University of Helsinki Can we use social disorganisation theory to describe the contemporary Nordic reality? Theoretical and empirical aspects Teemu Kemppainen University of Helsinki teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi https://teemunsivu.wordpress.com

Park & Burgess (1925) Concentric zone theory City grows through differentiation Industrialisation, urbanisation, immigration  neighbourhood life? Biological concepts ecology, natural areas Neigbourhood: place, emotions, traditions, history

Park & Burgess (1925) / 2 Transitional zone Least wanted, least expensive residential instability ethnic / racial heterogeneity high crime rates

Shaw & McKay (1942) Social disorganisation theory study of crime along the lines of Park & Burgess the clustering of ”social pathology” in the zone of transition Neighbourhood communities and youth crime crime statistics: 1900-1906; 1917-1923; 1927-1933 Observation: crime has a clear and temporally stable spatial distribution poverty, residential instability, race/ethnic heterogeneity theory: social control & transmission of sub-cultural values

Synthesis: ”organised community” Normative consensus on how to behave and live together (solidarity, cohesion) Strong ties: neighbourhood spirit, neighbours know each other (cohesion, strong bonds) Social interaction (integration, social ties) Mutual trust (trust, cohesion) ...thus, the community can realise common goals, e.g. security ...and sustain efficient informal social control Structural basis  organisation  crime rates

Selected critiques Empirical tests were long missing Sampson & Groves 1989 (UK data!) Epistemic question: implicit middle-class bias? is behaviour x organised or not? only a terminological problem (”dis”)? Natural areas: where’s power and politics? e.f. where to place social housing? But still: the core question remains important and perfectly reasonable: Structural basis  organisation  crime rates ? crime-disorder-continuum (e.g. Sampson & Raudenbush 1999) Varhaiset versiot: disorganisaatiota ei aina eroteltu seurauksistaan esim. rikostasoa käytettiin disorganisaation indikaattorina Rekisteridata: onko poliisin toiminnassa alueellista vinoumaa....kyselyaineiston edut

From the industrialising Chicago inner cities to the late modern Nordic suburbia Kontula (1970) (Helsinki), http://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/a1395118398256

Background: housing estates (=?) Spatially accumulating social disadvantage Increasing ethnic diversity Aging Relatively safe cities Policy of social mixing Diversity of estates

Estates do not really differ from other urban neighbourhoods...

On the other hand, incivilities conincide with disadvantage (cf On the other hand, incivilities conincide with disadvantage (cf. Shaw & McKay) plus: neighbourhood SES explains the small SHE-HRN difference Kemppainen & Saarsalmi (2013)

Diversity of estates: a sample of 71 Finnish estates

Local social life: regression results Random intercept models: Rental tenure structure  higher disadvantage  more perceptions of social disorder The level of social interaction does not seem to play any role with regard to local social disorder High social cohesion (i.e. normative consensus) and high informal social control  lower values of disorder perceptions. Also, partial mechanism between disadvantage and disorder

Conclusion Natural areas ... account for power instead No absolute order or disorder in social life The core of social disorganisation theory remains valuable and serves as a good guide in studying urban life disadvantage, social control and disorder are associated