-
6. Sociospatial Exclusion of Homeless People: Comparative Perspective
- Temple University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
6 Sociospatial Exclusion of Homeless People Comparative Perspective T he foregoing empirical chapters provide evidence for three distinct yet interrelated trajectories of exclusion that pertain to homeless people’s immediate survival strategies to generate income (legal exclusion) and find shelter and housing (service exclusion) as well as their long-term exit strategies to find residential stability and economic self-sufficiency (market exclusion). In this concluding chapter, I use the evidence from the previous chapters to propose a model of sociospatial exclusion, explain how it works, apply it to important contemporary theoretical discussions, and suggest ways to surmount such exclusion. Specifically, I show how sociospatial exclusion, despite some variation across and within countries and their underlying welfare regimes at different administrative levels, works surprisingly similarly in Berlin and Los Angeles. To showcase the usefulness of this model and account for such variations, I discuss sociospatial exclusion in the context of welfare regime theory, supporting the prevalent notion that Germany’s system remains superior to that of the United States but cautioning that local welfare deficiencies often aggravate rather than solve homeless people’s problems, just as in Los Angeles. I further demonstrate that such local problems are determined by the interplay of the economic and social geographies , the geographies of service and shelter provision, and the geographies of punitive exclusionary policies that underlie sociospatial exclusion. Yet whether and to what extent any of the trajectories of sociospatial exclusion affect homeless people is largely dependent on their life courses, which, given the wide variations in experiences, expectations, and skills, poses a tremendous challenge to proactive service provision. In the conclusion of this chapter, I propose possible solutions to overcome sociospatial exclusion, paying particular attention to national and local variations and, most important perhaps, to the issue of feasibility in times of economic crisis, fiscal constraints, and austerity measures. 122 Chapter 6 Explaining Sociospatial Exclusion To explain how and why homeless people in Berlin and Los Angeles, and arguably in other cities in Germany and the United States, face such tremendous difficulties overcoming homelessness, I combine the previously discussed trajectories of legal, service, and market exclusion into one coherent model of sociospatial exclusion (Fig. 6.1). This model indicates clearly that a number of welfare FIGURE 6.1 Model of Sociospatial Exclusion Lack of Individualized Assistance Low-Quality Shelter, Warehousing SOCIOSPATIAL EXCLUSION Worse in L.A. Cities Similar Legend C. Type of Exclusion B. Secondary Institutional and Structural Barriers A. Primary Institutional Barriers (Homeless Policy) Containment SERVICE EXCLUSION Lack of Transparency, Fragmentation Insufficient Referral Capabilities Labor and Housing Market Barriers MARKET EXCLUSION Fiscal Constraints Insufficient Cash Assistance Displacement, Criminalization LEGAL EXCLUSION Worse in Berlin Worse Social Circumstances in Los Angeles Longer Durations in Berlin Social Problems Life Course Homeless Person INCOME SHELTER JOBS and HOUSING Survival Strategies Immediate Needs Exit Strategies Long-Term Goals [3.135.195.249] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 07:17 GMT) Sociospatial Exclusion of Homeless People 123 state and service delivery problems at the local scale underlie and reinforce the social and, as I discuss in more detail later, spatial exclusion homeless people experience on their quest to stabilize and ideally to optimize their life circumstances and (using Leisering and Leibfried’s [1999] terminology) their poverty management. The model also indicates tentatively how these forms of exclusion compare internationally, suggesting that ultimately legal and service exclusion tend to be more pronounced in Los Angeles simply because of its comparatively muchweaker welfare infrastructure and the more-contested, polarized, and revanchist nature of urban space in U.S. cities. Market exclusion, on the other hand, tends to be more severe in Berlin for reasons associated with Germany’s more-rigid and regulated economic system, despite recent neoliberal reforms. To provide more evidence for these findings, in the next section I situate this model of sociospatial exclusion in important theoretical debates, beginning by discussing the relevance of these findings in the context of comparative international social policy analyses and welfare regime theory. Sociospatial Exclusion and Welfare Regime Theory At face value, the experiences of the twenty-eight respondents seem to confirm a number of key findings of welfare regime theory when comparing the impact of public policy on homelessness in the liberal U.S. welfare regime with the conservative or corporatist German regime. Most notably, all respondents faced tremendous difficulties accessing markets, especially Germany’s highly regulated labor market. True to welfare regime theory, the corporatist German system thereby fosters an increasingly persistent cleavage between insiders and outsiders , and homeless people...