Ageing of the population in European cities creates fundamental challenges with regard to employment, pensions, health care and other age-related services. Many older people want to live independent lives as long as possible. This aspiration is currently strongly supported by many local governments. A precondition for 'ageing in place' is that older people perceive their neighbourhoods as familiar and safe places. In the Netherlands, many neighbourhoods with an ageing population have been subject to urban restructuring policies. An important question is to what extent such policies affect the housing situation, socioeconomic position and social support networks of older people, as these factors strongly assist their ability to 'age in place'. The paper answers this question through an exploratory analysis of a small but unique panel data set from Hoogvliet, a large urban restructuring area in the city of Rotterdam. The partly counter-intuitive results show that restructuring has enabled 'ageing in place'. Compared to stayers, movers within Hoogvliet often report improved housing quality and positive neighbourhood change. The exploratory analyses did not provide evidence of decreased social support or increased loneliness through restructuring-induced disruptions of social ties. Various 'buffer measures' have been effective in preventing negative restructuring impacts on older residents.@en

Dutch citizens on welfare have to volunteer at Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in return for their benefits. Through applying the ‘worlds of justification’ of Boltanski and Thévenot, this article aims to provide a better theoretical and empirical understanding of social justice of policies that obligate welfare clients to participate in CSOs. The analysis of 51 in-depth interviews with Dutch welfare recipients shows that respondents perceive these policies partly but not unilaterally as unfair. If respondents perceive welfare as ‘free money’ and if they are convinced that civic behavior demands interventions against free riding on welfare resources, ‘mandatory volunteering’ is considered as fair. Our main contribution is to the theoretical debate on recognition and redistribution by showing empirically how ‘othering’ plays an important role in determining when mandatory volunteering becomes a matter of redistribution or recognition.@en