In contrast to traditional urban planning assistance, decisions on how to distribute federal Socially Integrative City funds to the Länder take into account social variables which give an initial approximation of the criteria for special development need. In 1999 and 2000 Länder unemployment figures were considered along with the number of inhabitants and the amount of housing. Each criterion was given equal weight. (1) At a building ministers. conference on 7-8 December 2000, the federal and Land governments agreed to a slight change in the distribution pattern for 2001 and subsequent years. In this formula, "social and integration needs" account for one third of the total rating (3/9). This breaks down to a 2/9 share for unemployment levels and 1/9 for integration deficits. (2)
Which problems and capabilities, gauged by which indicators, identify districts as having special needs? Both surveys reveal a broad spectrum of oft-lamented problems compounding one another in the programme districts (Figure 17). Unsurprisingly, the most frequent complaints were about structural and urban planning shortcomings such as retarded modernization, drops in investment or even urban decay and living environment misgivings. Respondents also mentioned deficits in the social and cultural infrastructure, links to local supply networks, and public spaces. They also faulted the lack of sociostructural facilities and functions. The poll evidenced insufficient work opportunities but ample cases of conflict with other inhabitants. Structures and urban planning also featured most strongly in responses about district potential and resources (Figure 18). Examples were renovation and modernization possibilities, development and redesign options for green spaces and vacant lots. However, around half the districts applauded the willingness of the population to participate and the opportunities for expanding the local economy and sociocultural infrastructure.
The populations of Socially Integrative City programme areas suffer much more from unemployment and require much more social assistance than the average of all districts in the municipality. These are the central selection criteria. Some districts offer almost no jobs whatsoever. Programme districts in Schleswig-Holstein, Saxony-Anhalt, Lower Saxony and Saarland have the highest average unemployment rate. Comparing districts to the entire city (3) on this indicator demonstrates the special development needs. Over half the selected districts (53%) have unemployment figures of 15% or more, only 19% of the cities. remaining districts have such high jobless rates. Unemployment in the Socially Integrative City districts tended to cluster between 15 and 20% (Figure 19).
|
Figure 17: Problems in the Programme Districts, n = 222, multiple answers permitted First and second surveys (Difu 2000/2001 and 2002)*. |
 |
|
* Questions on problems and potential/resources in the programme districts and on the objectives of measures were the focus of the first survey. These questions were repeated in the second survey for the newly incorporated districts in 2001. |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
|
Figure 18: Resources and Potential in the Programme Districts, n = 222 multiple responses permitted. First and second surveys (Difu 2000/2001 and 2002)* |
 |
|
* When comparing indicator values between districts and the entire city, only those programme areas were included that provided data on both. |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
It is striking that programme districts in the former West Germany rely much more heavily on social welfare than eastern districts. Districts in Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg and Schleswig-Holstein top the list. The programme districts also had a far higher number of social welfare recipients than their city as a whole. 46% of all city districts have a social welfare recipient level of under 5%. Only 17% of the disadvantaged areas have a figure this low. The picture is reversed when we consider rates over 10%. Only 5% of the rest of the city exhibit such high figures. 10% or more of the population in over half the programme districts (58%) were on welfare.
|
Figure 19: Rates in Cities and Districts. Second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
|
Figure 20: Social Welfare Rate in Cities and Districts. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
|
Table 3: Unemployment and Social Welfare Recipient Figures (Districts) in Each Land. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
||||||||
|
Unemployment rate |
Social welfare recipient rate |
|||||||
|
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
n |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
n |
|
|
Baden-Württemberg |
4.8 |
20.0 |
9.4 |
4 |
2.8 |
55.0 |
20.3 |
9 |
|
Bavaria |
3.2 |
18.1 |
8.6 |
12 |
2.4 |
31.0 |
8.5 |
16 |
|
Bremen |
k.A. |
k.A. |
k.A. |
– |
18.0 |
18.0 |
18.0 |
1 |
|
Hamburg |
9.0 |
12.9 |
10.7 |
3 |
14.0 |
21.0 |
17.0 |
3 |
|
Hesse |
7.1 |
25.8 |
13.5 |
7 |
5.8 |
23.3 |
15.4 |
13 |
|
Lower Saxony |
8.8 |
35.0 |
19.9 |
13 |
6.4 |
57.9 |
23.4 |
20 |
|
North Rhine-Westphalia |
6.8 |
32.0 |
16.8 |
16 |
4.3 |
28.1 |
12.5 |
25 |
|
Rhineland-Palatinate |
12.2 |
18.8 |
14.4 |
5 |
6.6 |
53.9 |
18.8 |
7 |
|
Saarland |
13.3 |
29.0 |
19.9 |
5 |
2.9 |
25.1 |
10.1 |
9 |
|
Schleswig-Holstein |
18.0 |
31.0 |
23.7 |
6 |
14.8 |
28.2 |
20.2 |
7 |
|
Berlin |
7.7 |
20.0 |
13.8 |
14 |
11.9 |
11.9 |
11.9 |
1 |
|
West German total |
3.2 |
35.0 |
15.3 |
85 |
2.4 |
57.9 |
15.7 |
111 |
|
Brandenburg |
18.1 |
18.1 |
18.1 |
1 |
5.5 |
10.0 |
7.8 |
2 |
|
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania |
9.1 |
20.5 |
15.7 |
7 |
3.0 |
50.0 |
19.3 |
3 |
|
Saxony |
15.3 |
20.0 |
18.5 |
4 |
3.0 |
7.5 |
5.2 |
4 |
|
Saxony-Anhalt |
17.4 |
27.9 |
22.5 |
4 |
3.2 |
10.0 |
7.2 |
4 |
|
Thuringia |
6.9 |
27.0 |
18.2 |
5 |
3.3 |
5.0 |
4.3 |
3 |
|
East German total |
6.9 |
27.9 |
18.2 |
21 |
3.0 |
50.0 |
8.5 |
16 |
|
Total |
3.2 |
35.0 |
15.9 |
106 |
2.4 |
57.9 |
14.8 |
127 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||||||||
As a general rule, the combination of high unemployment and excessive dependence on welfare is the main reason for selecting a district. In some cases drops in population, a negative image, social conflicts, despair and lack of perspective, isolation and uncertainty can furnish further grounds.
Around a third of all programme districts (72) record many vacant properties. Clearly and not unexpectedly, the former East Germany suffers more from this than western Länder (83% and 21% respectively of all districts). (4) More than a fifth of eastern programme districts have a vacant property rate of over 20%. In some places the figure is as high as 40%. However, this is also a major problem in the former West Germany. Two thirds of the programme districts with the highest number of vacant properties are found there. (5)
District selection in the former West Germany is clearly also influenced by above-average proportions of immigrant households (in places over 50%).
|
Figure 21: Proportion of Immigrants in Cities and Districts. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
The Socially Integrative City programme districts have relatively young populations. The 18-and-under age group is much more prevalent in the districts than in the city as a whole. These young people account for a fifth or more of the population in 55% of the former but only 12% of the latter. Conversely, the districts house a disproportionately smaller percentage of elderly people.
|
Table 4: Proportion of Immigrants (in Districts) in each Land. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
||||
|
Proportion of immigrants |
||||
|
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
n |
|
|
Baden-Württemberg |
17.1 |
46.0 |
31.3 |
12 |
|
Bavaria |
3.4 |
45.0 |
22.6 |
26 |
|
Bremen |
12.9 |
52.1 |
27.6 |
11 |
|
Hamburg |
19.5 |
31.0 |
26.5 |
3 |
|
Hesse |
7.3 |
52.0 |
28.3 |
15 |
|
Lower Saxony |
2.2 |
51.3 |
23.6 |
20 |
|
North Rhine-Westphalia |
10.0 |
57.2 |
26.1 |
33 |
|
Rhineland-Palatinate |
3.4 |
40.4 |
18.7 |
11 |
|
Saarland |
5.2 |
29.7 |
16.1 |
10 |
|
Schleswig-Holstein |
6.0 |
28.3 |
19.8 |
7 |
|
Berlin |
7.6 |
55.2 |
29.2 |
13 |
|
West German total |
2.2 |
57.2 |
24.8 |
161 |
|
Brandenburg |
2.1 |
5.0 |
3.7 |
3 |
|
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania |
1.6 |
11.7 |
3.8 |
7 |
|
Saxony |
0.6 |
27.0 |
5.2 |
8 |
|
Saxony-Anhalt |
1.8 |
8.2 |
3.5 |
6 |
|
Thuringia |
2.4 |
4.0 |
3.4 |
3 |
|
East German total |
0.6 |
27.0 |
4.1 |
27 |
|
Total |
0.6 |
57.2 |
21.8 |
188 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||||
|
Figure 22: Proportion of People Under 18 Years of Age in Cities and Districts. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
|
Figure 23: Proportion of People over 60 in Cities and Districts. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
(1) On this and the following cf. Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Große Anfrage (german) der Abgeordneten
Peter Götz, Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Kansy, Dirk Fischer (Hamburg), weiterer Abgeordneter und der
Fraktion der CDU/CSU . Drucksache 14/6085, Das Programm "Die soziale Stadt" in der Bewährungsphase
und seine Zukunftsperspektiven für die Städte und Gemeinden, Deutscher Bundestag,
14th Session, parliamentary paper 14/7459 of 14 November 2001, p. 14 ff.
(2) "The number of foreigners living in the Land has a great deal of influence on the 'integration deficits' factor", ibid, p. 16.
(3) When comparing indicator values between districts and the entire city, only those programme areas were included that provided data on both.
(4) However, vacancy rates were only provided for 32% of all districts and 22% of the cities.
Cf. Figure 1 in Chapter 9.
(5) The districts are: Augsburg - Oberhausen-Nord (50%) in Bavaria, Koblenz-Am Luisenturm (43%) and Kaiserslautern.
Am Kalkofen (31%) in Rhineland-Palatinate, Delmenhorst-Wollepark (40%), Stade-Altländerviertel (37%),
Fallingbostel-Weinberg residential estate (31%) and Northeim-Südstadt (30%) in Lower Saxony,
Wittenberge-Jahnschulviertel (40%) in Brandenburg, Zwickau-Eckersbach (40%) in Saxony,
Wolfen-Nord in Saxony-Anhalt (33%) and Sondershausen . Hasenholz-Östertal (33%) in Thuringia.
Dabei handelt es sich um die Gebiete: Augsburg - Oberhausen-Nord (50 Prozent) in Bayern,
Koblenz - Am Luisenturm (43 Prozent) und Kaiserslautern - Am Kalkofen (31 Prozent) in Rheinland-
Pfalz, Delmenhorst - Wollepark (40 Prozent), Stade - Altländer Viertel (37 Prozent), Fallingbostel
- Wohngebiet Weinberg (31 Prozent) und Northeim - Südstadt (30 Prozent) in Niedersachsen,
Wittenberge - Jahnschulviertel (40 Prozent) in Brandenburg, Zwickau - Eckersbach
(40 Prozent) in Sachsen, Wolfen - Nord in Sachsen-Anhalt (33 Prozent) sowie Sondershausen -
Hasenholz-Östertal (33 Prozent) in Thüringen.
Translated from: Soziale Stadt - Strategien für die Soziale Stadt, Erfahrungen und Perspektiven – Umsetzung des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik 2003
