and involves the naturalization of particular capacities. The advantage of this perspective lies in disclosing how inclusion becomes dependent on acquiring aparticular curriculum of capacities relating to the area and its inhabitants.

Artiklen ser på, hvordan bypolitikken har bevæget sig, og den giver et bud på en vinkel, man kan lægge på udviklingstendenserne. Målet er at give nye perspektiver på, hvad man vil med de sociale bypolitikker.

In a perspective of socio-geographic segregation and it’s socio-demographic consequences, depopulation of specific rural areas in the outskirts of Denmark has become an issue of increasing importance in public debate and in part of the research community. The question of depopulation is also part of the research question for an ongoing study on ‘Local community, mobility and belonging’ in Aalborg, from which we report. Contemporary municipality of Aalborg, which is the third largest in Denmark, comprises many various types of communities – from partly segregated neighbourhoods in the City, through the surrounding villages’ more mixed populations to depopulated small towns in the periphery. We are exploring the association between characteristics of the local communities and the inhabitants’ sense of belonging. As characteristics of the areas is included information on mobility (moving in-and out of the area), formations and dissolutions of families, being either marriages or co-resident couples and sociodemographic background. The pivot for the study is that there is a lack of knowledge about whether local communities differ from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, how they are influenced by the inhabitants’ mobility and finally, how they are influenced by the inhabitants’ sense of belonging. The study applies a two-step- method: 1) Neighbourhoods are identified by use of GIS-data and characteristics of the population throughout 25 years (from national population-based registers) are used to calculate aggregate measures of the neighbourhoods’ stability regarding population composition, family structures and migration patterns, and, subsequently, 2) Qualitative interviews focusing on sense of belonging are conducted with individuals selected from the knowledge on the characteristics of the neighbourhoods. What is presented here is the sociodemographic characteristics of the neighbourhoods in Aalborg municipality as identified by a combination of GIS and individual register data, the selection of communities for and preliminary results from the qualitative part of the study.

This paper investigates the instrumentalization of the concept of social capital in neighbourhood regeneration policies. The paper builds on material from a research project comparing neighbourhood regeneration policies in Denmark and England, and points to limitations to social capital as an instrument to achieve local social inclusion. The material consists both of an analysis of policy rationales based on policy documents and of interviews with professionals and residents involved in neighbourhood regeneration. The starting point for the paper based on a theoretical combination of Bourdieu and Foucaultian governmentality theories, is a perspective on neighbourhood regeneration policies as elements in a mode of government that govern inclusion through capacity building. This theoretical combination enables an analysis of what constitutes ‘the included subject’, as well as of the differential access to the capacities of inclusion. The first section of the paper discusses how active resident participation and the building of social capital in regeneration projects are constructed as legitimate and just means of achieving social inclusion. Furthermore, how slippages between social capital at different levels; individual, communal and governmental becomes instrumental in these constructions. The second section of the paper discusses the national variations in relation to this route to inclusion and the different understandings of the relations between social capital and community cohesion in England and Denmark. The third section of the paper uses illustrative local examples to discuss how some forms of social capital are constructed as more legitimate than others in relation to regeneration work, and shows the national differences in the detrimental consequences for already marginalised groups, especially ethnic minority networks. Moreover, how the process of building social capital is made complex, not only by the fact that building one form of social capital not necessarily leads to another, but also by the interrelations of social capital with other forms of capital.

This paper offers an evaluation of the concept of habitus from a policy oriented perspective, drawingon empirical material from two research projects; one on urban regeneration, and one on women’sworking lives. Addressing different substantive areas, these projects found common strengths andweaknesses in applying habitus to understand processes of continuity and change in institutions andindividuals’ lives. The concept provides a temporal and spatial framework that is valuable inexplaining the embodiment and reproduction of inequality. Using habitus points to the importance ofsocial relations and trajectories over the long term, suggesting lessons for social policy whichfrequently tends towards individualized and ‘quick fixes’ to embedded social problems. These insightsinclude the complexity of interaction between forms of capitals, and between the institutional andindividual domains; the tension between aspirations to change and resistance to transformation; andthe importance of considering values in combating marginalization. However, in showing thecomplexity of processes of inequality it becomes difficult to derive lessons that are easily translatableinto policy actions. Nevertheless, applying at least some minimal insights from using the concept mayoffer substantial gains in terms of developing effective policies.