1 / 61

Segregation, Integration and Neighbourhood Effects Debates and Analyses

University of Manchester CCSR Seminar June 3, 2008. Segregation, Integration and Neighbourhood Effects Debates and Analyses. Sako Musterd University of Amsterdam. Central questions.

becka
Download Presentation

Segregation, Integration and Neighbourhood Effects Debates and Analyses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University of Manchester CCSR Seminar June 3, 2008 Segregation, Integration and Neighbourhood EffectsDebates and Analyses Sako Musterd University of Amsterdam

  2. Central questions • Debates: what are the prevailing ideologies, perceptions, assumptions and policy responses regarding segregation and its potential (neighbourhood) effects? • Analyses: to what extent are these perceptions, etc. informed by theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence?

  3. Outline (debates and analyses) A • Key concepts and prevailing ideologies and perceptions • Theories on segregation and concentration • Theories on neighbourhood effects • Segregation and concentration; levels and dynamics • Segregation and neighbourhood effects • Implications for urban policies B

  4. 1Key concepts and prevailing ideologies and perceptions Key concepts • Segregation • Concentration • Neighbourhood effects • Individual opportunities • Livable neighbourhoods • Integration (participation) • Assimilation

  5. 1Key concepts and prevailing ideologies and perceptions Prevailing ideologies and perceptions • Vague use of key concepts (segregation, concentration, integration, assimilation) • Segregation levels are regarded as high and increasing • Lack of integration is seen as key neighbourhood problem • Segregation is seen as the cause and thus as ‘bad’ • Segregation would create negative neighbourhood effects • Fear for parallel societies and a strong call for assimilation • Neighbourhood restructuring and housing mix as panacea

  6. 2 Theories of segregation and concentration • Globalisation • Economic restructuring • Welfare regime (special attention in next slide) • Cultural (language, religion, discrimination, identity, level of acceptance of inequality, tolerance towards difference, eagerness to ‘enforce’ integration) • Historic social, economic and cultural urban paths • Political attitudes towards diversity (ideas regarding assimilation; multiculturalism and mix)

  7. 2 Theories of segregation and concentration • Welfare regime • Benefit systems for unemployed, elderly and disabled • Access to high quality education • Access to housing • Labour market access • Housing benefits • Health care systems access • Income redistribution

  8. 2Theories of segregation and concentration • Segregation is a strong process, reflecting the relationship between spatial inequality and social inequality, lifestyle differences, and difference in terms of other resources • Segregation is influenced by global, national, local and group level processes, structural and individual factors; and thus not simply to modify with single sector policies, such as housing policies

  9. 3Theories on neighbourhood effects (theories on segregation effects) • Socialisation processes (role models) • Social networks (communication) • Stigmatisation • Spatial mismatch

  10. 4 empirical findings A • Key concepts and prevailing ideologies and perceptions • Theories on segregation and concentration • Theories on neighbourhood effects • Segregation and concentration; levels and dynamics • Segregation and neighbourhood effects • Implications for urban policies B

  11. 4Levels of ethnic segregation: most segregated groups per city12 EU countries 24 cities0-100 : low-high segregation

  12. 4 Levels of ethnic segregation; impact of area-size (index 0-100 = low-high segregation)

  13. Levels of ethnic segregation: group comparisonindex (0-100 = low-high segregation) UK Netherlands

  14. Portugal Levels of ethnic segregation: group comparisonindex (0-100 = low-high segregation) Italy Spain

  15. 4 Segregation levels and dynamics in some Dutch cities (ethnic) increasing/stable; decreasing; decreasing

  16. Segregation dynamics

  17. Concentrations in Amsterdam and the Amsterdam metropolitan region

  18. Concentrations of four population categories T M Amsterdam 2004 S A

  19. But don’t be mislead by graphs of spatial concentrations

  20. Amsterdam Surinamese 2004 > 2sd above the mean > 19.8% In concentrations: 33% Of all Surinamese: 38% Concentration These figures were the same in 1994!

  21. Amsterdam Surinamese 2004 > 4sd above the mean > 27.8% In concentrations: 38% Of all Surinamese: 31% Strong concentration These figures were the same in 1994!

  22. Amsterdam Surinamese 2004 > 50% In concentrations: 57% Of all Surinamese: 2.9% Ethnic neighbourhood

  23. 2004 > 60% In concentrations: 65% Of all Surinamese: 0.6% ‘Little Surinam’?

  24. Dynamics: % that is Turkish [same for other categories] in so-called Turkish concentrations 1994-2007, Amsterdam

  25. Dynamics: % of all Turkish in the city [same for other categories] living in so-called Turkish concentrations 1994-2007, Amsterdam

  26. Dynamic Moroccans 2007 1973

  27. Amsterdam region, ‘non-western’, 2000 > 4sd above the mean > 48% In concentrations: 63% Of all non-western: 50%

  28. Amsterdam region, ‘non-western’, 2004 > 4sd above the mean > 51.5% In concentrations: 66% Of all non-western: 49%

  29. Ethnic concentrations are unstable1994-2004 change relative to 1994; Turkish concentrations in Amsterdam

  30. Ethnic concentrations are unstable1994-2004 change relative to 1994; Moroccan concentrations in Amsterdam

  31. Ethnic concentrations are unstable1994-2004 growth rates in concentrations relative to the expected growth on the basis of the development in Amsterdam as a whole

  32. 4. LevelsIndex of SegregationSocio-Economic Categories

  33. 4. Segregation levels (socio-economic) in some Dutch cities

  34. Social Mix is CommonIncome distribution of the richest (zuid, left) and poorest (westerpark, right) urban districts of Amsterdam, quintiles, 1996 richest poorest

  35. Social Mix is CommonIncome distribution of the poorest neighbourhoods in the three largest Dutch cities, 2000 Source: Pinkster 2006

  36. In short: • Ethnic segregation levels are moderate and generally not increasing • Ethnic concentrations are still limited (except in UK and B) • Ethnic concentrations are dynamic, due to housing careers • Segregation levels of lowest income categories are moderate • Segregation of low and high social strata is relatively high, but segregation between low and the middle is low • Social mix is common already

  37. 5 Segregation and neighbourhood effects • Moderate segregation: few effects? • Small-scale concentrations: few effects? • Even the poorest areas are mixed: few effects? • Some experiences in The Netherlands and Sweden: seven large-scale neighbourhood effect studies

  38. a. Longitudinal studies in The Netherlands: Does Neighbourhood Matter? • Impact of social composition of 500 x 500 m environments on individual’s social mobility (2 mln. cases; 1989-1994; tax income data). Musterd, S., W. Ostendorf & S. de Vos (2003) Environmental Effects and Social Mobility. Housing Studies. Vol. 18 6. pp. 877-892.

  39. Findings • There are weak effects of social compositions on social mobility for people without a job • There are fairly strong effects for people with a stronger position

  40. Neighbourhood effects on ‘socially weaker’ and ‘socially stronger’ individuals in The Netherlands; percentages relative to households not belonging to pensioners.

  41. b. Longitudinal studies in Sweden: Does Neighbourhood Matter? • Impact of social composition of 500 x 500m environments on individual’s employment careers (5.5 mln. cases; 1991-1999; GeoSweden; 16-65 year old). Musterd, S. & R. Andersson (2006) Employment, Social Mobility and Neighbourhood Effects. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (1), pp. 120-140.

  42. Findings • Neighbourhood effects exist also after controlling for a range of variables • Those who were able to improve their educational level during recession were not affected by the environment

  43. Percentage of unemployed in 1991 staying unemployed in 1995 and 1999, per environment type 1991, per educational attainment category 1991-1995 and both years (1991, 1995) living in one of the three big cities in Sweden

  44. c. Longitudinal studies in Sweden: Does Neighbourhood Matter? • Impact of social and physical composition of 9,200 SAMS environments on individual’s employment careers (5.5 mln. cases; 1991-1999; GeoSweden; 16-65 year old). • Focus on housing mix, social mix and social opportunities. Musterd, S. & R. Andersson (2005) Housing Mix, Social Mix and Social Opportunities. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 761-790.

  45. Key-concepts • Housing mix: from absolutely homogeneous to highly heterogeneous (mixed) (9 types, entropy measures) • Social mix: clusters on the basis of scores in classes of income deciles (low, mixed-low, mixed, mixed-high, high) • Ethnic mix (based on nationalities and share of refugees) • Socio-ethnic clusters (all combined) • Social mobility: change in employment position

  46. Findings on housing mix and social mix/ethnic mix • Housing mix and social mix association is not very strong • Same holds for housing mix and ethnic mix • ~25% of homogeneous housing areas are relatively homogeneous low income areas • ~20% of the most heterogeneous housing areas are homogeneous low income areas

  47. Findings regarding impact of mix on social opportunity (also next slide) • There is limited difference in opportunities of low educated in homogenous low social status areas and mixed low and highly mixed areas. • In these three types of area the lowest share of people that stays employed is found in both physically homogeneous and heterogeneous areas • A shift to mixed high and homogenous high areas would help, but is difficult to realise • There are clear effects of education and of country of origin of self and parents

  48. Perc. individual staying employed in 91,95,99 in various social and housing environments per educational attainment level 91-95 social Highly mixed Mixed low Mixed high Homogeneous low Homogeneous high physical education

  49. Perc. individuals staying employed in 91,95,99 living in a poor refugee area per country of origin, per educational attainment level 91-95

  50. d. Longitudinal studies in Sweden: What Mix Matters? • Neighbourhood incomes (lowest and highest 3 income deciles; and overall diversity, via entropy measure) • Educational level (share of low and share of high educated and diversity based on 7 categories) • Ethnic composition (similarly) • Housing tenure structure (similarly) Andersson, R., Musterd, S., Galster, G. and Kauppinen, T. (2007) “What Mix Matters?”. Exploring the relationships between individual’s incomes and different measures of their neighbourhood contexts. Housing Studies 22 (5), pp. 637-660.

More Related