English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

High socio-spatial marginalisation has the consequence that socially excluded people and groups are spatially concentrated (spatialisation according to Vincze), or in other words “locked-up” in “rural ghettos”. Socio-spatial marginalisation has an ethnic dimension. The institutional system of ghettos sealed o by the mainstream society and existing in parallel (e.g. separate schools, illegal shops, public work) prevents locals from breaking out of their ghettoisation. If we regard (social) space as a space for action, we must go beyond the idea that people in villages live as powerless victims of ghettoisation. Based on the works of Henri Lefebvre and Edward Soja, I consider spaces that are in an advanced state of peripheralisation (advanced peripheralisation, advanced socio-spatial marginalisation or ghettoisation) as “spaces of resistance”. I characterise local agency theoretically in terms of their individual, collective and organisational (political) autonomy and, empirically, through ethnographic methods. The case study of a civic local development initiative in a ghettoised village showed that individuals and groups have an agency despite advanced marginalisation and structural oppression. Due to structural oppression, however, they need outside help (local development). Local development can be interpreted in the context of power asymmetries. Power asymmetries characterise multiple relationships: between development organisations and the state, between the various decision-makers involved in local development (centre-periphery relationships typical of the relationship between small settlements and the capital or local elite and marginalised locals). However, power asymmetries also exist between the development organisation and the “bene ciaries”. In order to deconstruct patriarchal and racialising structures within which development organisations and their “bene ciaries” exist, it is important that the members of the development organisation are aware of their “white privilege” or gender-speci c advantage. As far as the relationship between state and development organisations is concerned, state control and clientelism increasingly determine the relationship between the state and civil society. As a result, it is becoming increasingly di cult for those civil organisations that formulate criticisms of social policy or the institutional system to gain access to nancial resources.

Újratermelődő „gettók”? A helyi fejlesztés lehetőségei és korlátai egy szélsőségesen marginalizált kistelepülésen