Identifying Neighbourhood Effects on Social Exclusion

By N. Buck. 2001

400 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Health, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48799fc351ccb103cec7cb5de3c7ba73bbab1218

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. G. Galster
2. Roger Andersson
3. S. Musterd
4. A. Bolster
5. J. Friedrichs
6. B. Rabe
7. Jörg Blasius
8. Ron Johnston

In Health

1. A. Bolster
2. S. Musterd
3. G. Galster
4. J. Friedrichs
5. B. Rabe
6. Jörg Blasius
7. Ron Johnston
8. Simon Burgess

In Sociology and Political Science

1. G. Galster
2. Roger Andersson
3. S. Musterd
4. B. Rabe
5. A. Bolster
6. J. Friedrichs
7. Jörg Blasius
8. Ron Johnston

Citations in the corpus

• Who Is Affected by Neighbourhood Income Mix? Gender, Age, Family, Employment and Income Differences (2010, background): “Several studies from both the US and Europe support the idea that these limited ‘bridging’ social networks reduce economic opportunities (see Bertrand et al., 2000; Buck, 2001; Farwick, 2004; and Pinkster, 2008).”
• Should Policy Makers Strive for Neighborhood Social Mix? An Analysis of the Western European Evidence Base (2007, methodology): “…(linear) relationships between alternative measures of the socio-economic profile of neighborhoods and labor market outcomes for an undifferentiated group of adult residents include those by Andersson (2004), Andersson et al. (forthcoming), Bolster et al. (2004), Buck (2001) and McCulloch (2001).”
• Neighbourhoods, Households and Income Dynamics: A Semi-Parametric Investigation of Neighbourhood Effects (2004, methodology): “Buck (2001) uses very similar data to McCulloch – the BHPS for years 1991-1999, and the same ward- level Townsend deprivation index using 1991 census data – but examines six different individual outcomes (a non-monetary poverty index, various employment variables, and low household income…”
• Housing Mix, Social Mix, and Social Opportunities (2005, result): “Even though these studies struggle with their smaller number of cases, their findings do not seem to fundamentally differ from results from the larger-scale studies (e.g., Farwick 2002; Buck 2001; Atkinson and Kintrea 2001).”
• Residential mobility, quality of neighbourhood and life course events (2010, background): “This is astonishing, given that research suggests that neighbourhood features affect important outcomes such as life satisfaction, health and labour market experiences (e.g. Buck (2001), van der Klaauw and van Ours (2003) and Ioannides and Zabel (2003)).”
• Scale, Factor Analyses, and Neighborhood Effects (2004, methodology): “In the first group, such data were used to analyze patterns of social exclusion (Buck 2001); in the second, similar data were deployed in studies of voting at the 1997 U.K. general election (Johnston et al. 2000a; MacAllister et al. 2001).”
• Social norms in distressed neighbourhoods: testing the Wilson hypothesis (2003, background): “The context effects Wilson assumes can be specified by different ‘mechanisms’ distinguished in the literature (Buck, 2001; Erbring & Young, 1979; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Small & Newman, 2001, p. 33; Tienda, 1991).”
• Quantifying the Effect of Neighbourhood on Individuals: Challenges, Alternative Approaches, and Promising Directions (2008, methodology): “Ostendorf / Musterd / de Vos, (2001); Buck (2001); Musterd / Ostendorf / de Vos (2003); Van der Klaauw / van Ours (2003); Gordon / Monastiriotis (2006); Musterd / Andersson (2005); Oberwittler (2007). The two studies using European data to investigate potential nonlinear effects of affluent neighbor”