Siinviidatu leidis koha peamiselt põhjusel, et tegeleb ebavõrdsusega kogukonna ja asukoha aspektidest. Tegemist on kogumiku ülevaateartikliga autorilt, kelle tekstidel tasub silma peal hoida. Ash Amin on autor, kelle tööd võiksid huvi pakkuda neile, kes huvitet kogukondadest.
Eestis võiks siinne tekst huvi pakkuda ka päevakajalistel põhjustel, sest kütusehinna tõus võib suurendada lõhe keskuste ja ääremaa vahel ning võib märkimisväärselt mõju avaldada ebavõrdsusele. Muuhulgas on paljud valiku ees, mis puudutab töö ja elukoha sidumist. Paljude avalike organisatsioonide juhtide kasutatud retoorika hajaasustusega ja kaugtöö toetamisest ongi sageli ainult retoorika.
This article reflects on the connections between community and inequality, prompted by evidence gathered for the IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities, which reveals the persistence of severe and multidimensional inequality in the UK in the 21 stcentury. […] Government thinking in the UK in recent decades has certainly drifted towards recognising the role of communities, sometimes ahead of clarity on their meaning, virtues and limits in addressing inequality.
Community activists and civic organisations have leant towards multi-scalar, composite, pluri-actor and participatory approaches to bolster the left-behind. In contrast, government interest in communities has tended to see the options as a trade-off, sometimes as reason to move away from the legacy of distributive justice and universal entitlements towards an approach based on assessing merit and building capabilities, and sometimes as reason to blame the falling-behind for their situation or conversely to recognise the specificity of their needs.
In the stronger sense, communities are groups of people sharing affinities of interest, kinship, place, culture or religion, whose group characteristics and propensities affect individual and collective wellbeing. […] The nature and strength of community bonds are considered to shape mental and physical states, responses to adversity or opportunity, and preparedness for the future, with open and plural ties considered to be more conducive than closed and homogeneous ties.
It can become all too easy to blame atomistic or divided places and people without community ties or with the ‘wrong’ kind of ties (e.g. tight, inward-looking bonds) for their predicament, when they are the casualties of inequalities in the labour market, in welfare and fiscal distributions, in gender and racial recognition, in regional resource allocations, and in market selections.
In drawing the distinction between place and community, an opportunity arises to look beyond the quality of interpersonal networks in socio-economic advancement. Closed communities may have something to learn from open and evolving communities and organised faith or ethnic groups that make resources available to their members, in the way of the last example cited above. But the local environments in which individuals and communities find themselves also matter, with possibilities for well-being arising in having access to a rich opportunity and connective base.
Amin, A. (2022). Communities, places and inequality: a reflection for the IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities. Institute for Fiscal Studies.