Professionalization and Displacement in Greater London

Author(s): Rowland Atkinson

Source: Area, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 287-295
Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20004081
Accessed: 18-07-2015 22:21 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20004081?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Area (2000) 32.3, 287-295

and displacement
Professionalization
Greater London

in

Rowland Atkinson
Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, 25 Bute Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8PF
Email: r.atkinson(socsci.gla.ac.uk
Revised manuscript

received 17 May 1999.

Summary This article presents results from research that has looked at the process of
displacement induced by gentrification. The approach uses census data tomeasure social
change to examine the interaction between proxy indicators of gentrification and
displacement. Data is presented indicating that links exist between these processes. The
paper concludes that while these links do not conclusively demonstrate the existence of
displacement it is unlikely that such a strongly observed effect is unrelated to processes of
professionalization and that other approaches to the study of displacement are also needed
to achieve a more rounded view of the process.

Introduction
This paper is part of ongoing research that looks at
the experience of displacement from gentrification
from a variety of methodological
viewpoints. Pre
sented here are the results of using 1981 and 1991
census data for Greater London to try and evaluate
the likelihood that gentrification,
taken as an
increase in the number of professionals in an area,
has lead to displacement. Glass (1964) first coined
the term of gentrification as a reference to the
process of class invasion and take-over that facili
tated the displacement of the original working class
inhabitants. A proliferation of books and papers
have now been written on gentrification (notably,
London and Palen 1984; Smith and Williams 1986;
Van Weesep
and Musterd 1991) with recent con
tributions appearing to indicate a renewed interest
in the subject (Butler 1998; Smith 1996 among

others).
Gentrification has regularly been conceptualized
around class replacement and invasion in a given
locale, often at a neighbourhood
level, and been
defined as 'the movement
of middle-class and
upper-class residents into working-class areas of the
inner city' (Munt 1987, 1175) or more commonly
'the rehabilitation of working-class
and derelict
housing and the consequent transformation of an
ISSN 0004-0894

?)

Royal Geographical

Society

(with The

area into a middle-class neighbourhood.'(Smith and

Williams 1986, 1).
Trajectories of upward neighbourhood movement
have been linked with downward changes (filtering)
over time as reinvestment in devalorized locations
yields high investment returns in the right locations
(Smith 1979, 1996). A discourse of improvement
and revitalization hides changes to some neighbour
hoods where sudden hikes in property prices and
values have both displaced and excluded those
already indigenous in such areas (Beauregard 1996).
However, such a link has been made more through
common sense than empirical research inBritain and
the displacement experience largely remains to be
measured or understood. While Britain has pro
duced literature related to the displacement process
(Power 1973; McCarthy 1974; Green 1979; Lyons
1996) such contributions are both small in number
and have yielded little information on the scale or
nature of the process.
This paper attempts to look at the strength of the
link between gentrification and displacement using
1981 and 1991 census data to chart social changes
at a ward level across the capital. The paper uses
variables to represent professionalization (as a proxy
for gentrification) and seven variables for displace
ment derived from the North American literature that
has linked these groups to displacement processes.
Institute

of British Geographers)

2000

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

288

Atkinson

Previous research
It is not easy to come to a working definition of
displacement without being reductive, yet this is
essential in making a clear and longitudinally com
parable operationalization of the concept. Grier and
in their HUD
Grier loosely define displacement,
(Department of Housing and Urban Development)
sponsored study, as happening when 'any house
hold is forced to move from its residence by con
ditions which affect the dwelling or its immediate
surroundings' (Grier and Grier, in LeGates and
Hartman 1981, 214). They expand this by consider
ing that those who have already 'met all previously
imposed conditions of occupancy' may be con
sidered to have been displaced, affordability is also
considered as a factor.
to
these concepts
(1986) developed
Marcuse
include economic and physical displacement (resi
dents are priced out of a dwelling or by violence),
last resident displacement (counting the last resident
as the only displacee), chain displacement (counting
the number of residents over a discrete time period
which have been displaced from a property) and
exclusionary displacement (those who are unable to
move into property which has been vacated volun
tarilyyet gentrified afterwards). These developments
have implications for the method used to measure
levels of displacement and our understanding of how
effective such measures are as well as what they
essentially measure. Displacement also affects more
people than those who are simply displaced. There is
an effect on other residents who, Marcuse argues,
see their
neighbourhood changing dramatically,when all their
friends are leaving, when stores are going out of
business and new stores for other clientele are taking
their places (or none at all are replacing them),when
changes inpublic facilities,transportationpatterns, sup
port services,

are all clearly making

the area

less and

less

liveable. (1986, 157)

It is possible to identify types of displacement
based on an understanding of the political judge
ments that are involved in the assigning of that label.
(1984) distinguish
For example, Lee and Hodge
between liberal and conservative definitions of dis
placement (see also Swanstrom and Kerstein 1989,
who
distinguish between market and conflict
approaches). The latter refer to any moves made
involuntarily through eviction or the destruction of
property, the former to more subtle processes such

as rent increases. Crucially these definitions affect

the perceived magnitude of the phenomenon. As
Lee and Hodge point out:
Beyond general agreement thatdisplacement refers to
involuntarymobility instigatedby forces external to the
household, considerable variation exists in the detailed
meanings attached to the term. (1984, 144)
is no longer
Most research on displacement
recent and refers most often to its North American
manifestations. Hamnett and Williams (1979) have
pointed out the difficulties of obtaining data on the
displacement phenomenon and the tracking of dis
placees but some data have been produced. Political
wrangling over the adequacy of these data has
become apparent as in the example of the debate
between Sumka (1979) and Hartman (1979) on an
government
and
apparent divergence between
academic figures. Sumka argued that the data indi
flow of 500,000
cated an annual displacement
households (approximately 2 million people) though
Hartman thought this an underestimate. The US
government has consistently argued that the human
cost of gentrification is little compared to the benefit
to the revitalization of the urban environment,
though it ismore likely that a burgeoning tax base is
at least as desirable. More recently (Beauregard
1996), it has been suggested that such benefits may
be undermined by the ability of gentrifiers to extract
resources from local government.
(1986) has estimated displacement in
Marcuse
New York City to be at between 10,000 and 40,000
households per year (roughly two million people)
while LeGates and Hartman (1981, 1986) indicated
total
that an 'approximately and conservative'
annual displacement figure for the US amounts to
2.5 million persons. This highlights (assuming data
comparability) the large scale of metropolitan flows
given by Marcuse's research. LeGates and Hartman
also cite the growing awareness of the problem by
the government that 2.4 million people were being
annually displaced based on only a 'private', or
conservative, definition. More recently Smith (1996)
has argued that Redevelopment Authority files from
Society Hill in Philadelphia give a figure of 6,000
residents displaced since 1959 to make way for
gentrification.
The social characteristics and origination of
gentrifiers have been identified as predominantly
professional and managerial groups, though cultural
in
elements may form an important component

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Professionalization and displacement

these location decisions (Munt 1987; Bridge 1994;
Warde 1991 to name a few). Displacement
has
been shown to predominantly affect low income,
white working class, the elderly and ethnic minorities
(LeGates and Hartman op cit; Henig 1980, 1984;
Chan 1986; DeGiovanni
1984; McCarthy 1974;
Lyons 1996; Smith 1996). Henig has eloquently
described the plight of the elderly:
the effects of forced uprooting and relocation on them
are particularlysevere partly because they are most
likely to be long-term residents dependent on the
neighbourhood's institutions and locally-based social
network, and partlybecause they are low in resources,
and, therefore,would be more likely to experience
forced relocation and uprootedness as a crisis (1984,
66).
Such work illustrates the value of methodological
approaches which attempt to get at the experience
of displacees themselves. Unfortunately such groups
may often not realize what happens to the dwelling
they have been forced to leave (Atkinson 1997) so
thatwhile a social injustice isdone its rationale is not
understood by the displacee. Other research by
authors such as Chan (I1986), Marcuse
(I1986),
and Henig (1984) have all discussed these issues as
have writers like Leckie (1995) in a global context.
Certainly the issue of displacement is one resonant
with recent Balkan and African events and the
experience of the loss of home in the context of
gentrification might well be placed on a continuum
related to those events. The main problems linked to
the use of ethnographic methods for the study of
displacement from gentrification is access to such
groups who may, as already argued, not recognize
themselves as displacees and may be disparately
located.
The destination and living circumstances of dis
placees after gentrification has been documented.
They have to endure more expensive accommo
ation (80-85 per cent of displacees had to pay more
forworse accommodation, Hartman 1979, 23), per
sistent or worse overcrowding and often inferior
accommodation adjacent to their original dwelling.
In Britain, harassment, or 'winkling', has received
little recent coverage and none in relation to gentri
fication. However, an early report, published by the
Department of the Environment (McCarthy 1974),
examined the effect of housing improvement grants
on residents (Hamnett 1973, has used housing
grants as a proxy for gentrification). The availability
of these grants to landlords meant that, in the twelve

in Greater London

289

Inner London boroughs surveyed household move

ment before renovation was marked such that 'the
improvement of living conditions did not benefit
the original residents.' (McCarthy 1974, 3). In total
68 per cent of applications had been preceded by
the outward movement of at least one household
and almost three quarters of all households had
moved away. Of those leaving 80 per cent were
tenants, as might be expected. McCarthy described
the process as a 'social sieve' that shook out those
who could not afford to remain as tenants or buy
their own dwelling.
Since then only Lyons (1996) has examined the
effect of gentrification on displacement in London,
over the census period 1971-81,
looking at the
socio-economic, geographic and migratory aspects
of the process. Lyons finds that local migration is
associated with low status households while longer
range migration may be associated with those of
higher status indicating their relation to constraint
and choice respectively. For Lyons displacement is
linked to gentrification and consumer choice for the
gentrifiers but for the displacees, because of their
lack of market power, they are subject to constraint
and coercion in theirmoves. Attention is now given
to findings from research in London using census
data to explore the rate and linkages between
gentrification and displacement.

Social change, gentrification and

displacement inGreater London
London was selected as the area of study because it
is a large urban area with correspondingly large
social areas and possibly the only major city inBritain
with awell-documented history of gentrification. The
literature reviewed earlier suggests that gentrification
is to be associated with displacement and that this
can occur through a number of routes. London has
witnessed extensive gentrification, but displacement
has largely been looked over. It is unlikely that
gentrification is not a portable concept and that it
has not created conditions for similar types of forced
migration.
Gentrification has often been measured using, by
necessity, simple proxy variables, so that in this sense
the research was not new. Using the already tested
method by Henig (1984), where flows of pro
fessionals in census tract areas were correlated with
those of the elderly to derive a picture of displace
ment, the approach was expanded to include other

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

290

Atkinson

in
variables as proxies for other groups mentioned
the displacement literature.
Limitations in the use of census data mean that it
was not possible to tell how many intervening moves
displacees made in the decade between the two
census dates, a measure of chain displacement
to use Marcuse's terminology. Also apparent was
the difficulty associated with trying to distinguish
between displacement and replacement. Finally,
though a correlation between the processes was the
outcome of the research actual figures for those
displaced were impossible to derive from the exer
cise (though see Atkinson 2000). Using the census
gives a simplified image of social change which,
because it is not longitudinally linked, means that
migration rates can only be estimated and not geo
graphically plotted. Using cross-sectional data for
these purposes creates problems including geo
graphical and census variable comparability issues
(Dale and Marsh 1993; Openshaw 1995). This led
to a need for a simple model combined with a
somewhat cautious interpretation of its output.
Boundary changes of wards were overcome by
using software which approximates 1991 boundaries
to those of 1981, though such an approach is not
error free it does help to produce more robust data.
Wards vary in size but there are usually about 20-30
wards in a London borough (except the City of
London which has a population of only 4000). Ward
and population changes over the period were
weighted to compensate for such changes to pro
duce comparable percentage point changes which
could then be used in a regression model. Use of
enumeration district data was not pursued because
of increased spatial mismatch problems and sam
pling errors when using 10 per cent count data like
that for social class as used here.
To measure the incidence of gentrification ward
level changes in the number of professionals and
managers were used (Socio-Economic Group's 1, 2,
3, 4, 5.1 and 13). The total number of professionals
was taken as a percentage of the total number of the
working population in any one ward, rather than a
head of household figure, often seen to be an
essentially 'male' figure. This was deemed unaccept
able given the reference to female gentrifiers in areas
like East London (Warde 1991; Butler and Hamnett
1994).
Displacement covers a wider set of groups in situ
during the course of the gentrification process. In
particular those with fewer resources to combat
outbidding in the property and rental markets and

those with less physical resistance to harassment

and to changes in social networks on which they
might depend
for mutual
support. The vari
ables used as proxies for the displacement process
were taken from North American literature which
found each of these groups to be displaced by
gentrification.
The main criteria for selection was, first, that such
groups already be identified as being displacee
groups in the literature and, second, that they clearly
represent groups less well-off than gentrifiers. The
proxy variables used were as follows:
(i)Working class-A measure was selected quantify
ing the number of people of SEG's 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and
15 (junior non-manual workers, personal service
workers, foremen and supervisors-manual,
skilled
manual workers, semi-skilled manual workers and
agricultural workers respectively). Such a choice may
seem obvious and such groups have been associ
ated with displacement in Britain as well as North
America (LeGates and Hartman 1981, 1986; Smith
1996).
(ii)Unskilled labour-SEG 1 1.
has often
(iii)Households Privately Renting-Renting
declined in favour owning and been associated with
a turnover, or displacement, of households (Hamnett
and Randolph 1986). Increased tenure insecurity for
such groups has made them even more susceptible.
(iv) Ethnicity-The restrictions of census cells avail
able to measure ethnicity meant that a cruder
measure had to be employed; that of a person's
country of birth. While problems of changes in a
country's name are dealt with at the coding stage
other problems existed in that ethnicity's replace
ment by country meant that a proxy measure of
ethnicity was used in the form of those who were
and Pakistan
born in the New Commonwealth
in 1981 and simply the New Commonwealth,
which included Pakistan in 1991. This measure was
used because, though partially flawed by census
definitions, itwould still provide a strong guide to
those who might be affected by gentrification given
that such groups may be employed in short term
or casual employment and have been linked to
gentrification in the past (Chan 1986; Smith 1996).
1981 itwas necessary to take
(v)Unemployed-For
a figure of those 'seeking work' and 'temporarily
seeking' as a basic figure of unemployment, but in
1991 students who were unemployed were counted
in the basic 'unemployed' figure so that their
exclusion in 1981 meant that they had to be
subtracted to achieve comparability to 1991 figures.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Professionalization and displacement

Table

1 Mean

percentage

point

change

over

Greater London
Mean
Std Dev

Gentrification
Professionals
Displacement
Working class
Renting
Elderly
Unskilled
Ethnicity
Unemployment
Lone parent
Source:

OPCS

1981;

the period

inGreater London

291

1981-1991

InnerLondon
Mean
Std Dev

Outer London
Mean
Std Dev

5.31

5.47

8.33

5.09

3.35

4.78

- 11.32
- 2.81
-1.27
- 0.96
1.33
10.19
3.08

4.94
4.68
2.61
2.20
2.80
4.79
2.28

- 13.96
- 4.88
-2.31
- 1.84
0.78
13.70
4.19

4.56
5.25
2.11
2.54
3.03
4.62
2.19

- 9.60
- 1.46
-0.6
- 0.38
1.68
7.90
2.35

4.38
3.69
2.68
1.72
2.58
3.28
2.03

1991

(vi) Elderly-A figure was taken of the percentage of

total population in each ward aged 60 and over.
There are obvious and fundamental reasons why
such a group should be included given an increased
reliance on social networks, an attachment to home
and an increased physical vulnerability (Henig 1984).
(vii) Lone parents A figure was taken that included
both sexes as heads of a household with children up
to the age of sixteen as a percentage of the total
number of households.
It was not possible to
exclude professional lone parent households.

dropped in inner London there was also a large

mean ward increase in the number of unemployed
which might partially explain the large scale decrease
inworking class employees in the centre of the city.
An analysis of the data re-aggregated into ward
based quartiles using professionals as the grouping
variable showed these effects more strongly, see
Table 2 below, at the expense of a geographical

referent.

Table 2 shows an association between profession

alization and other changes. The ordering variable is
increases in the percentage points of professionals
by ward for Greater London. The data show an
Results
inverse relationship between the gentrification and
The observed rise in Table 1 of the number of
the displacee variables, except for the lone parents
professionals in the urban centre can only take place
and unemployed that appeared to increase where
(assuming a relatively fixed supply of dwellings and gentrification increased. Working class, unskilled,
often an increased use of space by middle class
ethnicity, renting and elderly showed reductions by
households) if other households are moving away
ascending quartile. Such a linkwould support the
from that area unless changes incumbent on an area displacement hypothesis in the sense that a partial
take place eg people thatmoved up from a working
link between
these events was found and was
class to a professional occupation. Inner London has affected by the scale of professionalization. For rent
had historical losses of population since 191 1; ing itwould appear that the second quartile was the
between 1981 and 1991 the inner London boroughs
most significant 'location' forwhat might be seen as
lost 6.6 per cent (OPCS 1992) of their resident displacement.
population which further highlights the significance
The dramatic decreases inworking class could be
of migratory moves by professionals to this area and
for a number of reasons. First, across the whole area
working classes from that area (Hamnett 1976).
fewer people were employed in these occupations
Change was more pronounced in Inner London'
by the end of the decade (Harloe 1992). Second,
which drew larger increases in the gentrification
such occupations may have migrated from the
variables and greater reductions in the displacee
capital to other areas. Third, part of the impact
variables. While working class groups sharply of increasing numbers of professionals may be a

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

292

Atkinson
Table 2 Mean percentage point change for each gentrification and displacement variable
by quartile
Variable

Top quartile

Second Q

ThirdQ

Lowest Q

15.10
- 17.69
-6.12
- 3.04
- 3.01
-0.66
3.91
12.59

11.06
- 15.84
-6.12
- 2.28
- 1.82
-0.06
2.94
10.88

8.93
- 14.70
-3.75
- 1.71
- 1.23
-0.54
3.96
11.82

7.26
- 13.23
-3.24
- 1.75
- 1.19
1.19
3.54
11.58

Professionals
Working class
Renting
Elderly
Unskilled
Ethnicity
Lone parent
Unemployment
Source: OPCS, 1981; 1991

displacement of working class. There were more

'gentrifying' wards in outer (79) than inner (51)
London showing that, in general, the wards with
more than average growth of professionals were
found more in the outer than inner areas of London.
Of course, such boundaries are arbitrary, however,
there is no reason to suppose that gentrification
could not have occurred in the suburbs. A formalism
based around the definition of gentrification as an
inner city, white and middle class phenomenon has
stilted its observation in rural and non-metropolitan
areas for some time.

timing of displacement and gentrification: while

gentrification was the motor of displacement logic
dictates that displacement would have to take place
first in order to vacate dwellings for gentrifiers to
subsequently occupy. The model is therefore an
abstract representation of these events, but one
which fits with the constraints of such a model
(Lewis-Beck 1993).

Results of the displacement model

To begin with it is possible to take an overall figure

which correlates all of the IVswith the DV at one
A simple model of gentrification and
stroke. The coefficient of multiple determination (R2)
displacement
can be used to establish the overall closeness of fit
Census data from 1981 and 1991 were used to chart between all of the IVs and the DV. The error term (e)
the ward level changes in the number of gentrifiers
is also of interest since it tells us the amount of
and displacees over the period. Itwas hypothesized
variance not explained by the IVs and therefore
that if a negative correlation existed between these
draws our attention to other factors which will not
changes (ie gentrification goes up and the incidence
have been included in the model. Finally, the rela
of those termed displacees goes down) some link tive influence of each variable within the model is
existed between the two events though such a examined since this will give an indication of which
connection cannot be conceptualized
as causal
IVs are most salient.
or direct: the purpose of such an exercise is to
In fact the model had a particularly high adjusted
discovery the extent to which an association exists.
R2 value of 0.73635 so that displacement appeared
The model constructed may, at first, appear to to account for 74 per cent of the variance in
have turned the causal direction of the process in 'gentrification', though this also means that 26 per
reverse. Since such models require a single depen
cent was due to other factors. The root value of R2
dent variable (DV) with a number of independent
can be taken to find the multiple correlation coef
variables (IV) for the purposes of this research it ficient and this was 0.85933, a very high level of
would be necessary to view the displacement vari
correlation indeed. The figures of multiple determi
ables as a set of IVs for each model and the nation and correlation are significant because they
definition of gentrification as the DV. In fact this suggest that the model was comprehensive
in its
fitted well with the chronological and necessary
ability to explain gentrification through the variables

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Professionalization and displacement

Table 3 Standardized regression coefficients
Independent variables

Working class
Unskilled
Unemployed
Elderly
Lone parent
Ethnicity

Coefficient
-

0.703
0.338
0.172
0.095
0.082
-0.139

selected (ie the process of displacement or replace

ment). The model also showed a distinct relationship
between the two events and a high degree of
the events labelled as
between
correspondence
gentrification and displacement. The model also
indicates that (see Table 3) the high level of expla
nation is predominantly due to the contribution of
the working class and unskilled variables.

inGreater London

293

ized coefficients indicate by how many standard

deviation units the DV will change for a one unit
change in the IV.This can be contrasted with R2 that
gives the coefficient for all of the IVs together
correlated with the gentrification variable. The use of
the stepwise model rejected renting which was
surprising given its explanatory prominence in the
literature, however, it is not possible to force vari
ables into the model since doing so adds no more to
the overall explanatory weight given by the model.
In general itwas also surprising that the elderly
and renting did not achieve greater prominence in
the models, two groupings who have clearly been
shown to be related to the displacement process
(LeGates and Hartman 1981, 1986; Henig 1984;
Leckie 1995). It is only possible to explain this
through statistical criteria and speculate on the
degree of correspondence between the model and
the 'reality' of gentrification and displacement.

Conclusion

The relativecontribution of displacement to

gentrification

This brief exploration of the process of displacement

from gentrification has shown that the link between
Examination of the output revealed that the variables
gentrification theory, displacement and research is
were entered in the following order of signifi
strained by the data available to measure these
phenomena. Research has therefore often focused,
cance; working class (0.59440), unskilled (0.111 95),
as here, on the use of proxy measures in order to
ethnicity (0.01692), unemployed (0.00598), elderly
(0.00591) and lone parent (0.00198). This reveals measure gentrification. This is not to preclude either
the need or the possibility of other approaches to
each variable's contribution to the overall R2 statistic.
these issues but to illustrate the need for invention in
Within the overall coefficient only working class
the face of necessity when using a census-based
makes an apparently dramatic contribution, unskilled
a minor contribution with the remainder of little approach. Using simple measures does, however,
yield strong and possibly worrying negative associ
significance.
The degree of correspondence between profes
ations, depending on one's own political standpoint,
between changes related to increasing professional
sionals and working class is tempered by some
ization and decreasing numbers of those who have
occupational mobility between these and other cat
been associated with displacement processes.
egories. In addition to this 'noise' in the data, profes
Census data makes it difficult to connect these
sionals and working class did not form the entire
events causally yet the strength of the links logically
occupational scale so that other groups would create
a 'dampening' of any correlatory effects observed
point to an associated and large scale displacement
over the period. However, this effect highlights fur process. The relevance of thiswork today stems from
ther the strength of the negative correlation between
the continuing booming housing values to be found
in London in recent years and a growing awareness
these two variables over the period.
of the exclusion of those with few resources.
Table 3 gives the standardized regression coef
ficients for each of the IVs to illustrate their relative Additionally the first report of the urban taskforce
highlights questions about the retention and attrac
explanatory weight within the model. Bryman and
tion of residents to our cities and we should ponder
Cramer (1997) advise the use of standardized coef
who these groups might be and the effect that such
ficients because of their greater accuracy in deter
mining change by controlling for the effects of the changes might imply for existing residents. While we
other variables so that they use the same standard of know that gentrification activity has been a some
to enable comparison. The standard
times pronounced activity in London over the last
measurement

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

294

Atkinson

thirty or more years we have lacked an understand

ing of the clearance of people from dwellings to
allow such a process. In short, we have more often
focused on spatial 'refilling' than displacement. The
cost to social networks damaged by gentrification
has not yet been established though this research
may begin to indicate that a social cost has been
born by those least able to do so. Gentrification
represents one aspect of a frontier of pressures on
the excluded and the poor and it is hoped that this
paper represents an attempt to begin to understand
the linkages between these processes.

DeGiovanni F (1984) 'An examination of selected conse

quences

of

revitalization

in six US

cities'

in Palen

and London B (eds) Gentrification, displacement and

neighbourhood revitalization(Albany:State University of
New York Press), 67-89
FieldingT and Halford S (1990) Reviews of urban research:
patterns and processes of urban change in the United
Kingdom (HMSO,London)
Glass R (1964) 'Introduction:aspects of change' inCentre
for Urban Studies (ed) London: aspects of change:
(MacGibbon and Kee, London)
Green A (1979) Rachman (Michael Joseph, London)
Hamnett C (1973) 'Improvementgrants as an indicatorof
gentrification in InnerLondon' Area 5, 252-61
Hamnett C (1976) 'Socialchange and social segregation in
Note
InnerLondon, 1961-71' Urban Studies 13, 261-71
1 Inner London is defined as the following boroughs; Hamnett C and Randolph B (1986) 'Tenurialtransformation
and the flat break-up market in London: the British
Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham,Haringey,
condo experience' in Smith N and Williams P (eds)
Islington,Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham,
Gentrificationof the city (London,Unwin Hyman)
Newham, Southwark,Tower Hamlets,Wandsworth and
Hamnett C andWilliams P (1979) Gentrification inLondon
the City ofWestminster.
1961-71: an empirical and theoretical analysis of
social change (Centre for Urban and Regional Studies,
References
University of Birmingham)
Atkinson R (2000) 'Measuringgentrification and displace Harloe M (1992) 'Housing inequalityand social structure in
London' Housing Studies 7, 189-204
ment InLondon' Urban Studies 37, 149-65
Atkinson R (1997) Gentrification and displacement in Hartman C (1979) Comment on 'Neighbourhood revital
ization and displacement: A review of the evidence'
London: an empirical and theoretical examination
Journalof theAmerican PlanningAssociation 45, 488-91
Unpublished doctoral thesis (London: University of
Henig J (1980) 'Gentrificationand displacement within
Greenwich)
cities: a comparative analysis'Social Science Quarterly61
Beauregard R (1986) 'Thechaos and complexity of gentri
638-52
fication' inSmithN andWilliams P (eds)Gentrificationof
Henig J (1984) 'Gentrificationand displacement of the
the City (UnwinHyman, London)
in Palen J and London
elderly: an empirical
B
analysis'
Beauregard R (1996) 'Voices of decline' in Fainstein S and
(eds) Gentrification, displacement and neighbourhood
Campbell S (eds), Readings in urban theory (Blackwell,
revitalization (Albany: State University of New York
Oxford)
Press), 170-84
Bridge G (1994) A class act? Class analysis in the study of
Leckie S (1995) When push comes to shove: forced evic
gentrification (SAUSPublications,University of Bristol)
tions and human rights (Habitat InternationalCoalition,
BrymanA and Cramer D (1997) Quantitative data analysis
Utrecht)
with SPSS forwindows (London:Routledge)
Butler T and Hamnett C (1994) 'Gentrification,class, and Lee B and Hodge D (1984) 'Socialdifferentials inmetro
politan residentialdisplacement' inPalen Jand London B
gender: Some comments onWarde's "Gentrificationas
(eds) Gentrification, displacement and neighbourhood
consumption"', Environmentand PlanningD 12, 477-93
revitalization (State University of New York Press,
Butler T andWishart (1996) 'People like us: the gentrifica
Albany)
in the 1980s'
in Butler T and Rustin M
tion of Hackney
LeGates R and Hartman C (1981) 'Displacement' The
(eds) Rising in the East (London:Lawrence), 81-107
ClearinghouseReview July,207-49
Chan K (1986)
'Ethnic urban space, urban displacement
and

forced

relocation:

The

of

case

Chinatown

in

Montreal' Canadian Ethnic Studies 18, 65-78

Clark

E (1992)

'On gaps

in gentrification

theory'

J (1991)

'Gentrification

in Hamburg'

R and

displacement
Housing

Studies 7, 16-26
Dale A and Marsh C (eds) (1993) The 1991 census user's
guide (HMSO,London)
Dangschat

LeGates

in Van

Weesep J and Musterd S (eds) Urban housing for the

better-off:gentrification inEurope (Stedelijke,Netwerken
Utrecht)

Hartman

in the United

(1986)
States'

'The

anatomy

in Smith

of
and

Williams P (eds)Gentrificationof the city (UnwinHyman,

London)
Lewis-Beck M
(1993) Regression analysis (Sage
Publications,London)
LyonsM (1996) 'Inmigration,gentrificationand neighbour
hood change in London: can they inform theoretical
debate?'

in Van Weesep

J, Dangschat

(eds)Gentrification inEurope (Wiley)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J and Musterd

Professionalization and displacement

Marcuse P (1986) 'Abandonment, gentrification and dis
placement:

the linkages

inNew

York City'

in Smith N and

Williams P (eds)Gentrificationof the city (UnwinHyman,

London)
McCarthy J (1974) Some social implicationsof improve
ment policy inLondon, Internalpaper (Departmentof the
Environment,London)
Munt I(1987) 'Economic restructuring,culture, and gentri
fication: a case study inBattersea, London' Environment
and PlanningA 19, 1175-97
OPCS (1992) 1991 Census: InnerLondon county monitor
(OPCS,London)
Openshaw S (ed) (1995) Census users handbook
(Geolnformation International,London)
Palen Jand London B (eds) (1984) Gentrification,displace
ment and neighbourhood revitalization(StateUniversity

Smith N (1979)

in Greater London

'Toward a theory of gentrification;

295

a back

to

the citymovement of capital, not people' Journalof the

American PlanningAssociation 45, 538-48
Smith N (1991) 'On gaps in our knowledge of gentrifi
cation'

in Van Weesep

J and Musterd

S (eds)

Urban

housing for the better-off: gentrification in Europe

(StedelijkeNetwerken, Utrecht)
Smith N (1996) The new urban frontier:gentrificationand
the revanchistcity (Routledge,London)
Smith N andWilliams P (1986) Gentrification of the city
(UnwinHyman, London)
Sumka H (1979) 'Neighbourhood revitalizationand dis
placement. A review of the evidence' Journalof the
American PlanningAssociation 45, 480-87
Swanstrom T and Kerstein R (1989) 'Job and housing
displacement: a reviewof competing policy perspectives'
of New York Press, Albany)
ComparativeUrban and CommunityResearch 2, 254-96
Palen Jand London B (eds) (1984) Gentrification,displace VanWeesep JandMusterd S (eds) Urban housing for the
ment and neighbourihood revitalization(StateUniversity
better-off:gentrification inEurope (StedelijkeNetwerken,
of New York Press, Albany)
Utrecht)
Power A (1973) David and Goliath: Barnsbury 1973 Warde A (1991) 'Gentrificationas consumption: issues of
(HollowayNeighbourhood LawCentre, Islington)
class and gender' Environmentand PlanningD 9, 223-32

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.26 on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:21:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions