Ethnic Spatial Segregation in European Cities

Hans Skifter Andersen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000007695
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

This book provides the first in depth interpretation of how to understand the causes of ethnic residential segregation across Western European countries and the USA.

In many countries, ethnic minorities have obtained low quality housing and may be concentrated in certain parts of cities. This book asks to what extent ethnic segregation can be assigned to special preferences for housing and neighbourhoods among ethnic minorities. Is it the behaviour of the native majority, or is it a result of housing and urban policies? Ethnic segregation differs greatly across European countries and cities. Chapters discuss the extent to which these differences can be explained by welfare state systems, levels of immigration and the ethnic composition of minorities. The book also considers the impact of housing policy and the spatial structure of urban housing markets created by urban planning and policies.

This book will appeal to teachers, students and researchers working with segregation, urban sociology and geography. It will also be valuable to civil servants in central and local governments who are working with measures to combat ethnic segregation and its consequences.

1 Introduction and summary

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an understanding of ethnic segregation and the conditions that create it, and to give a review of the discussions from the main chapters of the book. I have chosen not to make references in this chapter, because they would amount to an unmanageable size. Instead is referred to the chapters where the main text with references is found.

In all countries, different social and ethnic groups tend to live in separate parts of the cities, even if the extent and character of this separation differs much across countries and cities. We talk about spatial segregation of groups. This book is about why ethnic minority groups in European cities often live separated from the ethnic majority and concentrated in specific neighbourhoods, especially why immigrants do. We will not analyse in much detail the extent and character of ethnic segregation in different countries. We will also not discuss the consequences of ethnic segregation, which is a separate and comprehensive research area. The subject of the book is restricted to uncovering explanations for why ethnic segregation has emerged, and is maintained, in European cities.

Research on ethnic segregation has been most extensive in North America, where massive immigration has had a longer history than in Europe. In the book we will refer to much of the American literature with the purpose of using the theoretical advances in the research on how immigrants have settled during the last 150 years. The focus will, however, mostly be on European research and evidence on ethnic segregation and its causes. A possible problem here is that available research, written in English, mostly is from Northern Europe, especially Great Britain, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries. Studies from Southern Europe have been found, but they are scarce. As ethnic segregation, and its causes, differ greatly from country to country, this is somewhat limiting to the scope of the book.

The book is based on reviews of a large number of studies of causes of ethnic segregation. Moreover, it disseminates the results from some recent comprehensive studies made in the Nordic countries, which in a more thorough way than earlier research document some of the basic explanations of segregation.

Ethnic segregation in Europe

While some studies on segregation in selected cities and countries can be found, literature comparing many countries and ethnic groups is scarce, sometimes only comparing a few countries and ethnic groups. The studies mostly concern the spatial segregation and concentration of specific ethnic groups. In many countries, however, ethnic minorities are concentrated in neighbourhoods containing several different groups, so-called multi-ethnic neighbourhoods. In these countries the most important kind of segregation is the separation of the whole group of ethnic minorities from the native majority.

A general conclusion from the literature is that ethnic segregation of single ethnic groups in Europe, with a few exceptions, is lower than the segregation of the black population in North America, but sometimes at the same level as other ethnic minorities in these countries. From the relatively few comparisons of the segregation of single groups in a larger number of cities, it can also be concluded that this differs greatly across countries, cities and ethnic groups. It has been found (see Chapter 8) that the most segregated groups were immigrants from south East Asia in British cities. Also, high segregation for some other groups has been found in some other cities, mostly in the central parts of Europe, but also a few in Northern and Southern countries. In all the studies large differences were shown between different groups within the same city. Moreover, the same ethnic groups were not segregated to the same extent in different cities. Extensive differences existed for them across different countries but also between different cities within the same country. These results can be influenced by limitations on which cities have been examined and by differences in the segregation data used, but they indicate that ethnic background, national conditions and individual characteristics of cities all influence ethnic segregation.

In most countries, however, the most important kind of segregation is between the native majority of a country and ethnic minorities in general, especially those who originate from Non-Western countries. Comparable data on this is scarce, except for a European survey asking for people’s evaluation of the ethnic composition of their neighbourhood (see Chapter 8). These data indicate that ethnic segregation varies greatly across countries, and that these differences to some extent are connected to welfare state systems (see what follows and in Chapter 8). It is also shown, as should be expected, that there is some connection between ethnic concentration and the extent of immigration to the countries. Countries with a higher proportion of ethnic minorities also experience stronger ethnic concentrations. Especially former colonial powers like France, the Netherlands and Spain seem to be more segregated than should be expected. However, differences in ethnic segregation across countries cannot be explained by differences in the proportion of ethnic minorities in the countries. As will be discussed in the following part of the introduction, and in the other chapters of this book, ethnic segregation is a product of many different conditions that differ from country to country.

Determinants of ethnic segregation

Ethnic spatial segregation differs significantly from country to country, to some extent also from city to city within the same country. It is connected to social segregation, but not in a consistent way. Social inequality is a driving force in segregation, and the causes of social segregation are also important explanations for the spatial separation of ethnic minorities in cities, as it is a common fact that ethnic minorities, especially newly arrived immigrants, have lower incomes than the native majority in a country (see Chapter 8), and that such differences have an effect on segregation of minorities.

Social inequality and social segregation depend on the character of labour markets and welfare systems, which thus also are important determinants of ethnic segregation. In this context, integration policies and the extent to which ethnic minorities have been able to be economically integrated and obtain education, jobs and good incomes, have influenced their ability to choose better neighbourhoods and mix with the native majority.

As discussed in Chapter 7, social and ethnic segregation is not only a straightforward consequence of social inequality and ethnic diversity but is also influenced by housing policies and urban planning, which determines the way housing opportunities are located in cities and the extent to which there are small or large qualitative differences between neighbourhoods. Segregation is created by an interplay between social inequality and what can be called spatial inequality. In cities where all neighbourhoods are identical, there will be no social segregation, whatever social inequality there exists, because there are no advantages in staying in any neighbourhood compared to another. However, in cities where neighbourhoods are very different regarding social status, housing supply and environmental qualities, segregation tends to be high because high-income groups will be much more motivated to settle in high-quality and high-status neighbourhoods, leaving low-income groups behind in low quality and low-status neighbourhoods.

There is a mutual interaction between segregation and spatial inequality because the settlement pattern over time of respectively poor and wealthy people influences the development of neighbourhoods. In neighbourhoods where rich people settle, there will be investments in better housing and environment, and the social status will improve. In neighbourhoods which these people have left to the poor, investments will decline. Some of the neighbourhoods that previously had higher status but were abandoned by the middle class and left behind to poor people have experienced deterioration and diminished social status, which make them far less attractive. Sometimes, however, poorer neighbourhoods in central cities have gone through a reverse process where more well-to-do people have returned, resulting in what has been called gentrification.

The character of neighbourhoods and the people who are living there have thus often changed over time. It might then be argued that spatial inequality in cities is just a mirror of social inequality creating different housing demand from different groups. In this view spatial inequality does not influence segregation, but is a result of segregation. Our view is, however, that this is not quite in accordance with reality, as cities have been created over a long time and have left a historically determined housing market and spatial structure, which affects segregation, whereas the location of different social classes has changed a lot over time. Moreover, in many countries the development of cities has been highly regulated by national housing policies and urban planning that interfere with the natural processes of segregation.

Figure 1.1 depicts a model of the presumed determinants of ethnic segregation, which has been guiding the elaboration of this book.

Figure 1.1 An analytic model of the determinants of ethnic segregation

The research literature suggests that ethnic segregation is not a simple consequence of lower incomes among ethnic minorities and social segregation. In short, it can be assigned to three factors: 1. Deviant preferences for housing and neighbourhoods among ethnic minorities that influence their choice of residence, 2. The strong influence of the locational preferences and moving behaviour among the native majority, who for different reasons often prefer to avoid living in neighbourhoods with ethnic minorities (white flight and avoidance), and 3. The options available for ethnic minorities on the housing markets, and the spatial distribution of different kinds of housing in cities. These three factors are, however, strongly influenced by the different societal conditions found in the actual cities and countries, which to a large extent are created by welfare state systems. Housing policies and urban planning are especially important.

In the next subsections these points will be discussed in more detail based on the review of the research literature made in the main chapters of the book.

Deviant preferences for housing among ethnic minorities (Chapter 2)

The housing preferences of ethnic minorities can to a great extent be expected to be determined by the same factors as are important for the native majority: family situation, economic resources and local housing market possibilities. It has, however, been shown in the literature that the cultural background, and the special position of immigrants in society, in some ways can influence their housing preferences and actual housing choices (Chapter 2).

One of the cultural factors is that some minorities have preferences for living in extended families, which can lead to preferences for larger homes that can be divided into parts. If this is not possible to obtain, a solution can be to find dwellings close to each other. Another cultural factor is reciprocity, the obligation to help family and friends who cannot find a dwelling. It is typical for some ethnic groups that the household often changes as members of the family move in and out. Of importance is also when and how young people leave their parents’ home. This affects the housing needs of both parents and those who leave. A few studies have shown that both traditions for extended families and for how to leave parents vary between ethnic groups, and some of them also differ from the native majority.

The options of ethnic minorities in the housing market are very much determined by their preferences and potentials for purchasing their own homes. Homeownership is a much more accessible kind of housing than renting, and it is therefore important for the opportunities for choosing where to live in a city if one prefers homeownership and is able to obtain it. Economic resources are decisive, but it has been shown that some ethnic minority groups for different reasons more seldom move into homeownership than the native population no matter what incomes they have.

Buying a home demands funds for investing in property or good possibilities for obtaining a mortgage or other loans. This depends on the incomes and general economic situation of immigrants, which in general are worse than for natives. A considerable number of studies in North America and Europe have, however, shown that general household variables like income and family situation cannot alone explain why ethnic minorities in general have a lower homeownership rate than natives. It has also been found that homeownership differs between different ethnic groups and across different countries.

Cultural factors and the special position in society for immigrants have an essential importance for homeownership across countries in spite of major differences in local conditions. Some ethnic minorities have traditions that make them use their incomes and savings for other purposes than natives. Some of the labour immigrants, who came to Europe years ago, have never given up the idea of returning to their native country and have invested their savings in property there. It is, moreover, well-known that many immigrants start their own businesses in small shops that require investments. Others have family who have remained in their country of origin, and who are poor and very dependent on economic support. In this case part of the income is used for sending remittances to family members. As described in Chapter 2, another obstacle to homeownership among especially Muslim Africans are the bans for Muslims against paying interest and making profit on housing investments, which make it difficult for them to finance homeownership.

The most important reason for lower homeownership rates among ethnic minorities might be, however, that many of them are uncertain about their future and have short-term and unstable employment. It is known from housing market research that it is essential for families who decide to buy a home that they expect to have a stable or growing economy in years to come. Some studies have found that uncertainty about the future reduces the propensity of ethnic minorities to invest in housing. A study in the Nordic countries has found that the effect of increasing income on homeownership is weaker – or at least not stronger – among immigrants than among natives. Moreover, experiences with stable employment are important.

Immigrants’ expectations about their future might depend on their social and economic integration (assimilation) in the host society. A number of studies have dealt with the connection between integration and homeownership. It is assumed that homeownership indicates long-term economic progress, plays a key role in providing financial security and it may also indicate immigrants’ degree of commitment to the host country. The conclusions on this have varied. Some studies in North America have shown that length of stay in the host country only has influence on recent immigrants. A German study based on survey data has, however, indicated a connection between indicators of integration and homeownership.

Deviant preferences for neighbourhood among ethnic minorities (Chapter 3)

In all Western countries, some immigrant groups, or ethnic minorities in general, have settled together in certain neighbourhoods with a high concentration of minorities, sometimes dominated by a single ethnic group, mostly with a mix of different groups called multi-ethnic neighbourhoods. The existence of such neighbourhoods can to some extent be explained by special preferences and selective behaviour among ethnic minorities.

In general, preferences for location concern dimensions such as: 1. The physical environment, 2. The social and cultural environment, 3. Access to local public and private service facilities, and 4. Location and transport in a broader context. As described in Chapter 3, it has been shown that preferences vary greatly between people, and that this variation mostly depends on differences in family situation and course of life, income and other resources, and culture and life-style.

Research on locational preferences among ethnic minorities has not been very concerned with differences across ethnic groups concerning their propensity towards different kinds of physical environments or proximity to transport. Most of the research has focused on the social and cultural environment and to some extent service facilities. The absolute main focus has been on to what extent ethnic minorities prefer to live close to neighbours from their own ethnic group, subsequently if they want to avoid living in neighbourhoods dominated by the native majority or by other groups. In the literature this has often been named propensity to self-segregation (Chapter 3).

In principle three different kinds of preferences can be formulated: 1. To live close to family networks and friends, 2. To locate in neighbourhoods with many countrymen, or ethnic minorities with a similar culture, to become part of a local ethnic social and economic network, or 3. To avoid living close to the native majority, or other groups, to escape discrimination or racism.

The first is not very different from preferences among the native majority, but it can contribute to a concentration of ethnic minorities in certain neighbourhoods if it is more important for immigrants and if their options on the housing market are more restricted. The second is the most often mentioned motive in the literature. The third preference could be motivated by the search for security and safety in a well-known social and cultural environment and to escape what is experienced as persecution and discrimination from the native majority.

There is considerable disagreement about the importance of these preferences for segregation. As most studies have used quantitative data on the actual location of ethnic minorities, it is difficult to decide if an ethnic spatial concentration is due to preferences or to lack of options on the housing market. A few studies based on surveys and some qualitative research exist, which qualify the discussion. Results from a survey among moving ethnic minorities in Denmark indicate that the first of the three mentioned kinds of preferences is the most important.

Two different main reasons have been put forward for why some minorities prefer to settle in ethnic neighbourhoods. One is linked to having positive preferences for qualities found in these neighbourhoods that are attractive for minorities. The weaker version of this is that ethnic neighbourhoods make it possible for minorities to settle close to their tighter network: family and friends. The other has to do with a deselection of other parts of the city where minorities feel isolated, insecure or discriminated against. One can say that in some cases ethnic neighbourhoods are preferred because of their positive aspects compared to the rest of the city; in other cases they are chosen as a sanctuary for minorities feeling pursued or excluded. They could be called respectively the ethnic enclave motive and the sanctuary m...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Preface
• 1 Introduction and summary
• 2 Housing preferences and choices of ethnic minorities
• 3 Preferences for location among ethnic minorities
• 4 Spatial assimilation – the development in immigrants’ locational preferences and choices with duration of stay
• 5 Selective migration of ethnic minorities and natives in connection with ethnic neighbourhoods
• 6 The effects of housing policy and housing markets on housing options and choices of ethnic minorities
• 7 The importance of urban policies and the spatial distribution of housing
• 8 Ethnic segregation and its causes across European welfare states
• Index