immigrant residential geographies and the “spatial assimilation

Working Paper Series

Series editor: Linda Sheldon, SFU;Krishna Pendakur, SFU and Daniel Hiebert, UBC, Co-directors

No. 08 - 07

September 2008

Immigrant Residential Geographies and the “Spatial

Assimilation” Debate in Canada, 1997 – 2006

Pablo Mendez

Metropolis British Columbia

Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Diversity

MBC is supported as part of the Metropolis Project, a national strategic initiative funded by SSHRC and the following organizations of the federal government:

• AtlanticCanadaOpportunitiesAgency(ACOA) • CanadaBorderServicesAgency • CanadaEconomicDevelopmentfortheRegionsofQuebec(CED-Q) • CanadaMortgageandHousingCorporation(CMHC) • CanadianHeritage(PCH) • CitizenshipandImmigrationCanada(CIC) • FederalEconomicDevelopmentInitiativeforNorthernOntario(FedNor) • HumanResourcesandSocialDevelopmentCanada(HRSD) • DepartmentofJusticeCanada • PublicHealthAgencyofCanada(PHAC) • PublicSafetyandCanada(PSC) • RoyalCanadianMountedPolice(RCMP) • TheRuralSecretariatofAgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada(RuralSec’t) • StatisticsCanada(StatsCan)

MetropolisBCalsoreceivesfundingfromtheMinistryofAdvancedEducationandLabourMarketDevelopment(ALMD)oftheGovernmentofBritishCo-lumbia.GrantsfromSimonFraserUniversity,theUniversityofBritishColum-biaandtheUniversityofVictoriaprovideadditionalsupporttotheCentre.

Viewsexpressedinthismanuscriptarethoseoftheauthor(s)alone.Formoreinformation,contacttheCo-directorsoftheCentre,KrishnaPendakur,DepartmentofEconomics,SFU([email protected])andDanielHiebert,De-partmentofGeography,UBC([email protected]).

3

Table of ConTenTs

absTraCT 4

InTroduCTIon 5

The 1991 Census and The ConTInuIng valIdITy of The “up and ouT” model 9

TheunderclassthesisinCanada 1• 1Testingthevalidityofthe“upandout”modelusingthe1991census 1• 3

The Census In 1996 and 2001: an empIrICal basIs for an adjusTed model? 17

Towardsabifurcatedmodelofsocio-spatialmobility 2• 0

a noTe on meThodology 24

ConClusIon 27

Works CITed 30

Working Paper Series

4

ImmIgrant resIdentIal geographIes and the “spatIal assImIlatIon” debate In Canada, 1997 – 20061

Pablo Mendez

Department of Geography, University of British Columbia

absTraCT

Thispaperdiscussesresearchpublishedbetween1997and2006onthe

residential separateness of immigrants and ethnic and visible minority groups

inCanadianmetropolitancentres.Specifically,itreviewsfindingsandconclu-

sions that relate to the ongoing debate over the validity of the assimilationist

perspective assumptions regarding the typical social and spatial trajectory of

newcomers.ACanadianimmigrantunderclassthesisisgenerallyrejected,but

some evidence emerges to suggest a potential bifurcation of the assumed pat-

ternofsocio-spatialmobility.Thetraditionalassumptionswouldholdformost

groups,yetsignificantexceptionswouldjustifyanalterationofthemodel,es-

sentially de-linking social from spatial mobility in the case of certain groups.

Methodological considerations underlying this proposition are discussed.

1ArevisedversionofthisworkingpaperhasbeensubmittedforpublicationtotheJournalofInternationalMigrationandIntegration.

MBC: Immigrant Residential Geographies 5

InTroduCTIon

Overthenextfewmonths,datafromthe2006censuswillstartto

make its way into the statistical analysis laboratories of Canadian

universities.ThedynamismthathascometocharacteriseCanadian

metropolitanhousingmarketsoverthepastfiveyearssuggeststhatsignifi-

cant changes in neighbourhood composition have taken place since the col-

lectionofthe2001census,especially inthenation’s largesturbancentres.

Due to their importance as locations of settlement for the vast majority of

immigrants, such cities––and their dramatic transformation––are evidently

ofgreat interest tomigration scholars. It is very likely thatwithaccess to

these new data, researchers will turn their attention once again to location

quotients and indices of dissimilarity, in the hopes of shedding new light on

theongoingtrajectoriesofimmigrantsocio-spatialdistributionandmobility.It

seems therefore that we have reached an appropriate time to review the state

ofthe“spatialassimilation”debateinitsCanadianmodality,particularlyasit

has evolved over the past ten years.

Bothinsideandoutsideacademia,thesocialandspatialmobilityofNorth

America’shighlydiverseandrapidlygrowingimmigrantpopulationhasbeen

thesourceofconsiderabledebate.Anincreasinglycontestedbutstillwidely

held assumption––which some even view as an expectation––is that over time

the attitudes and practices of immigrants, including their residential location

behaviour, become similar to those of the typical member of the receiving

society. This “assimilationist perspective” has a long history in the social

sciences.Inthe1920sand1930s,followingamassivewaveofimmigrationto

the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, scholars associated with

the Chicago School of Urban Sociology pioneered research on the socio-spatial

6 MBC:Immigrant Residential Geographies

patternsofimmigrantassimilation(Parketal.1967).Theirinnovativework

sought to document the widespread incidence of residential congregation by

newcomers––predominantlyofEuropeanorigins,mostofthemimpoverished–

–in inner city neighbourhoods and the consistent pattern of relocation to the

relativelyaffluentsuburbsoflong-establishedresidents,whichtheyfamously

attributed to a process of integration into mainstream US culture.

TheChicagoSchoolstudieswerepremisedonthenotionthatastrong

association exists between the social and physical distances separating

new and established groups in American cities. This view continues to be

tremendouslyinfluential,butitisnolongerheldasuniversallytrue,andboth

the assimilation thesis and the theoretical relationship that underwrites it

have for quite some time been contested in the US literature on residential

segregation (Gordon 1964, cited inHiebert and Ley 2003; see also Logan

etal.2002,MasseyandDenton1993,Wilson1987).Theresultingdebate,

fuelledempiricallybygrowinginequalityinAmericanurbancentres,continues

to generate a considerable amount of research.

Asonewouldexpect,Canada’simmigrationphenomenonhasnotfailed

to generate its own substantive body of research on the evolving situation

of newcomers and their impact on the societies that preceded their arrival.

Overthepasttenyearsalone,geographers,sociologists,demographersand

economists have produced more than 30 monographs, journal articles, books

and book chapters addressing recent patterns of residential distribution among

immigrants and visible minority groups in Canadian metropolitan centres.

Theseresearchersdonotnecessarilysituatetheirworkexplicitlywithinthe

assimilationthesisdebate;infact,theirstudiesvarysignificantlyintermsof

stated motivations, and are designed to address a wide array of theoretical

andempiricalquestions.For this reason,findingsarediverseandat times

MBC: Immigrant Residential Geographies7

inconsistentbetweenstudies,makingitdifficulttoprovideacomprehensive

synthesis of such a broad body of work.

Nonetheless,adefiningfeatureofthisrecentliteratureisthepredilection

for research methods and assumptions typically associated with assimilationist

perspective scholarship.1 Indeed, the assimilation debate looms large over

both the integrationist and the cultural pluralistic interpretations of Canadian

multiculturalism.Consequently,athemethatunifiesmanyoftheliterature’s

findingsandconclusionsisanevaluationofhowwellthespatialassimilation

thesis describes the residential patterns of immigrants and visible minority

groupsinCanada.Inthispaper,Iapproachthemultipleandcomplexviewson

this question as the basis for a report on the progress of Canadian research on

thistopic,basedonscholarshippublishedbetween1997and2006.

PreviousreviewsoftheCanadianliterature(Beavis1995,Drieger1999,

FongandShibuya2005,Smith1998)havegroupedtogetherstudiesset in

CanadaandtheUS––andinsomecasesevenEuropeandAustralia.Butthereare

several reasons for limiting this paper to research on the Canadian metropolitan

context.AfirstconsiderationisthevastamountofEnglishlanguagematerial

thathasbeenpublishedonthistopicsincetheearly1990s,andtheneedto

limit what can be productively reviewed given journal space limitations. A

second consideration refers to the already mentioned fact that starting in the

mid-1990s,Canadianresearchonthetopicdisplayedaremarkablesurgein

interest, and this has generated an adequate amount of material to warrant

such a nationally bounded effort.2Thirdly,anadditionalincentivetorestrict

the number of studies to review comes from recognition of the particularities

ofnationalcontextsandtheheterogeneityoflocallyspecificfindings.

1Theterm“integration”ispreferredinCanadaover“assimilation”withinbothpolicyandacademiccircles,with the exception of economists who freely make use of the latter term when measuring the proximity of immigrant earnings to the Canadian norm.

2SeeHiebert(1999)foranalysisofthereasonsbehindtherenewedacademicattractiontothistopic.

8 MBC:Immigrant Residential Geographies

Yet a final and very important consideration in defining the scope of

this paper is my interest in disentangling the factual socio-spatial situation of

immigrantsinCanadiancitiesfromthepervasiveandinfluential imageryof

theUSghetto.AsIshowinthefollowingpages,thetestingofahomegrown

“underclass” thesis,modelled on the vastAmerican literaturedocumenting

theplightofimpoverishedAfricanAmericansandHispanicsinlargeUScities

(e.g.,Auletta1982,MasseyandDenton1993,Myrdal1963,Wilson1987),

hasproved tobea recurring theme formanyCanadian researchers.While

I recognise the importanceof comparativeworkand thepotentialvalueof

testingtheoriesdevelopedindifferentnationalcontexts,Ialsosympathisewith

MichaelGoldbergandJohnMercer’s“distress”arisingfrom“theindiscriminate

applicationofAmerican-basedideasaboutcitiesandurbanpolicytoaCanadian

setting….”(1983:xv).Ifitistruethatgeographicalproximityandagrowing

degree of transnational interaction with the US produce social and cultural

similarities between the two countries, there are also important distinctions

and particularities that result from historical differences in value systems and

institutionalstructures.ByfocusingexclusivelyonCanadianresearch,Iseek

to emphasise the distinctiveness of Canadian cities as settings of immigrant

settlement.

Myattentiontodifferenceandparticularityechoesadefiningfeatureof

muchoftheliteraturethatIreviewinthispaper.AsDavidLeyandHeather

Smith(2000:59)show,“Thereisnosuchpersonastheaverageimmigrant

[inCanada]”,andmanyofthestudiesIdiscusstakecareofdisaggregating

the immigrant and visible minority categories into population group

subcategories,immigrationadmissionclasses,entrycohorts,andsoon.The


result is a high level of heterogeneity in terms of group characteristics and

settlementoutcomes,butalso in termsof researchmethodsandfindings.3

In order to give some coherence to what could easily turn into a chaotic

massofdisjointedinformation,thefirsttwosectionsofthisreviewadopta

chronological approach to presenting results and conclusions that speak to

theassimilationthesisdebate.Morespecifically,Istructurethefirstsection

aroundacollectionofstudiesthatrelyoncross-sectionaldatauptothe1991

census, while the second section focuses on studies conducted with data from

the1996and2001censusesresults.AsIwillargue,resultsfromthe1996

and2001censuseshaveusheredinthepossibilityofanempiricallysupported

re-framing of the socio-spatial assimilation thesis. Because of this empirical

focus,afinalsectionwilladdresstherolethatmethodologicalissuesplayin

shaping this fascinating and rapidly evolving debate.

The 1991 Census and The ConTInuIng valIdITy of The “up and ouT” model

The expectation that newcomer groupswill shed their traditions and

cultural attachments in exchange for those of the host society has in recent

yearslostfavourinCanada.Inturn,thelanguageof“assimilation”thatused

toaccompanysuchviewshasgivenwaytothetwinnotionsof“integration”

and “cultural pluralism” (Hiebert and Ley 2003). The notion of integration

is meant to represent a two-way adjustment process between immigrant

groups and long-established residents, culminating in the creation of a new

multicultural society, while cultural pluralism refers to the cohabitation of

multiple autonomous groups without coalescing into one single, normative

3Forexample,Fong(1997)showsthatethnoculturalgroupsdisplaydifferentpropensitiestocluster.Inturn,Lo andWang (1997) found that thewell-documented residential concentration of Chinese householdsimplies a level of geographical convergence that actually overshadows the high degree of separateness betweensomeChinesesubgroups,aphenomenonthatcanonlybemeasuredifthe‘Chinese’categoryisdisaggregatedbycountryoforigin.Theauthorsalsofoundthatthisunevenresidentialdistributionap-peared to vary according to socio-economic and length of stay differences between subgroups.

10 MBC: Immigrant Residential Geographies

cultural environment.

Thereisacertainamountofdisagreementoverwhichofthesenotions

provides a better description of the contemporary socio-spatial trajectories of

immigrantandvisibleminoritygroupsinurbanCanada.Inmanyways,this

debate resembles itsAmericanassimilation counterpart.A centralquestion

raised by the Canadian integrationist and the US assimilationist perspectives

alike has been whether immigrants and members of visible minority groups

experiencing same-group residential concentration tend to disperse as their

socio-economicconditionbeginstoresemblethatofthehostsociety.Inother

words, the debate centres on whether upward mobility is accompanied by

an outward move away from same-group neighbourhoods––a contemporary

variation of the so-called up and outmodelofassimilation(seeforexample

Clark1998).

For observers who sympathise with the notion of cultural pluralism, moving

outofneighbourhoodscharacterisedbysignificantconcentrationsofsame-

groupresidentsshouldnotnecessarilyberegardedasagoal.AsCeriPeach

(1996:143)observes,voluntaryethnoculturalco-locationcanbeabeneficial

practice,asit“maintainsculturalvalues,itstrengthenssocialnetworks,and

it allows the passing of critical thresholds for the support of institutions and

shops.”4 From this perspective, any observed persistence in the residential

concentrationofCanada’simmigrantgroupsmayreflectnotonly“repressive”

but also “expressive”modalities of uneven population distribution (Qadeer

2005),andadistinctionbetweenthesetwoformsisgenerallyrecognisedby

proponents of both the integration and the cultural pluralism models.

4Manyauthorsassociate“segregated”ethnicneighbourhoodswithinvoluntaryresidentialconcentration,andethnic“enclave”neighbourhoodswiththevoluntarychoicesofaninstitutionallycompleteethnicgroup.Butperhaps in recognition of the potentially blurry boundary between voluntary and involuntary practices, this typologyhasnotbeenuniversallyadopted,andsomeauthorsusetheterms“enclave”and“segregatedneighbourhood”interchangeably.


Those who favour the assimilationist perspective, however, fear that

voluntarysegregationcanleadtosocialconflictandperpetualpoverty,and

consequently to rising government expenditures related to social programs and

crimereduction(Stoffman2002,Collacott2002,bothcitedinHiebert2003).

Representing an extreme position within this camp, immigration critic Diane

Francisassertsagainstallevidencethat“Most[immigrants]liveineconomic-

ethnicghettosforgenerationsandremainmembersoftheirunderclass”(2002:

101,citedinHiebert2003),astatementthatdrawsunjustifiedparallelswith

theAmerican“cultureofpoverty”literature.

The underclass thesis in Canada

Theunderclassnotionisnotatraditionalassumptionoftheassimilationist

perspective,butasImentionedearlier,ithasgainedsubstantialgroundinthe

US literature, especiallywith regards toAfricanAmericanand Latino inner

city neighbourhoods where assimilation is seen as an answer to the spatial

concentrationofracialised/ethnicisedpoverty.InCanada,ithasbeenadopted

not only by media commentators like Francis, but by segments of the broader

publicaswell.Thishasmotivatedresearchersinrecentyearstoinvestigatethe

growing coincidence of neighbourhood deprivation and longer lasting immigrant

residentialseparatenessinCanadiancities(e.g.,Hiebert2005,Ley1999,Smith

2004).Whilethecauses,contoursandconsequencesofthisphenomenonare

complex and likely to be in constant evolution, some researchers in the late

1990sreadilyinterpreteditsdevelopmentastheformationofanAmerican-

style“underclass.”Inasurveyof16ofCanada’slargestCensusMetropolitan

Areas(CMAs)conductedusing1991censusdata,A.KazemipurandS.Halli

(1997)foundasignificantcorrelationbetweentheproportionofacensustract’s

populationlivingbelowwhattheycall“thepovertyrate”andtheproportion


thatbelongsto12ethnicgroups(outof36includedinthestudy).Theauthors

concluded that for immigrants belonging to these groups, “poverty is very

likelytobecomepersistent,extendingovergenerations,”andaddedthattheir

“extremeisolation…posesfurtherimpedimentstotheirintegrationinCanadian

society.”5UnliketheseminalresearchontheAmericanunderclassliterature

(e.g.Wilson1987),however,theirstudydoesnotexaminetheincidenceofany

othermarkersofdeprivationbesidesincome.Inaddition,theauthorsdonot

controlforimmigrants’lengthofstayinCanada,avariablethatdifferentiates

thesocio-spatialachievementsofeachimmigrantcohort(LoandWang1997,

LeyandSmith1997).AsIwilldiscuss later,methodological issuesarenot

irrelevant to the socio-spatial assimilation debate.

Inastudydesignedspecificallytotestwhethertheconditionofimmigrants

in Canada might be converging with that of an African-American urban

“underclass,”DavidLeyandHeatherSmith(1997)alsofoundanassociation

between the incidence of poverty and the degree of residential concentration of

immigrantsinCanada’sthreelargestCMAs.ThesefindingscomplementFong

andGulia’s (2000) assessment of thedifferences in neighbourhoodquality

betweengroups,astudy inwhich theauthorsconclude thatnon-European

groupstendtoliveinlowerqualityneighbourhoodsthanEuropean-originones,

while Blacks tend to live in neighbourhoods embedded in broader clusters of

disadvantage.LeyandSmith,however,donottakethesefindingsasevidence

ofanunderclassemerging.Comparingtheir1991resultsto1971data,they

showthatthenumberofcensustractsregisteringextremepoverty(i.e.,tracts

wheremorethan40percentofthepopulationlivedbelowStatisticsCanada’s

LowIncomeCutOffmeasure)hadinfactdecreased.Theauthorsalsoused

linear regression analysis to examine whether period of arrival, language used

5SeealsoKazemipurandHalli(2000).


at home, and country of origin played a role on the observed co-location of

poverty and immigrant settlement. They found that the first two variables

were generally more important than the last one, suggesting that in general,

immigrants continued to follow an “up” (socio-economically) and “out” (of

povertytracts)trajectoryovertime,aspredictedbytheassimilationthesis.6

Testing the validity of the “up and out” model using the 1991 census

Ina second study, LeyandSmith (2000)expanded their analysis to

include multiple indicators of deprivation besides income, citing in particular

the US underclass literature that defines ghettos in terms of a persisting

manifestationofmultipledimensionsofdeprivation(Hughes1990andRicketts

andSawhill1988,citedinLeyandSmith2000;seealsoWilson1987).Ley

and Smith found that in 1991, only two tracts in all of Montreal, Toronto

and Vancouver were affected by the presence of all indicators, and only a

moderate-to-low positive relationship existed between multiple deprivation

factorsandnon-Europeanimmigrantlocation.Onceagain,theirfindingsdid

notsupportaCanadianunderclassthesis.Theauthorsalsofoundthatbetween

1971and1991,thedominantimmigrantexperiencewasoneofsocio-spatial

mobility rather than entrapment, although exceptions did exist. Recognising

that the causes behind these exceptions are complex, the authors concluded

that such cases are most likely linked to adverse socio-economic factors rather

thantovisibleminoritystatus,andinanycaseconfirmthewidelyrecognised

heterogeneity of immigrant populations.

Inaseparateefforttoassesstherelationshipbetweensocialisolation

6Thisconclusiondoesnot implyanassimilationistpositiononthepartoftheauthors.AsHiebert and Ley explain elsewhere, the measurement of socio-spatial distance among groupsisnotnecessarilyconducted“outofanexpectationthatassimilationisinevitable,nor perhaps even desirable, but to investigate the relationship between social isolation and socio-economic exclusion. If Canadian society embracesmulticulturalism but economicpenalties exist for minority groups that maintain a social distance from the mainstream, thenthereisanunfortunategapbetweenrhetoricandreality.”(2003:19)


and socio-economic exclusion among immigrants, Daniel Hiebert and David Ley

(2003)combinedthemeasurementofimmigrantresidentialseparatenesswith

various socio-economic modalities of difference such as income, labour market

segmentation, educational attainment, degree of ethnic group in-marriage,

andlanguageattributes.Theiranalysiswasbasedoncustomtabulationsof

1991censusdataforMontreal,TorontoandVancouver.Theauthorsargued

thattheoutcomesofimmigrantsofnon-Europeanoriginandethnicityreached

levelssimilartothereceivingsocietymuchslowerthanEuropeanimmigrants,

who remainedsignificantly separatepast thefirstgeneration––anoutcome

more reflective of the expectations of cultural pluralism. Nonetheless, the

authorsarguedthatthevalidityofthetraditionalmodelwasconfirmedbythe

important role played by length of residence, as the relationship between the

variables was found to grow over time.

HiebertandLey(2003)alsofoundthatwhileeconomicmarginalityand

socio-spatialconcentrationarecorrelatedforbothimmigranttypesinthefirst

decadeafterarrival,non-Europeangroupsdisplay lower individual incomes

than their European counterparts. However, the authors show that non-

European immigrant groups soon outperformEuropean groups in terms of

household income, likely a result of income pooling strategies among groups

characterised by large household size.7 Hiebert and Ley found no evidence of

an immigrant underclass, and concluded that the assimilation model generally

provides a better description of

immigrants’trajectoriesthantheculturalpluralismthesis.

ThesethreerejectionsofthenotionofanemergingCanadianimmigrant

underclassalsofoundsupport inastudyconductedbyT.Balakrishnanand

FengHou(1999a).Comparingcensusdatafrom1981and1991forCanada’s

7SeealsoLey(1999).


seven largest CMAs, the authors examine the relationship between spatial

distributionandoccupationalattainmentamongEuropeanandnon-European

ethnic origin groups. Their analysis shows that in 1991, the latter groups

displayedhigherlevelsofcongregationthan20yearsearlier,andcontinuedto

be under-represented in higher status occupations; occupational separateness,

however, had decreased. This gulf between labour market outcomes and

geographic residential distribution is inconsistent with the underclass thesis,

and provides additional evidence against it.

But if Balakrishnan and Hou (1999a) helped settle the debate over

claimsthatanimmigrantunderclasswasemergingbetween1981and1991,

theirstudyalsoseemedtochallengethevalidityofthe“upandout”model

by suggesting that immigrants were failing to convert their socio-economic

achievements intoadispersed spatial position. Inotherwords, their study

suggested that the assumed relationship between socio-economic achievement

andresidentialmobility(notnecessarilymovementoutofpovertytractsbut

outofsame-groupneighbourhoods)wasweakeningby1991.Usingdifferent

study designs applied to 1991 census data, Eric Fong and his colleagues

reached similar conclusionswith respect to the situation of specific visible

minoritygroups(FongandShibuya2000,FongandWilkes1999,2003).For

example,FongandWilkes(2003)foundthatwithin-groupseparatenesswas

generally lowforEuropean-origingroups(regardlessof immigrantsornon-

immigrantstatus),butmoderatetyhighbetweenEuropeanandnon-European

ones.Inthefirstcase,citydemographicfactors(namelytheproportionsof

visibleminority groups in the total population of each city)were found to

have primacy, while city structural factors (specifically city unemployment

rates,theproportionofnewhousingbuilt,andcityfunctionalspecialisation)

weremore important in the case of non-European groups.Given that city


structuralfactorsare“largersocialforcesthatwillnotbeeasilyalteredinthe

near future” (599), the authors concluded, segregation between European

andnon-Europeangroupswasunlikelytoimproveintheshortterm.Inthis

respect,theirstudycastasecondshadowofdoubtoverthevalidityofthe“up

andout”model.Itisclearthattherecanbemovement“out,”butthisdoesnot

necessarily translate into a reduction in residential concentration regardless of

whethermembersofspecificgroupsgenerallymakesocio-economicgainsat

theindividuallevel,asinthecaseofChinesegroupsinRichmond(asuburbof

theVancouverCMA),oriftheyaremostlyunabletodoso,asintheexample

of South Asian groups in Surrey (another Vancouver CMA suburb). These

examples illustrate the fact that suburbanization is no longer automatically

equivalent to dispersal, which is in fact a new development that seems to have

been completely unanticipated by the assimilation model.

ThefactthatneitherBalakrishnanandHou(1999a)norFongandWilkes

(2003)controlledforcohorteffectsintheiranalysesmighthelpexplainwhy

their conclusions regarding the validity of the assimilation thesis departed from

thosereachedbyLeyandSmith(1997,2000)andHiebertandLey(2003).But

inanearlierstudybasedalsoon1991censusresults,FongandWilkes(1999)

take cohort effects into account and reach the same conclusion, refuting the

relationship between socio-economic attainment and urban dispersal in the

caseofnon-Europeanoriginimmigrantgroups.Throughregressionanalysis,

theyfindthatneighbourhoodattainment(expressedintermsofaveragehouse

price, crowding levels, percentage of residents with university education, and

percentage of unemployed residents) relates to socio-economic attainment

(measuredbyhouseholdincomelevels)butonlyinthecaseofEuropean-origin

groups.TherelationshipwasalsofoundtobreakdowninthecaseofAsian

groupsandBlacks,“evenwhenimmigrationperiodsarecontrolled.”(603)The


authors conclude that the larger ethnocultural contexts of immigrant groups

need to be taken into account when applying the spatial assimilation model–

–athemeIwillrevisitlaterinthispaper.

The Census In 1996 and 2001: an empIrICal basIs for an adjusTed model?

Annual immigration levels of over 200,000 entrants in most years

between 1991 and 2001 (Citizenship and ImmigrationCanada 2003) have

introducedimportantchangesintheCanadianurbanlandscape.Withthehelp

of census results from1996and2001, researchers continue toassess the

multiplicity of impacts that these cumulatively high levels of immigration have

had on a variety of registers. In this section of the paper, I continue the

examination of the spatial assimilation debate in the residential separateness

literature,byfocusingonstudiesthatmakespecificreferencetothe1990s.

Twodifferenttypesofstudiesonceagainengagethevalidityofthe“upand

out”model of immigrant integration. As Iwill show later, the second type

of study distinguishes itself from what follows by the use of sophisticated

multivariate analysis and the intimation of a new approach to understanding

the socio-spatial trajectory of different immigrant groups.

Like Lo and Wang (1997), T. Balakrishnan (2001) focused on the

geographicdistributionofthetotalpopulationofspecificethnicgroupswithin

a city, instead of examining the population composition of given geographical

areas. More specifically, he used 1996 census data to analyse the levels

of separateness in the residential distribution of South Asian and Chinese

populations(immigrantsandnon-immigrantsalike)in14ofCanada’slargest

metropolitan centres. Developing an original GINI index to measure each

group’sgeographicpatternrelativetoitsowntotalpopulation,Balakrishnan

foundthatbothgroupsdisplayedhighlevelsofseparateness.Incomparison,


thepopulationof the “dominantBritishgroup” recordedmuch lower levels

using this measure. Furthermore, Balakrishnan reports that in almost all the

14CMAsheexamined,Chineseresidents(aswellasSouthAsians,thoughto

alesserextent)weremorelikelytoliveinareas“withhigher-than-average

socio-economic status.” While the author does not indicate how that was

measured,he interpretsthereportedfindingsasproofthatsocio-economic

achievement has a minuscule impact on the residential distribution of ethnic

groups. He then concludes that the assimilation model has been replaced by

a successful multicultural model, in which enclave formation does not prevent

socio-economic integration.8 In a similar study, Balakrishnan and Stephen

Gyimah(2003) reach thesameconclusion,but in this case theyspeculate

that the levels of segregation that they report are likely to subside with length

of stay in Canada. However, neither of the two studies incorporates this factor

as a variable of analysis. The authors are therefore unable to statistically

verify this possibility and determine how cohort effects would modify their

conclusions.

Incontrast, twootherstudies thatdirectly consider lengthof stay in

Canada found evidence supporting the continuing validity of the “up and

out”modelthroughoutthe1990s.Ley(1999)setsouttodemonstratethat

the urban underclass thesis in Canada continued to be only a myth, using

censusdatafrom1991and1996forMontreal,TorontoandVancouver.Ley’s

study confirmed Hiebert’s (1999) findings regarding growing tendencies

to concentrate reported for non-European-origin groups in Vancouver,

particularly for group members who are immigrants. Ley found that labour

market segmentation, earnings, and residential separateness levels were

8SeealsoBalakrishnanandHou(1999a).Inaddition,wecanthinkoftheearlierpatternsestablishedbyJewishcommunities,whereupwardsocio-economicmobilitywasaccompaniedbyoutwardspatialmobilityyet residential concentration levels remained high.


highly correlated. More disturbingly perhaps, he found that within same-time-

of-arrival immigrant groups, separateness was more likely to be accompanied

by severe income difficulties. However, this pattern shifted substantially

whenhousehold(insteadofindividual)incomewastakenintoaccount.9Non-

European immigrantgroupswere found toquickly reachhousehold income

levelsthatwerehigherthanthosereportedbytheirEuropeancounterparts.It

shouldbepointedout,however,thattheseresultstosomeextentreflectthe

peculiarities of Vancouver as an immigrant destination, given its low levels of

refugees(typicallypoor)andhighlevelsof(wealthier)businessmigrants.

ThesecondrelevantstudyhereisSmith’s(2004)updateofheranalysis

(with Ley, 1997) of the geographic intersection of immigrant residential

separateness and incidence of neighbourhood poverty and deprivation. Using

2001 census data, she finds that in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, co-

location of these two phenomena was on the rise, but it was more often found in

isolated suburban areas or embedded in broader clusters, especially in the case

ofrecentlyarrivedimmigrants.Smithconcludesthatthe“upandout”model

continues to most accurately describe the trajectory of immigrant settlement

over time. However, her findings also suggest that “Canada’s immigrants

are increasingly carving out new patterns and practices of settlement and

adjustment”(3)whichdepartfromthosepositedbythetraditionalassimilation

model.

Incidentally, Smith’s (2004) study is one of only a few in which

residential redistribution patterns out of the inner city are explicitly discussed.

Indeed,Smith reports that recent immigrants inMontreal tend todisperse

individually into the surrounding suburbs without relocating into new pockets

ofsame-groupconcentration(seealsoRoseetal.1999,Marois1998,citedin

9SeealsoLeyandSmith(2000).


Hiebert2000).Likewise,Hiebert(1999)discoveredthatsimilarpatternshave

developed in Vancouver, particularly in the case of smaller visible minority

groups.Likemanyotherauthors,however(e.g.,BauderandSharpe2002,

Ley1999,LeyandSmith1997,2000),bothSmith(2004)andHiebert(1999)

also describe a different dispersal pattern––perhaps more appropriately

termed decentralisation––in which recent immigrants move out of inner city

same-group clusters only to re-concentrate in the suburbs, or else move into

suburbansame-groupneighbourhoodsdirectlyuponarrival.Inthesecases,

immigrant suburbanization is not necessarily inconsistent with the assimilation

thesis.10

Towards a bifurcated model of socio-spatial mobility

Inthefirstpartofthisreview,Ishowedhowmoststudiesthatrejected

theassimilationmodelusing1991andearliercensusdatawereaffectedby

commonmethodologicallimitations.Thisimpliesthattheauthorscouldhave

obtained different results using an alternative research design, and potentially

reacheddiametricallydifferentconclusionsaswell.ButSmith’s(2004)mixed

findings regarding the patterns of immigrant geographical settlement and

social adjustment seem to reflectmore thanamethodological conundrum.

Rather, they may be the result of deep social and spatial transformations

in the Canadian urban structure associated with size effects, which recent

sophisticatedmultivariatestudiesofcensusresultsfor1996and2001have

startedtoreveal.TwostatisticsforthemetropolitantrioofMontreal,Toronto

and Vancouver emblematise such changes: between 1981 and 1996, the

10Oneoftheassumptionsofthe“upandout”thesisasproposedbytheChicagoSchoolwasthat,inaccord-ance with the concentric model of urban growth, the most affordable housing was to be found in the inner city.Butsincethe1970stheinnersuburbshaveincreasinglybecomesourcesofeconomicallyaccessiblehousing(Murdie1998),attractinggrowingnumbersofimmigrants(newlyarrivedandlongersettledalike).From an assimilationist perspective, it is argued that under these conditions, suburbanisation simply shifts the geographic starting point of immigrant outward trajectories.


number of census tracts in which at least 30 percent of the population belonged

tooneofthesecities’topthreevisibleminoritygroupsjumpedfromsixto142

(HouandPicot2003).11By2001,thatnumberhadreached254tracts(Hou

2004).

In one of three tract-level studies of transitions in neighbourhood

composition(FongandGulia2000,HouandMilan2003),Hou(2004)examines

the three largest visibleminority groups in each of Montreal, Toronto and

Vancouver (West Asian/Arab, Blacks, South Asians, Chinese, and Filipinos)

usingcensusdatafrom1981,1991,and2001,andfindsthatvisibleminority

immigrantsinrecentcohortsweremorelikelytofindthemselvesinsame-group

neighbourhoods upon arrival, compared to the experience of older cohorts.

More importantly, visibleminority immigrantsweremore likely in 2001 to

live in same-group neighbourhoods after longer periods living in the country.

Oneinterpretationofthisfindingisthatthe“upandout”modelcontinuesto

describe the experience of most immigrants in Canada, but for many of them,

the predicted time frame of this trajectory unfavourably departs from the

patterns observed in the past.

Hou also shows that in most cases, the emergence of individual visible

minoritycensustractswasattributedtoa“partialreplacement”ofnon-visible

minority residents by visible minority ones. However, this exchange was found

to occur only in the initial stages of minority neighbourhood formation.12

According to Hou’s multivariate analyses, the residential concentration of

visibleminorities inacensus tract stabilisesatorbelow60percentof the

11Inthissamestudy,HouandPicot(2003)updatepreviousresearchrefutingtheCanadianunderclassthe-sisbyshowingthatin1996,theresidentialconcentrationofvisibleminorityimmigrantgroupshadlittleorno relationship with labour market segmentation and its disadvantages.

12Thisphenomenonmayinpartbeattributedtoresidentialrelocationof“emptynest”householdsatornearretirementage,ormotivatedbyhomeowners’desiretocashinontheequityaccumulatedintheirprop-ertyinlightofrisingrealestateprices.SeeLey(Forthcoming)forametropolitan-levelanalysisofthesebehaviours.


totaltractpopulationforalmostallvisibleminoritiesandallcohortsafter20

years.Whileastabilisationofconcentrationlevelsrunscontrarytothespatial

assimilation thesis, Hou indicates that the phenomenon is consistent with the

historicalexperienceofsome“traditional”(i.e.pre-1967)immigrantgroups,in

particularItalians,forwhomhighlevelsofresidentialconcentrationonlytapered

after their immigration to Canada had almost come to a stop.13Nonetheless,

Houobservesthatthe60percentthreshold“maynotholdifvisibleminority

populationscontinuetoincreaserapidlyinthemajormetropolitanareas.”(23)

ConsideringCanada’sprojectedimmigrationlevels,thisisnotasuperfluous

caveat:Hou’sstudyalsoshowsthatingeneral,therapidexpansionofvisible

minority neighbourhoods was primarily associated with large increases in

visibleminorities’shareofacity’spopulationduetoimmigration,ratherthan

with any tendency to congregate.

Otherresearchershaveconverselyarguedthatatendencytoliveinsame-

groupneighbourhoodsismoreimportantforsomegroupsthanothers.Ina

studyIdiscussedearlier,FongandWilkes(2003)speculatedthatpersistently

highlevelsofseparatenessbetweenChineseandEuropean-origingroupswere

partly associated with the voluntary formation of Chinese enclaves composed of

well-to-do and more disadvantaged group members.14 Given that Chinese are

amongthetoplargestvisibleminoritygroupsinCanada’sthreelargestcities,

some researchers have turned their attention to examining the formation of

suchvoluntaryenclavesanddeterminingwhether(forsomegroupsatleast)

this is no longer an exception but the norm.

Analysingmicrodatafromthe20-percentsampleofthe2001census,

MylesandHou (2003)examine theneighbourhoodexperienceofToronto’s

13Inotherwords,withcontinuinghighlevelsofimmigrationwecanexpecttofindcontinuinghighlevelsof spatial unevenness in the residential distribution of the population. See also Balakrishnan and Hou (1999b).

14SeealsoRayetal.(1997)regardingthesocio-economicallymixeddistributionofthispopulationgroup.


three largestvisibleminorities.EchoingSmith’s(2004)mixedresults, their

findingsbothconvergeanddepartfromtheexpectationsoftheassimilation

model.Ontheonehand,SouthAsiansandBlacksemergeasgroupsforwhich

“the immigrant [neighbourhood] is a place to be left behind as economic

circumstancesallow”(16),althoughthemixofexplanatoryfactors(language

spokenathome,periodofimmigration,incomeandeducationlevels)varies

betweenthetwogroups.Ontheotherhand, theChineseexhibitapattern

of home purchasing shortly after arrival, with a tendency to locate in same-

groupenclaves––whatLoganetal.(2002)call“ethniccommunities”––aslong

aslanguageassimilation(definedonthebasisoflanguagespokenathome)

doesnotoccur.Theauthorsconcludethattheexpectationsofthe“upandout”

modelmatchtheresidentialsettlementpatternsofSouthAsiansandBlacks,

but not those of the Chinese.

Haan(2005)takesadifferentapproachtotestingthe“ethniccommunity”

hypothesis of residential congregation persisting beyond what the assimilation

modelwouldpredict.HisstudyofTorontosetsouttodeterminethefactorsthat

explain the occurrence of self-segregation in neighbourhoods where relative

affluenceandethnicityintersect.Usingcensusdatafrom1996and2001,Haan

findsthatsame-groupconcentrationaffectedthenewhomeownershiprates

ofthreeofthecity’s12largestimmigrantethnicgroups(Jamaicans,Chinese

andItalians).Haanfoundthatthedirectionoftheimpactvariedaccordingto

whether the group displayed income or university education levels above or

belowtheTorontoaverage.Ofthesethreeimmigrantgroups,onlyJamaicans

rankedbelowthecity’saverage.Theirrateofnewhomeownershipwaslikely

to be on average higher for group members who did not live in a same-group

neighbourhood,whileforChineseandItalianimmigrantsthehomeownership

ratewaslikelytobehigherforenclaveresidents.Othergroupsalsodisplayed


adifferentialintheirnewhomeowners’residentiallocation,butitwasfound

not tobestatisticallysignificant––suggesting that formostgroups(nineof

the12examined),ethnicneighbourhoodcomposition isnot likely toaffect

the home purchase decision. However, Haan’s findingswould also suggest

that the spatial assimilation model continues to be valid for groups with

incomeoruniversityeducation levelsbelowthecity’saverage.Incontrast,

aboveaverageattainmentisassociatedbyHaanwithwhathetermsa“new”

assimilationist perspective––one in which, under certain conditions, socio-

economicassimilationisnotaccompaniedbythetraditionalmodel’sexpected

outward movement.

a noTe on meThodology

Toalargeextent,Haan’sconclusionsrelatetothespecificationsofhis

analyticalmodelandtherestrictedinterpretationsofstatisticalfindingsthey

allow.Ascanbeexpectedfromanystatisticallybasedbodyofresearch,the

choice of categorial variables––and the interpretation of what these represent–

–has a decisive impact on the findings and conclusions of the literature I

havereviewed. In thecaseof theunderclass thesisdebate, for instance, I

have argued that conclusions regarding its validity depend on the inclusion

oromissionofperiod-of-immigrationvariables.Afewotherexamplesofthis

typeofmethodologicaleffectweredetectedthroughout.Oneoftheseisthe

role that ethnocultural factors play in the socio-spatial trajectory of immigrant

settlement.Asmentionedearlier,FongandWilkes(1999)foundanassociation

betweenneighbourhoodandsocio-economicattainmentforEuropean-origin

groupsonly,notforAsianorBlackimmigrants.Theseresultswouldseemto

imply that ethnocultural factors could help explain such variations in spatial

outcomes.


EthnoculturalfactorsfiguremoreexplicitlyinHaan’s(2005)study.For

him, the determinants of the set of assimilation expectations that apply to

aparticulargroup––thoseofthe“traditional”orofthe“new”assimilationist

perspective––are simultaneously socio-economic and ethnocultural, in that

the socio-economic attainment of a group depends in part on its ethnocultural

background.15 The key assumption here is that a particular ethnocultural

backgroundcanbereadilyassignedtoagroupasawhole.Tothiseffect,Haan

uses income and university education variables as proxies for the notion of

“ethniccapital,”leadingtotheconclusionthatspatialassimilationcontinues

tobevalidforgroupsthatdisplaylowethniccapitalstatus(i.e.,Jamaicans),

while high ethnic capital groups (Chinese, Italians) are instead associated

witha“newassimilationperspective.”ButcontrastHaan’s(2005)conclusions

withMylesandHou’s(2003)suggestionthatavariationontheassimilation

modelmayberequiredtoaccountforthecaseofChineseimmigrants.The

authorscautionthat“Skincolouralonedoesnotproducesharedidentities,”

andthat“The‘average’experienceofChinese,SouthAsianandblackfamilies

potentially conceals important differences among immigrant populations that

are internallydividedbynationalorigin, religion,andothercharacteristics”

(2003:28).Thisqualificationsuggeststhattheconceptof“ethniccapital”not

onlyposesmeasurementchallenges,butalsominimises thesignificanceof

observedbetween-groupdifferencesbasedoncurrentgroupdefinitions.Haan

(2005)andMylesandHou(2003)arenottheonlyresearcherstosuggestin

recent years that other factors beyond socio-economic considerations may

needtobeconsideredinthefuture(FongandWilkes2003,Smith2004).Yet,

15HaancitestheAmericaneconomistBorjas(1998),whousestheterm“ethniccapital” todescribetheaveragehumancapital(namelytheeducationalattainment)ofanethnicgroupintheparent’sgeneration.Borjas’strategyassumesthatcompositemeasuresofagroup’sgenerationalsocio-economicattainmentare a priori markers of ethnic belonging, obscuring the fact that such measures are simply a posteriori statistical aggregations.


perhapsmorethananyotherclassificatoryvariable,ethnoculturalidentityor

affiliationisastatisticalartifactrequiringcarefulinterpretationandsubstantial

empirically based theorisation and testing.

One final observation here concerns themeasurement of geographic

distribution as a marker of the socio-spatial residential patterns of immigrant

groups. The vast majority of empirical studies rely on variations of the

dissimilarity index, a measure of evenness in the spatial distribution of

populations.AsMasseyandDenton(1988)haveshown,this isonlyoneof

several dimensions of residential segregation.16 Surprisingly, only four recent

Canadian studiesemployed so-calledexposuremeasures (namely Isolation

andInteractionindices)asalternativestoevennessoritsfacsimiles(Bauder

andSharpe2002,Hou2004,MylesandHou2003,Ray1999).Afifthstudy

(Whiteetal.2005)shiftsawayfrompair-wisemeasuresandemploysinstead

sophisticated multidimensional scaling (MDS) methods first developed in

the1970s.Thesefivestudiesareabletopresentamorenuancedanalysis

of thesocio-spatial trajectoriesof specificgroups than those inwhichonly

distributional evenness is approached.

Admittedly,thisreviewsuffersfromitsownkindofuni-dimensionality,as

it focuses only on one aspect––engagement with the assimilation debate––of

therecentCanadianliteratureonresidentialseparateness.Manyfindingsand

conclusions that did not relate directly to the assimilation debate were omitted

from my discussion. Put differently, the assimilationist perspective structures

its own debate by folding time into space, in the sense that it treats the

question of ethnocultural residential concentration as a matter of the speed or

differential rate of immigrant access to mainstream society and to its economic

16MasseyandDenton(1988)identifiedfiveseparatedimensionsofspatialsegregation:evenness,expo-sure,concentration,centralisation,andclustering.Theircategorisationhasbeenwidelyadopted in theliterature.


andspatialresources.Asaresult,thisdiscussiononlyexploredwhatcould

becalleda“geographyoftime.”Amuchdifferentsetofthemesandfindings

couldbehighlightedbyfocusingona“geographyofplace”(asredundantas

thisdescriptorsounds).Forinstance,whatisthesignificanceofthegrowing

suburbanizationofinitialsettlementchoice?Orwhatdoesthisliteraturesay

abouttheroleofhistoricalinstitutionalpractices––suchas“exclusionaryzoning

policies”(DuncanandDuncan2004)ormunicipalamalgamationdecisions–

–in either facilitating or discouraging the residential segregation of various

population groups?17 More generally, what do these studies teach us about

the social relations that are produced within and around the bounded space of

residential separateness, or about the relations that produce such spaces in

thefirstplace?

ConClusIon

Apositiveornegativeassociationbetweenresidentialcongregationand

the socio-economic attainment of immigrant and visible minority groups may

beinterpretedasevidenceofCanada’sfailureto liveupto itsmulticultural

ideals. For that reason, this review of the recent literature on immigrant resi-

dential separateness focused on the debates surrounding the presence and

directionofthisrelationship.Thethreemainthemeswerediscussed:thede-

bate over a Canadian immigrant underclass, the debate over the validity of the

mobilityassumptionspositedbythe“upandout”model,andtheintroduction

ofa“newassimilation”thesis.

Withregardstothefirstofthesethemes,itappearsthataconsensus

17Forexample,historianJordanStanger-Ross(2005)arguesthatthesubstantialdifferencesinthedevel-opmentofLittleItalyneighbourhoodsinTorontoandPhiladelphiawereatleastpartlytheresultofthesecities’divergentpoliciesregardingtheamalgamationofsuburbanmunicipalities.Drieger(1999)inturndevelopsatripletypologyofmetropolitan“ethno-racialresidentialsegregation”basedonpatternsheout-linesforMontreal,TorontoandVancouver.SeealsoMurdie(1998)regardingtherelationshiptoresidentialhigh-risezoningandthelocationofgovernment-assistedhousinginToronto.


has developed around the inappropriateness of the American underclass

thesis for describing the socio-spatial situation of immigrants in Canadian

metropolitan areas. Whereas some researchers suggested that the 1991

censusprovidedevidenceofanincipientimmigrantunderclass,theirfindings

did not stand more rigorous testing that took into account the effects of period

ofimmigration.Researchusingboth1991andmorerecentdatashowedthat

multiple indicators of deprivation were anything but common in Canadian

urban neighbourhoods; when present, multiple deprivation affected mainly

theCanadian-born. Inaddition, researchers found that the tendency is for

immigrants in general to make residential location gains over time.

These findings constitute the foundation of a second theme in the

literature.Formostgroups, theassumptionsof the “upandout”modelof

immigrant integration have continued to hold, albeit with increasing amounts

of time reported before the expected socio-spatial outcomes are attained.

Whiledifferenceswere foundtobedecisivebetweengroups,noneseemed

to be more important than those related to the outcomes of the Chinese

immigrantpopulation.Arecentstudybasedonanalysisofthe2001census

revealedthattheChinesearenowtheonlyvisibleminoritygroupinCanada’s

three largest metropolitan centres for which it can be said that the average

member lives in a same-group neighbourhood.18 However, only about half

oftheChinesepopulationresidedinsuchcensustracts,confirmingthatthis

“exception”isstillfarfrombeingagroupnorm.

Nonetheless, someevidence suggests that the socio-spatialmodelof

immigrantintegrationcouldbesplittingintoatraditionalanda“new”version,

each applying to different groups. For example, the Chinese were found

to be peculiar in that they deviate from the expectations of the traditional

18Inthestudywherethesefindingswerereported,thisdesignationreferredtocensustractswhereatleast30percentofthepopulationbelongstothatethno-culturalgroup(Hou2004).


assimilation model by not transforming their pre- or post-arrival socio-

economic attainment into an ethnoculturally dispersed residential location.

Instead,members of this group showeda tendency to purchasehomes in

same-group ethnic communities, though education and income levels were

found to affect this outcome. It is important to remember, however, that

“Chinese”isaheterogeneouscategorycomposedofmultiplesub-ethnicand

countryoforigingroups(LoandWang1997).Moreover,thesefindingsmaybe

overlydependentonthemethodologicalspecificationsthatgaverisetothem,

includinginsufficientattentiontothesignificanceofnewcomersuburbanization.

Therefore,itisnotyetclearwhetherthemagnitudeofthisexceptiontothe

“upandout”thesisisrobustenoughtoconfirmthatanempiricallyconsistent

bifurcated model of socio-spatial assimilation has emerged.

Inclosing,itisworthreflectingonhowvariousimportanttransformations

intheCanadianurbanstructure,originatinginthe1970sand1980s,became

increasingly noticeable during the 1990s. In what is arguably a related

development,thesocio-economicandethnoculturalcompositionofCanada’s

immigrant population has also undergone dramatic change over that same

30-year period. Hou’s (2004) findings regarding the composition of visible

minority neighbourhoods suggest that it may not be long before we reach

the stage where the practice of leaving older immigrant cohorts out of the

benchmark group against which integration is measured will simply cease to

make sense. Supported by results from an innovative study that seeks to go

beyondanalysesbasedonasinglereferencegroup,Whiteetal.(2005:193)

arguethat:“Integrationshouldbemorepreciselyconceptualizedasintegration

with particular groups, recognizing that in a diverse society, individuals can be

integratedwithanynumberofethnicgroupsorwithnoneatall.”

The introduction in the past few years of a diversity of increasingly


sophisticated research methods is an important development that was only

hintedat in this review.Yet thewiderangeof this literature’sfindingsand

conclusionsseemstoreflectnotonlydifferencesinresearchdesign,butalso

thegrowingcomplexityof theseevolvingsocialgeographies.Thenarrative

that gives structure to this review may give the appearance that a clear set

ofpatternshasbeenidentified;yetalmostallofthesestudiestakecareto

insist on the differences in reported outcomes within and between groups,

municipalities, and cities. Much work still remains to be done before we are

abletotellwhich(ifany)ofthesefactorscontributetosuchdimensionsof

variability, and what these mean for the continuing validity of the traditional

assimilationmodelanditsassumptions.Andwhoknowswhatthesoon-to-be-

released2006censusisabouttoreveal.

Works CITed

Auletta,K.1982.The Underclass.NewYork:RandomHouse.

Balakrishnan,T.2001.Residentialsegregationandsocio-economicintegrationofAsiansinCanadiancities.Canadian Ethnic Studies, 33(1),121-136.

Balakrishnan,T.andS.Gyimah,2003.Spatialresidentialpatternsofselectedethnicgroups:significanceandpolicyimplications.Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35(1),111-125.

Balakrishnan,T.andF.Hou,1999a.Socioeconomicintegrationandspatialresidential patterns of immigrant groups in Canada. Population Research and Policy Review, 18,201-217.

———.1999b.ImmigrationandthechangingethnicmosaicofCanadiancities.InImmigrant Canada: Demographic, economic and social challenges,ed.S.Halli,andL.Driedger.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Bauder,H.andB.Sharpe,2002.ResidentialsegregationofvisibleminoritiesinCanada’sgatewaycities.The Canadian Geographer, 46,204-222.

Beavis,M.1995.Housing and ethnicity: Literature review and select, annotated bibliography.Winnipeg:InstituteofUrbanStudies,The


UniversityofWinnipeg.

Borjas,G.1998.Toghettoornottoghetto:Ethnicityandresidentialsegregation. Journal of Urban Economics, 44(2),228–253.

CitizenshipandImmigrationCanada,2003.Facts and Figures 2003. Immigration overview: Permanent and temporary residents.Ottawa:CitizenshipandImmigrationCanada.http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/facts2003/foreword/index.html(accessedDecember17,2005)

Clark,W.1998.The California cauldron: Immigration and the fortunes of local communities.NewYork/London:GuilfordPress.

Collacott,M.2002.Canada’s immigration policy: The need for major reform. Vancouver:TheFraserInstitute,PublicPolicySources,OccasionalPaperNo.64.

Driedger,L.1999.Immigrant/ethnic/racialsegregation:Canadianbigthreeand Prairie metropolitan comparison. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 24(4),485-509.

Duncan,J.andN.Duncan,2004.Landscapes of privilege: aesthetics and affluence in an American suburb.NewYork:Routledge.

Fong,E.1997.ResidentialproximitywiththeChartergroupsinCanada.Canadian Studies in Population, 24(2),103-123.

Fong,E.andM.Gulia,2000.NeighbourhoodchangewithintheCanadianethnicmosaic,1986-1991.Population Research and Policy Review, 19, 155-177.

———.1999.Differencesinneighborhoodqualitiesamongracialandethnicgroups in Canada. Sociological Inquiry, 69,575-598.

Fong,E.andK.Shibuya,2005.MultiethniccitiesinNorthAmerica.Annual Review of Sociology, 31,285-304.

———.2000.ThespatialseparationofthepoorinCanadiancities.Demography, 37(4),449-459.

Fong,E.andR.Wilkes,2003.RacialandethnicresidentialpatternsinCanada. Sociological Forum, 18(4),577-602.

———.1999.Thespatialassimilationmodelre-examined:AnassessmentbyCanadian data. International Migration Review, 33,594-620.

Francis,D.2002.Immigration: The economic case. Toronto:KeyPorterBooks.

Goldberg,M.andJ.Mercer,1986.The myth of the North American city.


Continentalism challenged. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

Gordon,M.1964.Assimilation in American life. NewYork,NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press.

Haan,M.2005.Are immigrants buying to get in? The role of ethnic clustering on the homeownership propensities of 12 Toronto immigrant groups, 1996-2001.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada.

Hiebert,D.2005.Migration and the demographic transformation of Canadian cities: The social geography of Canada’s major metropolitan centres in 2017.Vancouver:RIIM,WorkingPaperNo.05-14.

———.2003.ImmigrantandminorityenclavesinCanadiancities.Canadian Issues,April.

———.2000.The social geography of immigration and urbanization in Canada: A review and interpretation.Vancouver:RIIM,WorkingPaperNo.00-12.

———.1999.ImmigrationandthechangingsocialgeographyofGreaterVancouver. BC Studies, 121,35-82.

HiebertD.andD.Ley,2003.Assimilation,culturalpluralism,andsocialexclusion among ethnocultural groups in Vancouver. Urban Geography, 24(1),16-44.

Hou,F.2004.Recent immigration and the formation of visible minority neighbourhoods in Canadian cities.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada,BusinessandLabourMarketAnalysisDivision.

Hou,F.andA.Milan,2003.Neighbourhoodethnictransitionanditssocioeconomic connections. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28(3),387-410.

Hou,F.andG.Picot,2003.Visible minority neighbourhood enclaves and labour market outcomes of immigrants.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada,AnalyticalStudiesBranch.

Hughes,M.1990.Formationoftheimpactedghetto:evidencefromlargemetropolitanareas,1970-1980.Urban Geography, 11,265-284.

Kazemipur,A.andS.Halli,2000.The new poverty in Canada: Ethnic groups and ghetto neighbourhoods.Toronto:ThompsonEducationalPublishing.

———.1997.Plightofimmigrants:thespatialconcentrationofpovertyinCanada. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 20(1,2),11-28.

MBC: Immigrant Residential Geographies 33

Ley,D.2007.Countervailingimmigrationanddomesticmigrationingatewaycities:CanadianandAustralianreflectionsonan‘AmericanDilemma’.Economic Geography, 83(3),231-254.

———.1999.Mythsandmeaningsofimmigrationandthemetropolis.The Canadian Geographer, 43(1),2-19.

Ley,D.andH.Smith,2000.Relationsbetweendeprivationandimmigrantgroups in large Canadian cities. Urban Studies, 37,37-62.

———.1997.ImmigrationandpovertyinCanadiancities,1971-1991.Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 20(1,2),29-48.

Lo,L.andS.Wang,1997.SettlementpatternsofToronto’sChineseimmigrants: Convergence or divergence? Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 20(1,2),49-72.

Logan,J.,W.ZhangandR.Alba,2002.ImmigrantenclavesandethniccommunitiesinNewYorkandLosAngeles.American Sociological Review, 67(2),299-322.

Marois,C.1998.Lapopulationmontréalaise.InMontréal 2001: Visages et défis d’une métropole, eds. C. Manzagol and C. Bryant. Montréal:Pressesdel’UniversitédeMontréal.

Massey,D.andN.Denton,1993.American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———.1988.Thedimensionsofresidentialsegregation.Social Forces, 67, 281-315.

Murdie,R.1998.Thewelfarestate,economicrestructuringandimmigrantflows:ImpactsonsociospatialsegregationinGreaterToronto.InUrban segregation and the welfare state: Inequality and exclusion in western cities,eds.S.MusterdandW.Ostendorf.NewYork/London:Routledge.

Myles,J.andF.Hou,2003.Neighbourhood attainment and residential segregation among Toronto’s visible minorities.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada.

Myrdal,G.1963.Challenge to affluence.NewYork:Pantheon.

Park,R.,E.BurgessandR.McKenzie,1967[1925].The City. 4th Edition. Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Peach,C.1996.Themeaningofsegregation.Planning Practice and Research, 11(2),137-150.

Qadeer,M.2005.Ethnicsegregationinamulticulturalcity.InD.Varadi(Ed.),


Desegregating the city. Ghettos, enclaves, and inequality.NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Ray,B.1999.PluralgeographiesinCanadiancities:InterpretingimmigrantresidentialspacesinTorontoandMontreal.Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 22(1,2),65-86.

Ray,B.,G.Halseth,andB.Johnson,1997.Thechanging‘face’ofthesuburbs:IssuesinethnicityandresidentialchangeinsuburbanVancouver. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 21(1),75-99.

Ricketts,E.andI.Sawhill,1988.Definingandmeasuringthe‘underclass’.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7,316-325.

Rose,D.,M.Beaudry,C.Marois,B.Ray,andS.Giroux,1999.Atlas de l’immigration à Montréal, 1996 – Phase II.Montreal:Immigrationetmétropoles.

Smith,H.2004.The evolving relationship between immigrant settlement and neighbourhood disadvantage in Canadian cities, 1991-2001.RIIM,WorkingPaperNo.04-20.

———.1998.Spatial concentration – residential patterns and marginalization. Vancouver:RIIM,CommentarySeries,No.98-03.

Stanger-Ross,J.2005.The choreography of community: Italian ethnicity in postwar Toronto and Philadelphia. Unpublished dissertation at University of Pennsylvania, Department of History.

Stoffman,D.2002.Who gets in? What’s wrong with Canada’s immigration program–and how to fix it.Toronto:MacfarlaneWalterRoss.

White,M.,A.Kim,J.Glick,2005.Mappingsocialdistance:Ethnicresidentialsegregation in a multiethnic metro. Sociological Methods and Research, 34,173-203.

Wilson,W.1987.The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, The ‘underclass’ and public policy.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

immigrant residential geographies and the “spatial assimilation

Documents