1. Housing Mix and Social Mix: Does it Matter? Sako Musterd Urban Geography Universiteit van Amsterdam

2. The Issue Housing MixSocial Mix

3. The Issue Housing MixSocial Mix Integration Social Interaction Social Opportunity

4. The Issue Assumptions regarding: Impacts of Segregation and Concentration A specific role for Housing Housing MixSocial Mix Integration Social Interaction Social Opportunity

5. Central questions 1.What are the levels of residential segregation and concentration in European cities and what role does housing play? 2.Is there a relationship between housing mix and social mix? 3.Is there a relation between these mixes and social outcome?

6. Question 1 What are the levels of residential segregation and concentration in European cities and what role does housing play? Is there an urgent reason for mix?

7. What kind of segregation and concentration? Ethnic (concentration area, ethnic neighbourhood, ghettos, levels of mix) Socio-economic (income mixed areas, gold coasts, poverty ghettos) Demographic (lifestyle areas, lifestyle mixed areas) Here focus on ethnic and social

8. Index of Segregation Ethnic Minorities 8 EU countries 20 cities index (0-100 = low-high segregation)

9. An example: ethnic concentrations in Amsterdam and the Amsterdam metropolitan region

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

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

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

13. ‘Ghetto’? 2004 > 60% In concentrations: 65% Of all Surinamese: 0.6%

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

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

16. Ethnic concentrations are unstable 1994-2004 change relative to 1994; Turkish concentrations in Amsterdam

17. Moroccans 2004 1973

18. Associations between housing and ethnic concentrations

19. ‘non-western’ and social housing in Amsterdam, 2004 > 4sd above the mean > 51.5% non-western (blue) > 90.0% soc-housing (yellow)

20. LA Blacks, all in private housing

21. South Mediterranean in Brussels, most in private residual housing

22. In short: Ethnic segregation levels in EU cities vary substantially Ethnic concentrations are unstable Ethnic concentrations are not tenure unique Most ethnic minorities do not live in ethnic concentrations Ethnic concentrations require explanations at State, City, and Group level

23. Levels Index of Segregation Socio- Economic Categories

24. Social Mix is Common Income distribution of the richest (zuid, left) and poorest (westerpark, right) urban districts of Amsterdam, quintiles, 1996 richestpoorest

25. In short: Socio-spatial segregation is higher for higher social classes than for lower classes Many ‘lower social class’ neighbourhoods are very mixed already Social segregation requires explanations at State, City, and Group level

26. Theories of segregation and concentration Globalisation Economic restructuring Cultural (language, religion, discrimination, identity, level of acceptance of inequality, tolerance towards difference, eagerness to ‘enforce’ integration) Welfare regime - Benefit systems for unemployed, elderly and disabled - Education - Access to housing - Labour market access- Housing benefits - Health care systems - Income redistribution Historic social, economic and cultural urban paths Political attitudes towards diversity (ideas regarding assimilation; multiculturalism and mix)

27. Relevant scales for understanding segregation Global: globalisation and economic restructuring State: welfare regimes; policies towards segregation and ‘models’ of integration City: urban histories; path dependency Group: attitudes and identities; inter- generational differences

28. Question 2 Is there a relationship between housing mix and social mix?

29. Sweden (with Andersson) Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities (Urban Affairs Review 2005)

30. Data available Swedish longitudinal data 1991-1995-1999 > 5.5 million cases Focus on 16-65 year old Neighbourhood characteristics for 9,200 SAMS areas (housing mix, social mix, ethnic mix) Social opportunities: measured through change from unemployment to employment

31. Key-variables Housing mix: from absolutely homogeneous to highly heterogeneous (mixed) (9 types, entropy measures) Social mix: clusters on the basis of scores in three 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

32. Some findings on housing mix and social mix/ethnic mix General: housing mix and social mix association is not very strong Same holds for housing mix and ethnic mix (see next figure) ~25% of homogeneous housing areas are relatively homogeneous low income areas ~20% of the most heterogeneous housing areas are homogeneous low income areas

33. Soc.economic and ethnic clusters; DNA per housing mix type

34. Additional findings on housing mix and social mix Homogeneous and heterogeneous areas in terms of housing mix type are different in terms of social and ethnic compositions, but the difference is not clear cut; in both types a large share of low- income households and non-Swedes can be found Many heterogeneous housing areas have a homogeneous social profile There is no clear relation between housing mix and social mix

35. Question 3 Is there a relation between housing mix, social mix and social outcome?

36. Positive Perhaps helpful interaction between different groups and stronger social networks Positive socialisation Less stereotyping Negative More difficult interaction and conflict House value reduction Expected effects of Mix

37. Sweden (Musterd & Andersson - Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities Urban Affairs Review 2005 )

38. Some findings regarding impact of mix on social opportunity In highly socially mixed areas the lowest share of people that stays employed is found in both physically homogeneous and heterogeneous areas For homogeneous low income areas a similar conclusion can be drawn There are clear effects of education and of being a non-Swedish

39. Perc. individual staying employed in 91,95,99 in various social and housing environments per educational attainment level 91-95 Mixed lowHighly mixedMixed highHomogeneous lowHomogeneous high social physical education

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

41. The Netherlands (Musterd & Ostendorf in Housing Studies, 2001, 2003)

42. Some 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

43. Households that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter % weak households in the environment in 1989 No. of householdsRelative to all households not belonging to pensioners 0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 10 10 – 12 12 – 14 14 – 16 16 – 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 50 – 75 75 – 100 total 760 3603 6751 8485 9139 9212 8940 8638 13366 21777 7654 667 380 464 99836 47.7 57.2 59.2 60.0 60.6 61.1 61.5 60.7 61.8 62.5 64.3 70.6 97.8 99.6 62.0

44. Households that in 1989 had at least one paid job and in 1994 lived on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter % weak households in the environment in 1989 No. of householdsRelative to all households not belonging to pensioners 0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 10 10 – 12 12 – 14 14 – 16 16 – 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 50 – 75 75 – 100 Total 61603 112071 121544 107966 86573 69301 53045 41713 53510 57997 13583 762 217 90 779975 6,0 7,0 7,9 8,9 10,2 11,3 12,4 13,5 14,7 19,0 24,7 24,5 22,1 35,5 10.8

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

46. Various households Households 1989N. of householdsbenefits only 1994 Benefits only All134,99363.5 Urban32,64563.3 Single34,96783.0 Non-movers86,85070.3 At least a paid job All1,247,6849.9 Urban119,67016.6 Single54,82316.2 Non-movers802,0688.4

47. Households in the three big cities that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter % weak households in the environment in 1989 No. of householdsRelative to all households not belonging to pensioners 0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 10 10 – 12 12 – 14 14 – 16 16 – 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 Total 19 118 385 565 992 1402 1722 2337 4738 12832 5639 471 31220 51,6 60,0 60,5 58,5 61,2 61,7 65,2 62,3 62,4 63,1 65,4 62,8 63.3

48. Single person households that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter % weak households in the environment in 1989 No. of householdsRelative to all households not belonging to pensioners 0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 10 10 – 12 12 – 14 14 – 16 16 – 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 50 – 75 75 – 100 Total 92 626 1436 1945 2086 2226 2285 2204 3471 6134 1966 196 276 347 25290 77,7 81,8 82,6 82,4 81,5 79,6 80,2 79,2 79,6 76,3 76,8 82,6 99,4 100,0 79.9

49. Other evidence (Andersson, Musterd, Galster & Kauppinen) Employment, social mobility and neighbourhood effects (International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2006) Are ethnic clusters good or bad? (under review) What mix matters? (under review)

50. 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

51. Some additional findings based on these studies Neighbourhood effects occur in both contexts; stronger effects in Sweden (through different state interventions?) Improved education during downturn removes neighbourhood effect Own group ethnic concentrations can initially pay dividends for immigrants, but these benefits turn into disadvantages over time The impact of other immigrants is positive only if unemployment levels are very low

52. Implications for Urban Policy Segregation is influenced by global, national, local and group level processes; so, more than housing Most immigrants do not live in ethnic concentrations: do not treat them as one group Concentrations are unstable; this may be regarded positively Many areas already are socially mixed Housing mix and social mix do not relate strongly In the Netherlands neighbourhood effects may have been reduced already through other policies Do not automatically go for more mix as an instrument for enhancing integration or social opportunity

53. Sako Musterd Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies Universiteit van Amsterdam