To Roger, I think the town was Roseto, (Pennsylvania?)
The idea that national redistributive policies are subverted at the individual
level by transfers to children seems plausible to me (Erikson and Goldthorpe).
Direct investments in young children via music, sport, dance, drama lessons (and
attendances) and subject tutors are supplemented later by access to networks at
entry to job markets and material transfers to assist with housing etc etc.
I heard a radical idea to tackle spatial inequality using this knowledg; give
locality and (child) population-based access to tertiary study at the first cut,
then academic ability. Combined with capped tertiary places and 'zoned' schools,
where students in the local zone are enrolled first, a school with 2% of the
children gets 2% of the tertiary entry places, which then get distributed within
the school on academic merit. This creates a regulated area-based 'market' for
tertiary qualification, and therefore incentives for parents to live in
localities that provide the best chance for their children to get a tertiary
place. The idea is to create a more heterogeneous social mix by locality, to
reverse the current trend.

Outrageous? Well, yes.
BrianFleming
Public Health student,




"MCCARTHY, Roger" <[log in to unmask]> on 27/02/2001 23:03:58

To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:    (bcc: Brian Fleming/SA/Health)

Subject:  Re: Continuity of residence



Sennett's excellent The Corrosion of Character has some interesting general
discussion on the effects of high labour market mobility on family and
social life  -  although I can't remember if he draws the obvious public
health conclusions.

There is also a well-known study of an Italian-American town (Rosario?) with
relatively low income inequality and by US standards a remarkably stable
population which is heavily referenced by Richard Wilkinson and others.

In response to Pat's point that we need a threefold strategy fo rinvesting
in the local economy, weighting professional jobs to local people and
valueing/rewarding better lower- and unpaid work this is indeed the obvious
solution but I can't see how this could be turned into implementable
policies (positive discrimination by postcode? I can't see that working) .

I personally see the mobility that would be provided by an integrated,
efficient and affordable transport system as enjoyed by virtually every
other country in Western Europe as something liberating (although it may not
feel that way standing on the 1813 to East Croydon) giving us job, leisure
and educational opportunities that simply aren't available in small and
medium-sized towns - let's also not forget the practical advantages in
healthcare if a number of specialist centres of clinical excellence are
easily accessible.

The problem in the UK is really one about lack of planning and
infrastructure investment and the distorting effects of a largely
unregulated housing market




-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Nicholl [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 February 2001 11:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Continuity of residence


The question to be addressed is why individuals need to re-locate in order
to have social and occupational mobility.  This raises issues about
investing in the local economy, keeping  money and skills in a locality.
There needs to be a strategy and committment that the better paid/ skilled/
professional jobs are weighted in favour of local people.  Barriers to job
uptake need to be further understood.  The other approach is not to pity
those left behind, but to have a greater acknowledgement of the value and
necessity of unskilled/ non-professional jobs and recognise the efforts of
people doing valuable unpaid work both inside and outside the home.
The fuel shortage of last autumn made these issues more apparent

regards
Pat Nicholl

Pat Nicholl
Heart Health Worker
Liverpool Central West Primary Care Group
[log in to unmask]
0151 285 2019


>>> Alex Scott-Samuel <[log in to unmask]> 02/16/01 06:58pm >>>
Dear colleagues,
        I'd like to canvass your views on a rarely
discussed issue. While everyone gets very excited these
days about social cohesion, less attention is paid to a
necessary prerequisite: continuity of residence. If people
are to be part of a neighbourhood's social glue they
clearly need to remain in that neighbourhood for at least
the medium-term - and, in principle, the longer the better.
This continuity of residence principle is diametrically
opposed to contemporary ideas about the importance of
social and occupational mobility - which often imply that
those 'left behind' by the migratory exodus from
disadvantaged neighbourhoods are to be pitied. I would be
very interested in your comments on this apparent paradox.

With best wishes,

Alex

******************************************************************
Alex Scott-Samuel
EQUAL (Equity in Health Research and Development Unit)
Department of Public Health
University of Liverpool
Whelan Building
Quadrangle
Liverpool
L69 3GB
Tel  (+44)151-794-5569
Fax  (+44)151-794-5588
e-mail  [log in to unmask]
******************************************************************


......................................................................
BUPA
the personal health service
.....................................................................

BUPA House, 15-19 Bloomsbury Way, London, WC1A 2BA

Visit: http://www.bupa.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet communications are not secure and therefore BUPA does
not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any
views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do
not necessarily represent those of BUPA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------