Presentation on theme: "Segregation, Integration and Neighbourhood Effects Debates and Analyses Sako Musterd University of Amsterdam University of Manchester CCSR Seminar June."— Presentation transcript:
Segregation, Integration and Neighbourhood Effects Debates and Analyses Sako Musterd University of Amsterdam University of Manchester CCSR Seminar June 3, 2008
Central questions A.Debates: what are the prevailing ideologies, perceptions, assumptions and policy responses regarding segregation and its potential (neighbourhood) effects? B.Analyses: to what extent are these perceptions, etc. informed by theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence?
Outline (debates and analyses) 1.Key concepts and prevailing ideologies and perceptions 2.Theories on segregation and concentration 3.Theories on neighbourhood effects 4.Segregation and concentration; levels and dynamics 5.Segregation and neighbourhood effects 6.Implications for urban policies A B
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 1 Key concepts and prevailing ideologies and perceptions
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)
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
2 Theories 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
3 Theories on neighbourhood effects (theories on segregation effects) Socialisation processes (role models) Social networks (communication) Stigmatisation Spatial mismatch
4 empirical findings 1.Key concepts and prevailing ideologies and perceptions 2.Theories on segregation and concentration 3.Theories on neighbourhood effects 4.Segregation and concentration; levels and dynamics 5.Segregation and neighbourhood effects 6.Implications for urban policies A B
4 Levels of ethnic segregation: most segregated groups per city 12 EU countries 24 cities 0-100 : low-high segregation
4 Levels of ethnic segregation; impact of area-size (index 0-100 = low-high segregation)
Levels of ethnic segregation: group comparison index (0-100 = low-high segregation) UK Netherlands
Levels of ethnic segregation: group comparison index (0-100 = low-high segregation) Spain Portugal Italy
4 Segregation levels and dynamics in some Dutch cities (ethnic) increasing/stable; decreasing; decreasing
Amsterdam region, non-western, 2000 > 4sd above the mean > 48% In concentrations: 63% Of all non-western: 50%
Amsterdam region, non-western, 2004 > 4sd above the mean > 51.5% In concentrations: 66% Of all non-western: 49%
Ethnic concentrations are unstable 1994-2004 change relative to 1994; Turkish concentrations in Amsterdam
Ethnic concentrations are unstable 1994-2004 change relative to 1994; Moroccan concentrations in Amsterdam
Ethnic concentrations are unstable 1994-2004 growth rates in concentrations relative to the expected growth on the basis of the development in Amsterdam as a whole
4. Levels Index of Segregation Socio- Economic Categories
4. Segregation levels (socio- economic) in some Dutch cities
Social Mix is Common Income distribution of the richest (zuid, left) and poorest (westerpark, right) urban districts of Amsterdam, quintiles, 1996 richestpoorest
Social Mix is Common Income distribution of the poorest neighbourhoods in the three largest Dutch cities, 2000 Source: Pinkster 2006
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
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
a. Longitudinal studies in The Netherlands: Does Neighbourhood Matter? Impact of social composition of 500 x 500 m environments on individuals 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.
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
Neighbourhood effects on socially weaker and socially stronger individuals in The Netherlands; percentages relative to households not belonging to pensioners.
b. Longitudinal studies in Sweden: Does Neighbourhood Matter? Impact of social composition of 500 x 500m environments on individuals 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.
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
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
c. Longitudinal studies in Sweden: Does Neighbourhood Matter? Impact of social and physical composition of 9,200 SAMS environments on individuals 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.
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
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
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
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
Perc. individuals staying employed in 91,95,99 living in a poor refugee area per country of origin, per educational attainment level 91-95
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 individuals incomes and different measures of their neighbourhood contexts. Housing Studies 22 (5), pp. 637-660.
Findings The share of adult males with earnings in the lowest 3 income deciles in 1995 holds greatest explanatory power for the later income earned, after controlling for: personal characteristics that can vary over time (e.g. marital or fertility status, educational attainment) personal characteristics that do not vary after 1995 (e.g., year and country of birth, experiences prior to 1995) municipality of residence in 1995 characteristics of local labour market(s) in which individual resides in 1995 and 1999 (e.g., mean earnings)
e. Longitudinal studies in Sweden: Are ethnic enclaves good or bad? Multiple measures of immigrant environments For 1995-2002, residing in one of the three big Swedish metropolitan areas in at least one of the years 1995, 1999, 2002 Seven immigrant ethnic groups Musterd, S., R. Andersson, G. Galster & T. Kauppinen (2008) Are Immigrants Earnings Influenced by the Characteristics of their Neighbours? Environment and Planning A, pp. 785-805.
Findings Own group ethnic concentrations can initially pay dividends for immigrants, but these benefits turn into disadvantages over time, after approx. two years The impact of other immigrants is positive only if unemployment levels are very low
f. Longitudinal studies in Sweden: Does neighbourhood income mix affect earnings of adults? Controls for omitted variable bias Controls for selection bias Differences equations 1991-1995 and 1996-1999 Galster, G., R. Andersson, S. Musterd and T. Kauppinen (2008) Does neighbourhood income mix affect earnings of adults? Journal of Urban Economics 63, pp. 858-870
Findings Males not employed full time benefit from middle-income neighbours and not from either high- or low-income neighbours. Full-time employed males benefit from high-income neighbours Even in comprehensive welfare states role models and interpersonal networks shape economic opportunities
g. Longitudinal studies in Sweden: What Scale Matters? Different spatial scales were compared 100m x 100m SAMS Municipality Metropolitan region Multi-level modelling for 1995-2002 Andersson, R. & S. Musterd (fc) What Scale Matters? problematizing scale in neighbourhood effect studies. Under review.
Findings Large impacts of environments on earnings at smallest scale (100x100m) Low income environments have largest impacts Share of unemployed in the neighbourhood has most impact at slightly higher level (SAMS)
Conclusions Segregation is a strong process driven by objectives to translate social inequality and lifestyle differences into spatial inequality Segregation is influenced by global, national, local and group level processes Moderate effects for weakest households in the Netherlands, but stronger effects for stronger households Clear effects of neighbourhood compositions in Swedish contexts Many problematic neighbourhoods are mixed already Housing mix and social mix are not 1-1 related
6 Implications for Urban Policy Social mix (if carefully targeted) may contribute to personal economic success But may be difficult to obtain. –Spatial dispersal: discrimination –Forced mix in meritocratic societies is difficult; contra residential choice and lifestyle homogeneity preferences –Mixed housing policies may be counter-productive when stronger households move away
Other strategies to consider Combating stigmatisation through direct interventions in stigmatised areas Improve integration by rising the level of education of all individual residents (not via ABIs) Improve integration by assisting all unemployed residents in getting a full-time job (not via ABIs) Finally Judgment of integration requires process studies and detailed analysis of the type of association (linear, non-linear relations; thresholds; multilevel)
Sako Musterd Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies University of Amsterdam