housing mix and social mix: does it matter? sako musterd urban geography universiteit van amsterdam
Post on 20-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Housing Mix and Social Mix: Does it Matter?
Sako Musterd
Urban Geography
Universiteit van Amsterdam
The Issue
Housing Mix Social Mix
The Issue
Housing Mix Social Mix
IntegrationSocial InteractionSocial Opportunity
The Issue Assumptions regarding:
• Impacts of Segregation and Concentration• A specific role for Housing
Housing Mix Social Mix
IntegrationSocial InteractionSocial Opportunity
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?
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?
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
Index of SegregationEthnic Minorities
8 EU countries 20 cities
index (0-100 = low-high segregation)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Paris Portugese Dept. 75Frankfurt TurksMilan non-Italian
Frankfurt AmericansParis Algerians Dept. 75
Lille non-FrenchRotterdam Surinamese
Oslo 3rd w orld immigrantsDüsseldorf Turks
Leicester Black CaribbeanVienna Foreigners
Amsterdam SurinameseBirmingham Black AfricanOldham Black Caribbean
Bradford Black CaribbeanAmsterdam Moroccans
Amsterdam Turks 93 neighb.Amsterdam Turks metro areaBirmingham Black Caribbean
Rotterdam MoroccansLondon Black Caribbean
Leicester PakistaniLondon PakistaniRotterdam Turks
Manchester PakistaniBristol Black Caribbean
Stockholm Iranian 14 mun.Brussels MoroccanBradford Pakistani
Bristol PakistaniLondon Bangladeshi
Manchester BangladeshiBirmingham Pakistani
Birmingham BangladeshiAntw erp N. African, Bosnian, metro
Bradford BangladeshiLeicester Bangladeshi
London Bangladeshi EDOldham Bangladeshi
Oldham PakistaniBirmingham Bangladeshi ED
USA large cities Blacks
An example: ethnic concentrations in Amsterdam and the Amsterdam metropolitan region
ConcentrationAmsterdam Surinamese 2004> 2sd above the mean> 19.8%In concentrations: 33%Of all Surinamese: 38%
These figures were the same in
1994!
Strong concentrationAmsterdam Surinamese 2004> 4sd above the mean> 27.8%In concentrations: 38%Of all Surinamese: 31%
These figures were the same in
1994!
Ethnic neighbourhoodAmsterdam Surinamese 2004 > 50%In concentrations: 57%Of all Surinamese: 2.9%
‘Ghetto’?2004> 60%In concentrations: 65%Of all Surinamese: 0.6%
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
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sur
inam
ese
Ant
illia
ns
Tur
ks
Mor
occa
ns
Sou
ther
nE
urop
ean
Non
-in
dust
rialis
ed
Indu
stria
lised
Dut
ch All
Migration balance Birth balance
Moroccans 2004
1973
Associations between housing and ethnic concentrations
‘non-western’ and social housing in Amsterdam, 2004
> 4sd above the mean> 51.5% non-western (blue)> 90.0% soc-housing (yellow)
LA Blacks, all in private housing
South Mediterranean
in Brussels, most in private
residual housing
Bron: N.I.S. volkstelling 1991KU Leuven kaartmateriaal
Zuid-Mediterranen in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, 1991.
Tot de categorie Zuid-Mediterranen worden Turken (21182), Marokkanen (77409), Algerijnen (2353) en Tunesiërs (2895) gerekend. Samen vormen zij 10,9% van de bevolking.
Percentage Zuid-Mediterranen.702 wijken.
37,4 - 68,3 (39)24,2 - 37,3 (38)10,9 - 24,2 (49)0,0 - 10,9 (461)
minder dan 250 inwoners. (115)
3 km
Grote Markt
Schaarbeek
St-Joost-ten-Node
Anderlecht
St-Jans-Molenbeek
Brussel
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
Levels
Index of SegregationSocio-Economic Categories
0 10 20 30 40 50
Copenhagen 1st quintile
Amsterdam 1st quintile metro
Bern unemployed
Berlin hh income < € 900
Birmingham income support
Milan blue collar w orkers
Manchester income support
Manchester unemployed
Amsterdam 1st quintile
Berlin hh income > € 3500
Lille unemployed vs employed
Rotterdam 1st quintile
Amsterdam 5th quintile metro
Oslo social assistance
Birmingham unemployed
Leeds unemployed
Sheffield unemployed
Milan professionals
Copenhagen 10th decile
Amsterdam 5th quintile
Rotterdam 5th quintile
USA Portland OR MSA poor
Antw erp 'poor'
USA 100 largest cities poor
USA Rochester NY MSA poor
Social Mix is CommonIncome distribution of the richest (zuid, left) and poorest (westerpark, right) urban districts
of Amsterdam, quintiles, 1996
1st
15%
2nd
18%
3rd
18%
4th
21%
5th
28%
1st20%
2nd31%
3rd23%
4th17%
5th9%
richest poorest
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
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)
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
Question 2
Is there a relationship between housing mix and social mix?
Sweden (with Andersson)
• Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities (Urban Affairs Review 2005)
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
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
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
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ab
solu
tely
ho
mo
ge
ne
ou
s
rela
tive
lyh
om
og
en
eo
us
ave
rag
eh
om
og
eo
us
ave
rag
eh
ete
rog
en
eo
us
rela
tive
lyh
ete
rog
en
eo
us
Tota
l
low inc. high ethnic mix above avgrefugee
sparsely populated swedish
poor refugee
sparsely populated refugee
income and ethnic mix above avgrefugee
mixed low income refugee
low income swedish
rich ethnic mixed non-refugee
mixed low income non-refugee
income and ethnic mixed non-refugee
Soc.economic and ethnic clusters; DNA per housing mix type
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
Question 3
Is there a relation between housing mix, social mix and social outcome?
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
Sweden(Musterd & Andersson - Housing mix, social
mix and social opportunities Urban Affairs Review 2005 )
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
Perc. individual staying employed in 91,95,99 in various social and housing environments
per educational attainment level 91-95
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
ho
mo
ge
ne
ou
s
he
tero
ge
ne
ou
s
ho
mo
ge
ne
ou
s
he
tero
ge
ne
ou
s
ho
mo
ge
ne
ou
s
he
tero
ge
ne
ou
s
ho
mo
ge
ne
ou
s
he
tero
ge
ne
ou
s
ho
mo
ge
ne
ou
s
he
tero
ge
ne
ou
s
all low stable medium medium high high
Mixed lowHighly mixed Mixed high Homogeneous low Homogeneous high
social
physical
education
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
low
sta
ble
med
ium
1
med
ium
2
high
(15+
)
low
sta
ble
med
ium
1
med
ium
2
high
(15+
)
low
sta
ble
med
ium
1
med
ium
2
high
(15+
)
low
sta
ble
med
ium
1
med
ium
2
high
(15+
)
entirely swedish swedish one parentforeign
swedish bothparents foreign
not swedish bothparents foreign
% e
mpl
oyed
91,
95,
99
Perc. individuals staying employed in 91,95,99 living in a poor refugee area per country of origin, per
educational attainment level 91-95
The Netherlands
(Musterd & Ostendorf in Housing Studies, 2001, 2003)
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
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 households Relative to all households not belonging to pensioners
0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 1010 – 1212 – 1414 – 1616 – 2020 – 3030 – 4040 – 5050 – 7575 – 100
total
7603603675184859139921289408638
1336621777
7654667380464
99836
47.757.259.260.060.661.161.560.761.862.564.370.697.899.6
62.0
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 households Relative to all households not belonging to pensioners
0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 1010 – 1212 – 1414 – 1616 – 2020 – 3030 – 4040 – 5050 – 7575 – 100
Total
61603112071121544107966
86573693015304541713535105799713583
762217
90
779975
6,07,07,98,9
10,211,312,413,514,719,024,724,522,135,5
10.8
Neighbourhood effects on ‘socially weaker’ and ‘socially stronger’ individuals in The Netherlands; percentages relative to households not belonging to pensioners.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 – 2
2 – 4
4 – 6
6 – 8
8 – 10
10 – 12
12 – 14
14 – 16
16 – 20
20 – 30
30 – 40
% on benefits in the environment 1989
%benefits in 1989 and1994
paid job in 1989, benefitsin 1994
Various householdsHouseholds 1989 N. of households benefits only 1994
Benefits only
All 134,993 63.5
Urban 32,645 63.3
Single 34,967 83.0
Non-movers 86,850 70.3
At least a paid job
All 1,247,684 9.9
Urban 119,670 16.6
Single 54,823 16.2
Non-movers 802,068 8.4
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 households Relative to all households not belonging to pensioners
0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 1010 – 1212 – 1414 – 1616 – 2020 – 3030 – 4040 – 50
Total
19118385565992
1402172223374738
128325639
471
31220
51,660,060,558,561,261,765,262,362,463,165,462,8
63.3
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 households Relative to all households not belonging to pensioners
0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 1010 – 1212 – 1414 – 1616 – 2020 – 3030 – 4040 – 5050 – 7575 – 100 Total
92626
143619452086222622852204347161341966
196276347
25290
77,781,882,682,481,579,680,279,279,676,376,882,699,4
100,0
79.9
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)
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
0
20
40
60
80
0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16
% unemployed in the environment 1991
%
low stable (<=10yrs)
medium stable (11-12yrs)
medium high stable(13-14 yrs)
high (15+)
upward
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
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
Sako Musterd
Department of Geography, Planning and International Development StudiesUniversiteit van Amsterdam
top related