Down and out in Los Angeles and Berlin: The Sociospatial Exclusion of Homeless People

This book compares Berlin and Los Angeles, the “homeless capitals” of Germany and the United States. The comparison is appropriate as both countries have a good deal of devolved local authority, but with differences in social welfare regimes. Given the more inclusive policies in Berlin, the author expected to find lower long-term homelessness rates there. Yet the opposite was true. Moreover, German rates of long-term homelessness decreased after neoliberal policies came into place in 2005. Why would homelessness increase with a strong welfare system and decrease with restructuring of this system?

To unravel this puzzle, von Mahs conducted ethnographic research and interviews. In the 1990s, about 1 per cent of both Germany and the US were homeless. One explanation for the surprising pattern of long-term homelessness in Berlin is that the nationally comprehensive welfare regime in Germany did not translate into policies benefitting the homeless at the city level.

For a more nuanced explanation, the author draws attention to the variation in experiences of homelessness. As he understands it, homelessness extends beyond the lack of housing. He conceptualizes three interconnected dimensions of “sociospatial exclusion”: legal, service and market exclusion. Each homeless individual will experience these forms of exclusion in a specific way, depending on the course of one’s life. Market exclusion is more common in Berlin, with its tightly regulated labour market, while legal and service exclusion are prevalent for the homeless in Los Angeles, where spaces are more segregated and public welfare is more controversial. Market exclusion was key to Berlin’s surprising pattern of decreased homelessness with increased neoliberalism. In addition, the previous welfare system had significant gaps, such as inadequate service referrals, that limited the effectiveness of policy.

Despite these fluctuations, von Mahs maintains that Germany’s more comprehensive system of social assistance is superior to the fragmented, ideologically thorny situation in the US. While homeless people in Berlin have been subject to market conditions, this has been less severe than in Los Angeles. The German move toward some US-style restructuring of social insurance, therefore, is a worrying development.

Given the many financial and political obstacles to reducing homelessness in the US and Germany, von Mahs proposes some pragmatic steps:

·         Increasing coordination across private and public organizations working with the homeless

·         Destigmatizing homelessness by correcting the widespread misinformation about this condition

·         Improving case management, through more tailored approaches and involvement of the homeless themselves

He is not optimistic about the likelihood of Germany and the US taking these steps. Thus it is crucial to continue sharing the stories of homeless individuals and advocating on their behalf.

Further reading:

DeVerteuil, Geoffrey (2003), “Homeless mobility, institutional settings, and the new poverty management”, Environment and Planning A Vol 35, No 2, pages 361–379, available at http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=a35205.

Environment and Urbanization (1997), “The struggle for shelter”, Vol 9, No 1, available at http://eau.sagepub.com/content/vol9/issue1/.

Olufemi, Olusola (1998), “Street homelessness in Johannesburg inner-city: a preliminary survey”, Environment and Urbanization Vol 10, No 2, pages 223–234, available at http://eau.sagepub.com/content/10/2/223.abstract.

Book note prepared by Christine Ro