Is mobility the answer to poverty ? - Mobile Lives Forum
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CROSSED PERSPECTIVES
04/24/2017
Is mobility the answer to poverty ?
Is mobility the answer to
poverty ?
Between ()
and ()
24
April
2017
Is access to employment, services and leisure merely a
matter of mobility for the most disadvantaged? What
are the obstacles and alternatives? These are some of
the questions Leslie Belton Chevallier and Giuilio
Mattioli attempt to answer.
01. For the society’s poorest, is mobility an essential resource to
access employment, public services and leisure?
I am
Like everyone else, the poorest
ambivalent about this. On one level,
households need to travel to access
of course it is. In contemporary
employment, public services and
societies mobility is an essential
leisure activities. But they are more
resource for everyone – and this
distant (objectively in kilometres) or
includes both the haves and the
distanced (in terms of experience or
have-nots. Being able to cover long
perception1) from these amenities distances is much more important
than the more advantaged today than it was a few decades ago.
households. But what sort of poor The speed at which we travel has
household are we referring to? increased, but so has the distance
Poverty has several facets and between residences and travel
i i l idconcerns an increasingly wide destinations. As a result, we need to
variety of individuals and travel longer distances to access
households. employment, public services and
places of leisure. On the other hand,
Several research projects on mobility
one could even argue that mobility is
of the poor have focused their
even more important for the ‘haves’
comments on the “disastrous
than for the have-nots. Well-off
immobility” these households face,
people often work in more
the need to “move to get themselves
specialised jobs, which are not found
out of the rut”, to access employment.
everywhere, and so have to travel
In so saying, they imply a certain
longer distances. They often
mobility requirement.
undertake leisure activities that
In line with other work, qualitative require more travel (say,
interviews with low-income outer- birdwatching, skiing in the Alps). In a
urban households reveals, nutshell, they have adapted their
contrariwise, that their lesser (or lack ways of living to higher levels of
of) residential, daily or professional mobility. By contrast, low-income
mobility results from the fact that people often travel shorter distances
they place greater value on their roots to their jobs, as these are not so
and closeness to their networks than specialised, and the same may apply
spatial mobility as resources to to leisure. To some extent, their
overcome their poverty. Many prefer ‘mobility needs’ are already adapted
to stay close to their friends and to their constrained circumstances.
relatives, who can provide them with On the other hand, certain
a range of assistance (child-minding, disadvantaged groups, say the
help with travel, etc.), rather than unemployed in economically
change municipality, and so to move depressed areas, may have to travel
closer to potential or better-paid very long distances to reach even
employment, and a greater number low-skilled jobs. On yet another level,
and more diverse shops. This is in from a normative perspective, it is
any event particularly evident for certainly true that the have-nots
poor outer-urban households, even experience more access problems to
though their decision to stay in an basic essential services such as, say,
outer-urban area plays a decisive role hospitals. Also, one could ask: would
in their poverty. the have-nots need to travel more, if
they were to catch up with the haves
Being poor can also be synonymous (say, in order to get better education,
with frequent and even complex better jobs and achieve upward social
mobility. The least skilled mobility)? The answer to this is
professional categories (and so those certainly yes. So I hate to be the
most exposed to the risk of poverty) typical academic who says “it’s much
face considerable insecurity which is more complex than this” – but in this
characterised by frequent job case I really think it is!
changes and so locations (place of
employment, places where workers
are liable to find a job – job centreare liable to find a job – job centre,
temporary employment agency, etc.
It’s true
– and even place of residence). In
that the ability to move around is an
situations of extreme poverty, the
omnipresent and distinctive value in
issue is less about having access to
our societies. While the poor are, on
employment or services than to your
average, less mobile than more
own decent housing, heating, food,
affluent households, simply
etc. Subsistence does not necessarily
segmenting people into “wealthy and
involve employment: gleaning,
mobile” or “poor and immobile” is
welfare, resorting to associations like
less than satisfactory. For
a soup kitchen charity, emergency
international executives, the power
shelters, etc. These practices are
lies more in their ability to manage
hugely time-consuming and require
the travel of their subordinates than
considerable distances to be covered
travel themselves. Conversely, many
to get from one to the other, find the
poor workers can be very mobile, for
right contacts, etc. In conclusion,
example long-distance lorry drivers,
mobility is undeniably a resource for
or workers in the building and public
the poorest households but no more
works sector. So to come back to
so than proximity or residential roots.
Giulio’s conclusion, it isn’t enough
Notes for poor households to travel more, in
order to reduce the social distance
1 It is possible to be close in
that separates them from more
kilometres but still remote from
affluent social categories. Other
amenities. The price of an activity but
forms of “mobility”, such as changing
also the associated social image act
attitudes, linguistic registers or
just as much as a barrier as the fact
clothing (and there are obviously
that numerous kilometres have to be
more examples than those) are
covered to access them. This is
necessary if not sufficient.
particularly so for leisure activities.
I agree with Leslie – there is
definitely a need for nuance in this
debate. One thing I would add to the
discussion is that there are different
patterns of residential location of
poor households within urban areas.
It is true that in many European city-
regions, poor households are pushed
(or confined) to outer urban areas by
high housing prices. But the opposite
pattern is observed as well, e.g. in
many UK cities: concentrations of
poverty in the inner-city, vs.p y y
wealthier, but more car-dependent,
suburban areas. This creates a
situation where the inner city poor
have better accessibility to essential
services (e.g. hospital, schools,
employment centres) by public
transport/walking, but are
disproportionately affected by other
transport-related problems like, say,
air pollution.
02. What are the material, cognitive and symbolic barriers to
mobility?
We live
There are potentially many barriers to
in car dependent societies, so the first
mobility. In terms of their defining
material barrier on my list would be
economic situation, “poor people”
car ownership. On the other hand,
first have to face material barriers
this does not mean that all
insofar as it is more difficult, when on
households without cars are
a low income, to own a car, find
necessarily disadvantaged! Many
accommodation in the immediate
people without cars, especially in
vicinity of shops and services, or
large cities, have high levels of
even to buy a bus ticket. These
accessibility and travel a lot. But it’s
financial barriers can be
hard to deny that, in most
compounded by physical barriers
circumstances, the car gives you an
that surround their situation:
edge in terms of accessibility. Limited
residential (urban enclave, urban
financial resources are another
dissection, etc.) or professional.
obvious material barrier. You need to
Nonetheless, these material barriers
be able to afford travel, and it can be
do not prevent “poor people” from
very expensive. So, owning a car is
being mobile, even though the
not enough, if you don’t have the
distances they travel are shorter.
money to pay for fuel, repairs,
Repair you old car yourself, use so
insurance, etc. In fact, many people
called “active” modes (walking,
find themselves in what I call ‘car-
cycling, etc.) or alternatives to solo-
related economic stress’: they spend
driving (hitch-hiking, carpooling,
disproportionate amounts on
etc.), borrowing a motorised vehicle,
motoring, have to cut expenditure in
and using public transport without
other areas (say, home heating) and
paying are all methods enabling
they still don’t get to all the places
mobility. True, these arrangements
they would need to go. As for
do not always correspond to the
cognitive barriers some people lackcognitive barriers, some people lack
standard notion of autonomous, legal
the skills necessary to travel. Some
or motorised mobility, but they show
don’t have a driving licence, some
that complex mobility practices are
can’t navigate public transport. Some
possible. While they imply short
may even not be aware that a travel
distances, they are nonetheless
destination exists (say, a job
exhausting physically and
opportunity). Researchers and policy
psychologically.
makers sometimes call this the
The cognitive and symbolic barriers problem of “low travel horizons” –
are at times more significant even if certain people ought to be travelling
they are more attributable to the more (for instance, in order to find a
social origin and position job), even though they are not aware
experienced by people than their of it, or unwilling to do it. I am a bit
objective economic situation (the two ambivalent about this – it is a bit of
being more or less linked). The paternalistic argument. I see where it
difficulty of situating yourself spatially comes from, but there is something
and of reading a map are cognitive odd about saying to people “I tell you
difficulties that restrict mobility or that you are not travelling enough
make it a particularly difficult task to even though you don’t agree with it”.
confront. These difficulties are also of
a symbolic nature insofar as they
force the individual to confront his or
her lack of ability in performing a task I think
considered by others as normal, and the main barrier is not having access
his or her exclusion, as evidenced in to a car rather than not owning one.
studies on seniors, the disabled and These days, in fact, there are plenty
migrants. The symbolic barriers to of alternatives to car ownership (such
mobility are compounded by other as car-sharing, long-term leasing,
symbolic limitations concerning access to a company car, borrowing
people’s spatial entitlements. What a vehicle, etc.). They are mainly used
places do they feel they have the right by households who live in city
to frequent, where they feel their centres and therefore have access to
presence is legitimate and according alternative transport options. Urban
to what means? households also have easier access
to alternatives to the car on which
there may be a local policy, such as
car-sharing. Apart from their relative
costs, these alternatives may be
Leslie raises an interesting point directly linked to promoting a
about mobility becoming a ‘norm’ “higher” social status (the company
that people feel embarrassed not to car, for example). Overall, they are
be able to conform to. In practice, therefore mainly reserved for more
this may mean for example that affluent social categories, although
people with fear of driving face not there are now plenty of social and
only negative material community initiatives for people in
consequences, but also a kind of
more modest circumstancesmore modest circumstances.
social stigma. From the point of view Another problem is the risk
of these people, the enforced need to
associated with vehicles owned by
use a particular mode of transport (i.e. less affluent households, which is
the car) is a barrier to their well-
obviously linked to the financial
being. So I would argue that we barriers Giulio mentioned. A car that
should think in terms of ‘barriers to
is less well maintained because
well-being/quality of life/social money is short, is also more
inclusion’, and look at the ambivalent
dangerous for its passengers. The
role that mobility plays into that, paternalism referred to above relates
rather than assuming that mobility is directly to this paradoxical
good per se and looking for ‘barriers requirement to be mobile and the
to mobility’. problem raised by disseminating and
promoting a value that the dominant
classes are disinclined to challenge.
Nonetheless, today, just as with the
European political crises (within the
union and its member states), we
need to remember that the future of
mobility as a value may not be
entirely rosy and that it faces plenty
of dissent.
03. Are there alternatives to mobility which may facilitate the poor
social inclusion?
Online
Mobility is needed when it effectively
services are often seen as possible
improves the economic situation of
substitutes for physical travel, notably
the poor, by encouraging access to
for access to services, but also for
employment, essential amenities like
commuting (home working). But
shops and their social network. This
there’s a problem with this: the same
mobility may be daily, residential,
people who are ‘transport
professional, etc. Given the barriers
disadvantaged’ are often also
mentioned earlier, numerous means
excluded from these services, either
can be implemented to encourage it
because they cannot afford them, or
and make it more inclusive: financial
don’t have the skills, etc. This is the
travel assistance, social housing near
famous problem of the ‘digital divide’.
shops, services or social networks
As any sociologist would tell you,
(including in the least densely
disadvantage in one area of life are
populated areas), mobility training or
often associated with disadvantage
learning (how to read a transport
in another area so I am not sure how
network map, ride a bike, drive, etc.).
f ith thi Al fp, , ,
far we can go with this. Also, for
Mobility itself is however not enough instance, solutions like home
and does not guarantee a successful working may work relatively well for
return to employment or a respected jobs in the knowledge economy, but
place in society for the long-term are clearly not applicable to a range of
unemployed. Other solutions are also low-skilled services and
used to combat poverty and manufacturing jobs. Some argue that
exclusion. In addition to seeking the have-nots make up for limited
economic growth leading to an ideal mobility with strong reliance on local
of full employment and a more social networks in the area where
equitable sharing of wealth, the they live (here I mean real
public policy instruments are often relationships with other people, not
based on the minimum wage or Facebook!). But then again, there are
income-based government limits to how much you can
assistance as well as tax exemptions substitute one for the other. Overall, I
based on so-called “social” criteria. am not so sure that we should aim to
With regard to exclusion itself, other find ‘alternatives to mobility’. We will
means focus less on aligning the always need to travel for several key
mobility of the “poor excluded” things in our life. I would say the
members of society on that of the problem is more that we need to
“rich included” than on developing a travel over shorter distances than we
local lifestyle: implementing local currently have to. This would reduce
neighbourhood actions, solidarity the importance attached to car
grocery shops, home visits for the ownership and fast travel, as it is
elderly suffering from financial already the case in some compact
insecurity, etc. urban areas, where services and
opportunities are available in relative
To conclude, the “poor” are neither a close proximity. That would be good
homogeneous category or for social inclusion – or at least it
necessarily socially excluded. Indeed, would reduce the importance of
a growing number of people in active mobility for the problem of social
employment (employees, workers, exclusion. At the same time, it would
etc.), owning their own home, do not help reduce the environmental
correspond to the archetypal image impact of transport, which is crucial
of the poor. While being mobile for climate change. So that would be
provides access to employment and the real win-win.
services, it does not necessarily mean
getting out of poverty or exclusion,
supposing once again that the two
are linked. Mobility is neither an end
in itself, nor a magic bullet. Placing “Alternatives to mobility” are not
mobility at the centre of solutions to about eliminating travel but
end the exclusion of society’s poor supporting other modes of transport
reveals a binary vision in which than the car, particularly solo car use,
mobility is synonymous with over long distances. Looking at the
inclusion and belonging to the issue from a more societal org g dominant class and in which its environmental perspective, it’s clear absence indicates exclusion and that everyone gains from a system of belonging to the dominated class. alternatives that places value on This leads to imposing an proximity. increasingly forceful “mobility commandment”, rejected by certain authors. If mobility is a tool for the dominant classes, the wealthiest, for maintaining their social position, it is not necessarily so for the other classes, whether they are poor or not. I agree with Leslie on the dangers of assuming an equivalence between greater mobility and greater social inclusion. This is often the case, but it should always be an empirical question, rather than a starting assumption. The policy consequences of this equivalence are problematic as well. If mobility=inclusion, how are we going to square this with the urgent need to reduce energy demand and carbon emissions in the transport sector? The solution is to focus less on mobility per se, and more on the needs that it satisfies. Disciplines : Humanities, Social sciences Transport mode(s) : Automobile, All modes of transport
To quote this publication:
Leslie Belton Chevallier, Giulio Mattioli (2017, 24th of April), « Is mobility the answer to
poverty ? », Mobile Lives Forum. Connnexion on 21st of October 2021, URL:
https://en.forumviesmobiles.org/crossed-perspectives/2017/04/24/mobility-answer-
poverty-3595
Crossed pespectives by Forum Vies Mobiles are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 France License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at contact.
1
https://en.forumviesmobiles.org/crossed-perspectives/2017/04/24/mobility-answer-
poverty-3595
2
https://en.forumviesmobiles.org/disciplines/sciences-humaines
3
https://en.forumviesmobiles.org/disciplines/sciences-sociales
4
https://en.forumviesmobiles.org/modes-transports/automobile
5
https://en.forumviesmobiles.org/modes-transports/tous-modes-transport
6
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/fr/deed.en
7
http://www.forumviesmobiles.org
8
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/fr/deed.en
9
https://en.forumviesmobiles.org/contactYou can also read
