a comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: barcelona, london and...

A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: 1

U n i v e r s i d a d d e P o m p e u F a b r a

Joel Francis Serra Bevin Diversity is an inherent characteristic of global cities and is likely to intensify in the future as globalisation spurs complex migration flows. Spatial segregation, as measured by the dissimilarity index, is calculated and analysed in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne. Understanding its formation and representation is crucial in order to achieve both migrant integration and host society acceptance.

July 11

A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three

global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne

2

A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4 Motivation ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 Background............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Spatial segregation .............................................................................................. 7 Defining spatial segregation............................................................................................................................ 7 The formation of segregation ......................................................................................................................... 8 Cultural .....................................................................................................................................................................9 Discrimination .......................................................................................................................................................9 Urban structure.................................................................................................................................................. 10

Theorising segregation....................................................................................................................................10 Heterolocalism.................................................................................................................................................... 11 Ethnic enclaves ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Place stratification............................................................................................................................................ 13 Spatial assimilation.......................................................................................................................................... 13

Networks ...............................................................................................................................................................14 Spatial segregation measures ............................................................................15 Dimensions of segregation.............................................................................................................................16 Evenness ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Exposure ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Concentration ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

The global city .....................................................................................................18 The creation of the global city ......................................................................................................................18 Migration and the global city ........................................................................................................................19 City selection .......................................................................................................21 Barcelona...............................................................................................................................................................22 Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24

London....................................................................................................................................................................26 Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Melbourne .............................................................................................................................................................30 Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31

Methodology ........................................................................................................33 Measurement .......................................................................................................................................................33 Tracts.......................................................................................................................................................................34 Barcelona.............................................................................................................................................................. 34 London.................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Melbourne............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Results..................................................................................................................35 Barcelona...............................................................................................................................................................35 London....................................................................................................................................................................36 Melbourne .............................................................................................................................................................37 Comparative analysis .......................................................................................................................................39 Intercity ................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Global cities .......................................................................................................................................................... 42

Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................45

3


Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................45 Global cities of the future ...............................................................................................................................47 Recommendations.............................................................................................................................................49 At a national level ............................................................................................................................................. 49 At a city level........................................................................................................................................................ 51

Works cited..........................................................................................................53

Appendix 1.............................................................................................................57

4


Introduction

Motivation

In this paper the spatial segregation of migrants in three global cities – either

founded on, or now characterised by immigration – is considered. In Barcelona,

the foreign-‐born make up 18 per cent of the population, London’s foreign-‐born

population represents 32 per cent of the total, and foreigners in Melbourne

comprise 31 per cent of the population.

The location preferences of migrants, together with the institutional forces

imposed on them by the host society, leads to a residential pattern that reflects

their equal or unequal distribution. These patterns represent the degree of spatial

segregation, which is measured through various tools in the context of evenness

of distribution and exposure.

It is important to investigate segregation patterns in global cities – those

influential and connected in a structural, economic and cultural context – as

intensifying urbanisation will see these constructs assume increasing power in a

globalised world. Migrants are already an integral characteristic of urban areas

and are likely to become even more important as the global cities of the

developed world struggles to meet the demographic challenge posed by an ageing

population. Consequently, migrant integration is a crucial component of a city’s

success in order for migrants to become economic and cultural participants in a

host society that is receptive to this contribution. Understanding the level of

spatial segregation, which has been empirically linked to migrant integration, is

therefore critical.

The term ‘global cities’ can be applied with consideration of a range of variables

and while no consensus exists on the exact criteria, they can broadly be

understood to exert global influence at an economic, political, logistical and

cultural level.1

1 Doel, M. and Hubbard, P., (2002). Taking World Cities Literally: Marketing the City in a Global Space of flows, City, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 351-‐368

5


The three cities chosen – Barcelona, London and Melbourne – differ in terms of

urban structure, immigration trends and policy environment, but all are global

cities in their interconnectedness and ethnic diversity. However, diversity alone is

not enough to bring about harmonious interaction and evolution of the different

groups that comprise a city.

The subsequent analysis seeks to illustrate how segregation of the foreign-‐born

population is represented in Barcelona, London and Melbourne. Reflections are

made as to whether this segregation poses risks of dislocation and disadvantage

or is the basis for integration and social mobility.

Moreover, this study will highlight the importance of considering spatial

segregation – at a governmental, institutional and individual level – in achieving

migrant integration.

Background

As globalisation shapes cities of mass – mass of place and mass of people – they

assume increasingly homogenous globalised behavioural and attitudinal

characteristics yet at the same time experience rising levels of cultural diversity

as a result of increasing and complex migration flows. Through the interaction of

multiple cultures, this diversity offers both amplified opportunities for progress

while also posing risks of conflict. Migration, as phenomenon of globalisation, and

in the same vein as its more visible effects such as trade and communication, is

the cause of this diversity.

The United Nations estimates that in 2010, 214 million (3 per cent) of the world’s

9.1 billion people were migrants2. This figure is expected to soar in the coming

years due to a combination of economic, social and institutional push and pull

factors.3 Migration is an issue that cuts across multiple dimensions, impacting all

levels of the nation-‐state, which is charged with the role of integrating this

growing mass of people, while also affecting the private sector, which relies on

2 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, (2009). Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision, United Nations database 3 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, (2004). World Population to 2300, New York

6


migrant integration and social mobility in order to satisfy labour market demand

and support the productivity and economic growth that stems from social

cohesion. As such, the issue is entrenched at the forefront of local, national,

regional and international agendas.

Migrant integration into society is a multi-‐stage process; it includes entry into the

labour market, access to education, improvements in socioeconomic status and

participation in the political sphere. That said, the element that is both the initial

and principal measure of integration at its most basic level is a migrant’s housing

situation. The ability to access housing and then be mobile within the market

remains the grounding factor that allows migrants to achieve subsequent

measures of integration. The house is more than simply physical protection; it

represents a foothold in a new society, a physical representation of the formation

of a new cultural identity. Understanding the manner in which migrants

physically settle is therefore of critical importance, in order to support

integration, an outcome pursued for mutual gain by both nation-‐states and

migrants themselves.

Migrant integration must also be considered in the context of the networks that

are built at a neighbourhood level and allow for economic, social and cultural

links to be established between new and existing migrants.

The complexity of migration is based on its inherent diversity; a diversity that has

the potential to cause segregation and discrimination, resistance to integration

and conflict in various forms, but a diversity that also offers opportunities for the

dismantling of stereotypes and subsequent individual and societal evolution. The

resultant cultural intersections remain crucial for continued social and economic

development and present a balancing force in the demographic paradigm in

which the developed world currently finds itself.

Segregation exists as a mechanism that can both exclude individuals from

particular social and physical settings, thereby preventing their integration, while

also allowing an environment that supports integration, in which cultural group

identities can be strengthened and where productivity gains and diversity-‐driven

innovations are possible.

7


Similarly the spatial segregation of the foreign-‐born takes place at the local level

and has potential for positive or negative representation. It is the role of

governments and the societies they represent to acknowledge the extent and

implications of the spatial segregation of the foreign-‐born population and initiate

policy that supports its positive function.

Spatial segregation

Defining spatial segregation

Spatial segregation is driven by disparate factors and multiple theories exist to

explain its creation and persistence. In the 1920s, the human ecology model of

segregation, developed by a group of sociologists known collectively as the

Chicago School,4 explained residential patterns of segregation by analysing the

city as “a separate entity” rather than as a “reflection and manifestation of the

wider society.” 5

The Chicago School views cities as representations of migrant flows, which

created “…a chain reaction, with each preceding immigrant wave moving

outwards and being succeeded by more recent, poorer immigrants”.6 This theory

is based on the assumption that arriving migrants have limited economic

resources, are less educated than natives and are not aware of existing social

networks, which relegate them to less desirable areas of the city. The Chicago

School holds that residential segregation is transient, with migrants capitalising

on their progressively attained economic and social mobility by improving their

residential circumstances and exiting segregated environments.7

Massey, who concluded that residential segregation is not a neutral factor,

supports the latency of this discrimination. Again, with reference to blacks in the

United States (whose segregation has been studied for over half a century),

Massey argues that segregation “…systematically undermines the social and

4 Park, R. E., Burgess, E., McKenzie, R., (1925). The City, University of Chicago Press 5 Van Kempen, R., and Ozuekren, A. S., (1998). Ethnic segregation in cities: New forms and explanations in a dynamic world, Urban Studies, vol 35, issue 10, pg 1636 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid.

8


economic well-‐being of blacks in the United States.” He also holds that as the

social disadvantage that stems from increased poverty is spatially concentrated,

the consequently disadvantaged environments become “…progressively isolated –

geographically, socially and economically – from the rest of society.”8 There does

not exist a significant body of research investigating the spatial segregation of the

foreign-‐born, despite this group being subject to similar social and economic

barriers to those facing blacks in the United States.

Spatial segregation presents a risk through its ability to render cities a series of

distinct, self-‐contained but ultimately dislocated communities, rather than unified

spaces for cultural interaction, exchange and adaptation, where integrative

outcomes are supported.

However, segregation also exists as a positive phenomenon; allowing members of

the minority group to fortify their cultural identity and gain the benefits that

previously established economic and social networks are able to offer.

The formation of segregation

Segregated communities are formed by positive network and community forces,

but may also be the result of negative intercultural interaction. Segregation may

therefore actually increase, rather than dissipate over time, an outcome

corroborated by the research of Fairbairn and Khatun who found that the

dispersion and the equal distribution of migrants over the long-‐run is not an

inevitable outcome.9

Recent theories frame segregation in flexible contexts, whereby cultural, social

and physical barriers contribute to its formation.

8 Massey, D. and Denton, M., (1998). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, pg 2 9 Fairbairn, K., & Khatun, H., (1989). Residential segregation and the interurban migration of South Asians in Edmonton, Canadian Ethnic Studies, 21, pp 45-‐64

9


Cultural

A common explanation of migrant segregation is cultural, whereby immigrants

choose to live near people with similar preferences and attitudes and familiar

behaviours and, importantly, speak the same language.

Bauder and Sharpe attribute segregation to specific migrant characteristics,

where “language, place of origin, income, education, circumstance of immigration,

destination city and other factors” determine migrants’ spatial representation.10

In the same vein, research by Van Kempen demonstrated that cultural differences

influence future migratory plans, which will affect the extent to which migrants

seek to assimilate, and determine, to some degree, their level of segregation.11

The causes of residential segregation have also been attributed to distinct ethnic

preferences of migrant groups.12 These preferences see ethnic group members

consciously residing in particular areas so as to strengthen cultures and avoid

identity challenges that may be posed by the presence of other ethnic groups. This

conclusion was reached by Bobo et al, who conducted research into the influence

neighbourhood composition has on spatial preferences and found that deliberate

decisions over where to locate were dependent on the existing neighbourhood

profile.13

Discrimination

Segregation has also been framed as a consequence of a prejudicial and

discriminatory host society, whose behaviour is expressed as both a deliberate

tactic to exclude specific minorities and as a subconscious sentiment based on

pre-‐existing stereotypes. Empirical evidence, promoted by Balakrishnan, shows

discrimination of ethnic minorities in their entry and mobility within the housing

market, attaining employment and more broadly integrating into society, all of 10 Bauder, H., and Sharpe, B., (2002). Residential segregation of visible minorities in Canada's gateway cities, The Canadian Geographer, 46(3): pg 206 11 Ibid., Van Kempen, R., and Ozuekren, A. S., (1998). pp 1631-‐1656 12 Zubrinsky-‐Charles, C., (2001). Processes of Racial Residential Segregation in Urban Inequality: Evidence from Four Cities, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pg 226 13 Bobo, L., et al, (February 2000). Multi-city study of Urban Inequality (1992-1994): Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Michigan: Inter-‐university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 3rd version, pp i-‐iv

10


which support the notion that segregation exists as an externally imposed

phenomenon.14

Urban structure

Segregation has also been considered to exist as an outcome borne of the

structural conditions that influence migrant settlement patterns. The ability to

access housing, and then be mobile within the market, remains the grounding

factor that allows migrants to achieve subsequent measures of integration.

By choosing to locate in segregated areas, minority groups are able to tap into

networks, which provide access to social and economic opportunities. This

support is said to assist the process of integration, while allowing cultural identity

to be strengthened and sustained.15

Tiebout also finds that spatial decisions are dependent on the type of housing

available and the attributes of the neighbourhood, including ethnicity,

socioeconomic status and family composition. As neighbourhoods become

increasingly heterogeneous, they attract individuals at a similar stage of

socioeconomic development, which results in the spatial configuration of the city

being split along both geographic and socioeconomic lines. As such, the housing

profile and neighbourhood configuration of particular areas develop unique

characteristics, representing both a source of diversity, but also one of

segregation.16

Theorising segregation

Spatial segregation is, according to Kaplan and Woodhouse, “…a process that

victimises some groups while liberating others.”17 It has various causes and

Massey concludes that, “In any single neighbourhood, whatever its overall

14 Balakrishnan, T.R., and Feng Hou., (1999). Socioeconomic integration and spatial residential patterns of immigrant groups in Canada, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Population Research and Policy Review 18: pg 202 15 Ibid., Van Kempen, R., and Ozuekren, A. S., (1998), pg 1635 16 Beall, J., (2000). The Culture of Poverty to Inclusive Cities: Reframing Urban Policy and Politics, Journal of International Development , 12 (6), pp 843-‐856 17 Kaplan, D., and Woodhouse, K., (2004). Research in Ethnic Segregation I: Causal Factors, Bellwether Publishing, Urban Geography 25, pp 579-‐585

11


qualities, we might find that some residents are trapped within it, others use it as

a temporary base from which to rise, and others – those with the most choice –

prefer it as a culturally agreeable environment.”18

There are severeal key theoretical models that apply in this analysis, and can be

used to explain the causes of segregation and its impact on social potential. These

are heterolocalism and ethnic enclaves and to a lesser degree, place stratification

and spatial assimilation.

Heterolocalism

Heterolocalism allows for the consideration of wider global social and economic

factors to explain integration, rather than simply relying on residential location as

is the case with the theories of place stratification and spatial assimilation, which

attempts to link social barriers on the process of social integration with

residential location. In order to establish concrete links between the segregation

observed in this analysis and heterolocalism, further research is necessary to

understand how socioeconomic links between different migrant groups are

maintained post-‐settlement.

Within the globalised world, where transportation and communication

technology allow stronger connections to be formed regardless of place,

residential location as an indicator of social integration is perhaps less relevant.

The heterolocalism construct allows for ethnic groups to “enter a given area from

distant sources, then promptly adopt a dispersed pattern of residential location,

all the while maintaining strong social cohesion”.19

There are limitations to the theory of heterolocalism, as its foundations are based

on the ability of migrants to attain an economic and social standing that allows

them to choose where they live while maintaining ethnic group connections.

However, if this choice is beyond their financial means, then choosing residential

18 Logan, J. R., Wenquan, Z., and Alba, R. D., (April 2002). Immigrant Enclaves and Ethnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles, American Sociological Review, Vol. 67, No. 2: pg 320 19 Zelinsky, W. and Lee, B. A., (1998). Heterolocalism: An alternative model of the sociospatial behaviour of immigrant ethnic communities, International Journal of Population Geography, 4: pg 293

12


locations in close proximity to concentrations of their ethnic group offers the

most realistic way of maintaining cultural ties. This situation would result in the

formation and maintenance of ethnically concentrated areas regardless of the

proximising forces of globalisation.20

Ethnic enclaves

The outcomes of spatial segregation depend to a large degree on the

circumstances of its formation. If segregation is voluntarily chosen, it is likely that

positive outcomes may be witnessed and the area may operate as an ethnic

enclave (successful examples include the various Chinatowns and Little Italys

located throughout global cities). However, if spatial decisions are forced upon

migrants, due to socioeconomic and structural barriers, then ghetto-‐like

characteristics are more likely to emerge (such as deepening poverty, increased

crime and lower educational outcomes).21

That said, this simplistic categorisation does not account for similarly located

individuals that sit along this ethnic enclave-‐ghetto gamut, which Peach splits into

five types. The transitional Assimilation-‐Diffusion, where migrants are transient

and socially mobile; the Ghetto, which is sustained due to involuntary forces; the

Voluntary Plural-‐Persistent Enclave, where people choose to live in enclaves that

have prospered over time; the Voluntary Plural-‐Relocated, where transitory,

socially-‐mobile movement takes place en masse; and the Parachuted Suburb,

where affluent or socially mobile ethnic groups concentrate in particular

neighborhoods.22

In this research, migrants are considered as a whole group, as opposed to

splitting each group. Therefore, there is not a sufficient basis on which to

categorise ethnic enclaves in the three cities. However, taking into account

previous research and considering the concentration maps introduced later in

20 Zelinsky, W. and Lee, B. A., (1998). Heterolocalism: An alternative model of the sociospatial behaviour of immigrant ethnic communities, International Journal of Population Geography, 4: pg 293 21 Mayadas, N., and Segal, U., (2000). Refugees in the 1990s: A U.S. Perspective in Social Work Practice with Immigrants and Refugees, New York: Columbia University Press 22 Peach, C., (2005). The Ghetto and the Ethnic Enclave in Desegregating the City: Ghettos, Enclaves, and Inequality, Albany: State University of New York

13


this paper, it can be hypothesised that there exist concrete ethnic enclaves, and

potentially ghettos, in all three cities. Additional research is required to confirm

their existence and to determine whether they exist as positive ethnic enclaves or

as limiting ghettos.

Place stratification

Within place stratification, ethnic segregation stems from the social barriers that

prevent ethnic groups from freely locating. Instead, “minorities are sorted by

place according to their group’s relative standing in society…’ and therefore,

‘…members of some ethnic and racial groups may not be able to convert

socioeconomic and assimilation gains into advantageous residential situations”.23

While members of a particular group may possess the economic and social ability

to relocate to more desirable areas, they remain in the segregated area due to

externally imposed limits on their social and economic mobility, which results in

persisting areas of segregation. For place stratification to apply in this study,

deeper qualitative research is necessary in order to link residential decisions with

social expectations, pressures and limitations.

Spatial assimilation

The spatial assimilation model sees ethnic minorities “convert socioeconomic and

assimilation progress into residential gains…opening the way for increased

contact with members of the ethnic majority and thus for desegregation.”24

The spatial assimilation construct assumes that residential mobility is linked to

individual social mobility and that progressive residential mobility allows for

ultimate assimilation.25 In order to link spatial assimilation with the segregation

results observed in this study, the socioeconomic evolution of foreigners must be

quantified and correlated with residential patterns.

23 Alba, R. D., and Logan, J. R., (1993). Minority Proximity to Whites in Suburbs: An individual-level Analysis Of Segregation, American Journal Of Sociology, 98 (6), pg 1391 24 Ibid., Alba, R. D., and Logan, J. R., (1993). pg 1390 25 Logan, J. R., and Alba, R. D., (1999). Minority Niches and Immigrant Enclaves in New York and Los Angeles: Trends and Impacts, pp 173-‐ 293 in Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States, edited by F. D. Bean and S. Bell-‐Rose. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pg 447

14


Networks

Migrant networks comprise interpersonal ties between community members,

institutions and organisations and cut across professional and personal

boundaries. Spatial segregation has the ability to provide a cultural milieu, within

which new migrants are able to join pre-‐existing networks and achieve

immediate social inclusion, while enhancing their ability to become economically

active and socially mobile.

Therefore, while spatial segregation may result in ethnic minorities drifting

further away from mainstream society, they may actually experience increased

feelings of inclusion, made possible by their spatial segregation, which “enables

physical defense against racially motivated harassment by providing

psychological support…’ and assists ‘…the preservation of the group’s heritage

and…promotion of group interests”.26

However, Massey argues that residential segregation and the resultant networks

have been instrumental in creating a niche within which, “…a deleterious set of

attitudes and behaviours – a culture of segregation has arisen and flourished.” In

this context, segregation has created the structural conditions that allow for the

emergence of an oppositional culture, which devalues key indicators of

socioeconomic success in employment, education and family formation.27

Therefore, as new members of the minority group enter the segregated area, they

are subject to the peer pressure of existing members to conform to existing

‘deleterious’ norms in relation to employment, education, fertility and language.

They may also be exposed to information that is referential to the segregated

community (welfare access) rather than the information normally communicated

to and consumed by broader society (such as labour market entry and further

education).28 This selectivity of informationhas the potential to ultimately create

26 Ibid., Bauder, H., and Sharpe, B., (2002). pg 206 27 Ibid., pg 8 28 Bertrand, M., Luttmer, E., and Mullainathan, S., (October 1998). Network Effects and Welfare Cultures, Princeton University, Working Paper 405

15


an ‘oppositional culture,’ which opposes the ideals and norms of mainstream

society.29

Spatial segregation measures

Spatial segregation can be defined as the extent to which, within a particular area,

individual members of different groups are distributed in an even fashion across

physical spaces.30

The dissimilarity index provides an indication of whether the distribution of these

groups is relatively even or uneven; how many of one group have to exchange

residence with the other group on the basis that a score of 1 indicates even

distribution (where all groups are distributed through spaces in a completely

uniform manner and no exchange of residence between groups would be

required).

Insights from the dissimilarity index may be limited due to the issue of

comparability. In order for valuable comparisons to be made, it is important that

geographical areas remain relatively consistent over time.31 By maintaining

constant units, as is the case in this study, interpretations about the causes and

outcomes of segregation remain valid to a greater degree.

The ecological fallacy must also be considered. In order for the dissimilarity index

to be a reliable and comparable indicator of spatial segregation, geographic units

must be held constant over multiple time periods.32 Steps to address the fallacy

have been taken by using data relating to the most detailed geography accessible

and maintaining this geography across periods in the subsequent dissimilarity

index calculation.

29 Ibid., Balakrishnan, T.R., and Feng Hou., (1999). pg 203 30 Reardon, S. F and O'Sullivan, D., (2004). Measures of spatial segregation, Sociological Methodology 34, pp 121-‐162 31 Pisati, M., (Novembe 2009). Spatial Indicies of Residential Segregation, Department of Sociology and Social Research University of Milano-‐Bicocca (Italy), 6th Italian Stata Users Group meeting 32 McGraw, D and Watson, G., (1976). Political and social inquiry, Wiley, pg 134

16


The index of dissimilarity is just one way to measure spatial segregation and

when considered alone, may not fully reflect the level of under/over-‐

representation across areas or the extent of exposure and interaction between

groups.

Exposure measures attempt to determine the level of interaction and isolation

between different groups within a particular area, and measure the extent to

which minority and majority members physically confront one another by virtue

of sharing a common residential area.33 There are two basic measures of

residential exposure: the interaction index measures the extent to which

members of the minority group are exposed to the majority group. The isolation

index measures the extent to which members of a particular group are only

exposed to one another, rather than to members of other groups.

While no global consensus has been reached on the most appropriate measure of

segregation, due to the “complexity and ambiguity of the concept of

segregation,”34 a literature review points to the index of dissimilarity as being the

most widely used and relevant measure.

Dimensions of segregation

A developed and useful understanding of segregation requires consideration from

multiple perspectives, an approach supported by Massey and Denton who assert

that more than one index is required in order to accurately measure segregation.

In an analysis of twenty segregation indices, they conclude that there exist five

dimensions of segregation: evenness, exposure, concentration, centralization and

clustering.35 In this study, I consider evenness and exposure and also measure

concentration using a proportional calculation.

Determining the level of evenness, exposure and concentration present within

cities provides a meaningful calculation to explain settlement patterns of the

33 Massey, D.A. and Denton, N.A., (1988). Residential Segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by Socioeconomic Status and Generation, Social Science Quarterly, 69, pg 287 34 James, D. and Taeuber, K., (1985). Measures of Segregation, Sociological Methodology 15, pg 24 35 Massey, D. S. and Denton, N. A., (December 1988). The Dimensions of Residential Segregation, Social Forces 67:2, pg 283

17


foreign-‐born. The consideration of these multiple dimensions of segregation is

crucial in order for policy makers to be in a position to make connections

between economic and social measures of integration and spatial segregation

patterns. Without considering segregation from multiple angles, informed

decisions aimed at facilitating and improving integration outcomes are limited to

a reliance on one-‐dimensional data, which indicates integration outcomes but

does not offer a link between these outcomes and the spatial representation of

the foreign-‐born.

Evenness

The dissimilarity index in its basic form measures the “differential distribution of

two social groups among defined areas” or the level of evenness.36 Both Massey

and Harrison conclude that of the most widely used measures of segregation, it is

the dissimilarity index that is the most reliable in representing evenness, due to

its simplicity and widespread empirical use.37

Exposure

Indices of exposure measure, at an individual level, the extent to which groups are

exposed to physical contact as a result of living in the same neighbourhood. The

most common indices include those relating to interaction and isolation. The

importance of contact between natives and foreigners was first noted by Bell as a

key factor in determining integration outcomes.38

Concentration

Concentration is determined by analysing how ethnic groups of the same size

occupy particular spaces. By understanding levels of concentration, one can

36 Ibid., Massey, D. S. and Denton, N. A., (December 1988). pg 283 37 Harrison, R. and Weinberg, D., (1992). Residential Segregation – Measure Definitions in Racial and Ethnic Segregation, working paper, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., pg 2 38 Bell, W., (1954). A Probability Model for the Measurement of Ecological Segregation, Social Forces 32, pp 357-‐64

18


conclude that certain groups may be “considered more concentrated and

consequently more segregated.”39

The global city

The creation of the global city

Global cities must constantly adapt to changing population, socioeconomic and

geopolitical dynamics and migration is emerging as one of the key factors that

cuts across each of each of these forces. I consider the global city in this study and

seek to highlight and explain similarities and distinctions in migrant integration –

analysed through spatial segregation in this case – within three global cities. I also

pose questions about how the management of migrants’ spatial integration might

impact the future success of the migrant and the city.

The divergent processes – economic, social, cultural and spatial – of globalisation

can be seen in cities around the world. National borders, while still spatially firm,

are losing ground as a result of the extensive international interaction and

integration – made possible by information technology and communication

networks – of economic, political and social forces.40

These forces are determining a new spatial order and driving a new urban

hierarchy that is founded not only in national boundaries, but is also shaped by

networks and interconnectedness. The resultant global cities compete to maintain

their role in transnational human and capital flows, a contest that shifts the focus

between the inanimate features of place to the flows that contribute to its

whole.41

The strategic role cities play in the urban hierarchy is currently being resolved

through the interactions and conflict between state and private institutions. The

power of capitalism has the potential to result in the profit-‐motivated private

sector gaining increasing scope and physical power to commodify space. This 39 Ibid., Harrison, R. and Weinberg, D., (1992). pg 3 40 Friedmann, J., (1995). The World City Hypothesis. World Cities in a World System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 41 Castells, M., (1996). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (Vol. 1). Cambridge, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

19


process of commodification can be seen in the grouping of socioeconomically

alike individuals in order to achieve economies of scale in service delivery.

Global cities have also given in to the forces of gentrification, where land and

public space is recycled to the highest value. This creates investment expectations

and the pressure to self-‐replicate intensifies competition at a national, city and

suburban level. It has also led to a spatial restructuring of key infrastructure and

amenities within cities. This process generally results in the central, most

connected areas of the city being priced out of reach of minority groups at a lower

socioeconomic level, thereby reinforcing latent disadvantages already present.42

Within a spatial construct, higher economic classes confront those at lower levels

and displace them from sought-‐after inner city areas to yet-‐poorer and potentially

more disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This iterating sequence of events widens

inequalities and creates “divided, partitioned, polarised and fragmented” cities.43

Sassen expresses concern that the increasing levels of spatial segregation raise

the likelihood of increased polarisation and social exclusion.44

Migration and the global city

The migrant flows that are the logical result of globalisation naturally lead to a

state of multiculturalism, defined by Rosado as “…a system of beliefs and

behaviours that recognises and respects the presence of all diverse groups in an

organisation or society, acknowledges and values their socio-‐cultural differences

and encourages and enables their continued contribution within an inclusive

cultural context which empowers all within the organisation or society.”45

Cities are a natural habitat of migrants and function as environments that both

provide for and rely upon the positive replication of the migratory process for

their longevity. They are pluralistic spaces where the obligation to adhere to

42 Madanipour, A., (2003). Social Exclusion and Space, The City Reader, London and New York: Routledge, pp 181-‐188 43 Massey, D. S. (2009). Globalization and Inequality: Explaining American Exceptionalism, European Sociological Review, pp 9-‐23 44 Sassen, S., (2001). The Global City: New York, London, and Tokyo (Second ed.). Princeton University Press 45 Rosado, C., (1997). Toward a definition of multiculturalism. www.rosado.net

20


certain host society cultural norms is diluted somewhat by the presence of

multiple cultures. This pluralism deepens the complexity of intercultural

interactions and the potential for conflict. Migrants must expend greater energy

to maintain their identity and the host society must adapt to numerous cultures

competing for space.46

This pluralisation of societies can represent a positive outcome for migrants,

whose integration is eased by previously established networks, emotional and

logistical support and referential cultural landmarks. However, it may also be

interpreted as a threat to the nation-‐state. Migrants, who are one of the driving

forces behind increasing levels of multiculturalism, each possess different

ambitions and require distinct integration approaches. This requires a degree of

cultural and structural flexibility that not all societies are willing to accommodate,

often preferring that migrants operate under the same paradigm as the majority

endorsed construct.47

As cities evolve through the process of urbanisation, levels of ethnic and cultural

diversity increase. The establishment of self-‐referential communities reduces the

relevance of and reverence to the culture and identity of the state. While cultural

identity and geographic boundaries have historically coincided, technological

developments in communication and transportation have diminished the

importance of geographical separation on cultural identity. This allows cultural

identity to be maintained regardless of place, allowing people to be ‘both here and

there’ simultaneously.48

Global cities such as Barcelona, London and Melbourne will remain attractive to

migrants as a result of the economic and social opportunities that naturally exist

within them. In each of the cities analysed, the proportion of foreigners increased,

or remained high over the period analysed [Barcelona: 1-‐18% (1991-‐2008),

London: 25-‐32% (1991-‐2001), Melbourne: 33-‐31% (1996-‐2006)].

46 Ottiaviano, G. and Prarolo G., (November 2008). Cultural Identity and Knowledge Creation in Cosmopolitan Cities, Bocconi University of Bologna, pp 1-‐5 47 Koopmans, R and Statham, P., (1999) Challenging the Liberal Nation-State? Postnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany, The University of Chicago 48 Beck, U., (2000). What is Globalisation?, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press

21


The consideration of the spatial representation of migrants is therefore critical for

cities aiming to ensure social, economic and cultural evolution. By analysing the

spatial preferences and behaviour of migrants, specifically their spatial

segregation, cities are able to obtain a deeper understanding of the forces driving

this representation. Knowledge of spatial segregation trends allows cities to

hypothesise policies and actions that aim to ensure this segregation remains a

positive phenomenon, which supports migrant integration into society.

City selection

The selection of cities for this study was based on several factors. Cities must be

sufficiently diverse with a significant foreign-‐born population, in order to allow

for observations to be made regarding the integration and segregation of different

groups. Cities must also be globalised – in economic, social and cultural terms – to

ensure the consistent treatment of ideologies, attitudes and behaviours across

cities and to allow for comparable interpretations of segregation.

There is also an important personal aspect to the selection of these three cities.

Residential experience within each of the cities analysed and an understanding of

the hyper-‐local economic, residential and cultural forces, not immediately

observable at a macro level, has allowed for greater insight into the implications

of migrant segregation.

A series of maps shows the concentration of the foreign-‐born population in the

three cities at two time points and highlights the contribution of each area to total

migrant growth over the period considered. Due to data availability and graphic

considerations, these maps were created using different geographic units to the

ones used in the calculation of the dissimilarity index.

An analysis of the social, structural and spatial make-‐up of each city is provided

below.

22


Barcelona

Background

The City of Barcelona covers 101 km2 with a population of approximately 1.6

million people according to the Ajuntament de Barcelona.

Barcelona’s history is rooted in Roman conquest and, despite the 1936-‐39 civil

war, the city experienced the full force of industrialisation, which saw large-‐scale

regional and international migration and led to the rapid urbanisation that

continues today.

While the official population of Barcelona currently stands at 1.6 million, the city

relies on an economic population of over 5.0 million.49 Population density in

Barcelona of 15,779 persons per km2 – the highest within Spain – is elevated

compared to other European cities. The Council of Barcelona estimates that in

2008 some 18 per cent of the population originated outside of Spain, up

significantly from the 1 per cent recorded in 1991.

Barcelona is a global city in both its size and the size of its foreign population.50

The city has urbanised over the past two decades and experiences high levels of

density. Both rural-‐to-‐urban and international migrants are drawn to the city for

reasons that may be economic (employment opportunities), social (to more easily

connect with family and friends) and cultural (to access the activities and events

not available in more rural settings).

Spain’s migration policy follows the traditional ‘open borders’ European model.

However, with a large number of undocumented migrants, more stringent

regulations have been introduced. The government continues to focus on border

protection as a means of slowing rapidly expanding migration flows and has also

succumbed to populist pressure to restrict migration flows originating in the

49 Institut d'Estadística de Catalunya, accessed May 2011, http://www.idescat.cat/ 50 Beaverstock, J., (July 1998). Globalization and the World Cities Research Network (GaWC), GaWC Research Bulletin 5, GaWC, Loughborough University

23


labour market. Nevertheless, multiculturalism is firmly supported, in contrast to

neighbouring France’s promotion of assimilation.

Barcelona is a relatively young city of migration and just 1 per cent of the total

population was foreign-‐born in 1991. The city experienced rapid immigration

from poorer countries in the Middle East, Africa and South America during the

1990s and more recently from other Western countries as Spain’s economy

expanded. These flows have contributed to the jump in Barcelona’s foreign-‐born

population, which hit 18 per cent of the total in 2008.

In Barcelona, there is limited public ownership of land, which has prevented the

development of regulated social housing. The housing market is by and large a

free market with a high percentage of private property compared to other

European countries. This is the result of the social and economic changes that

took place during the second half of the twentieth century,51 whereby home

ownership became the primary strategy individuals and families adopted in order

to maintain social and economic status. The rental market has, until recently,

been moribund, and was to a large extent restricted to long-‐term tenants paying

low rents. However, recent policy developments have led to its liberalization,52

however, subsidized housing is still virtually non-‐existent, which may influence

migrant spatial patterns and integration outcomes.

Official data from the Ajuntament de Barcelona shows that migrants originating in

Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Argentina represent a large proportion of the

foreign-‐born residing in Barcelona, which may be the result of the linguistic ties

Spain shares with Latin America. In addition, Spain’s proximity to Africa has seen

a strong presence of migrants originating in North Africa settling throughout

Spain, particularly urban areas such as Barcelona and Madrid.

Figure 1 highlights Barcelona’s negligible foreign population (representing just 1

per cent) in 1991 by barrio, before advancing markedly over the subsequent 17

years and reaching 18 per cent of the total population in 2008 as can be seen in

51 Cabre, A. and Módenes, J. A., (2004). Home Ownership and Social Inequality in Spain, Centre d’Estudis Demogràfics, Stanford: Stanford University Press 52 Ibid.

24


figure 2. Density in Barcelona is high, allowing immigrants to realistically afford

inner-‐city living. This ensures migrants are in a position to avoid segregated areas

and locate in barrios more connected to employment and education

opportunities.

Figure 3 shows the contribution of each barrio in Barcelona to overall growth in

the foreign-‐born population between 1991 and 2008. The areas where the

majority of growth in the foreign population took place are centrally located and

include the barrios of Raval and Gotic. However, growth was also observed in the

proximal outer-‐lying suburbs, which, as is the case in London and Melbourne, are

areas that have proven to attract migrant communities due to affordability and

the familiarity that comes with existing concentrations.

Maps

Figure 1 – foreigners as a proportion of total population by barrio, 1991

25


Figure 2 – foreigners as a proportion of total population by barrio, 2008

Figure 3 – contribution to foreign-population growth by barrio, 1991-2008

26


London

Background

Greater London covers 1,572 km2 and contains some 7.8 million people according

to the Office of National Statistics.

The formation of London has not been clear-‐cut, and the creation of the current

administrative area took place in 1965. In 1934, Danish architect and urban

planner, Steen Eiler Rasmussen referred to London as a “…greater and still

greater accumulation of towns…where people still live in their own home in small

communities with local government just as they had done in the Middle Ages,”53

which highlights the distinct regional identities that comprise London.

Through industrialisation, London's population expanded during the 19th and

early 20th centuries, becoming the largest city in the world prior to being

overtaken by New York in 1925. Its population peaked at 8.2 million in 1939.

Population density in London stands at 4,760 people per km2, more than ten

times that of any other British region, and continues to attract regional and

international migrants drawn to the urban environment.

London is popularly considered one the original global cities and along with New

York, ranked first in one of the first attempts to categorise global cities.54 A large

proportion of foreign-‐born reside in London and the city also plays a key role in

international financial and commercial markets. London is a preferred

destination for migrants both within the UK seeking greater employment and

social opportunities as well as international migrants who are drawn to the well-‐

established ethnic enclaves (Indians in west London and Jamaicans in north and

north-‐west London).55

The UK has an open migration policy and until recently, multiculturalism was

enthusiastically promoted (debate is currently taking place regarding its future).

53 Rasmussen, S. E., (1982). London: The Unique City, The MIT Press 54 Beaverstock, J., (July 1998). Globalization and the World Cities Research Network (GaWC), GaWC Research Bulletin 5, GaWC, Loughborough University 55 Office for National Statistics, Official Labour Market Statistics, accessed April 2011

27


Britain allows refugees and family reunification but is increasingly placing greater

emphasis on skilled migrants who are subject to a points test.

A survey of London's ethnic and religious diversity conducted in 2005 showed

that diversity was strong in London, with the existence of over 300 languages and

more than 50 non-‐indigenous communities with a population greater than

10,000. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2001, London's

foreign-‐born population was 2.4 million (32 per cent), up from results found in

the 1991 census, which showed a foreign population representing 25 per cent of

the total.

London has existed as an immigration hub for centuries, whether as a place

where people were able to find safety or for socioeconomic reasons. Those fleeing

persecution such as eastern European Jews and Cypriots are examples of the

former; while the latter includes migrants originating in Ireland, Bangladesh and

the West Indians pursuing improved standards of living.

London has a well-‐established private housing market, allowing entry by both

natives migrating from poorer parts of England and international migrants. The

demand is high to the point where public housing is oversubscribed and

subsequent policy initiatives, such as private-‐public partnerships have been

introduced to alleviate demand.

While the public housing avenue is open to migrants and living conditions are

good, access may be more difficult, not only because of the strong demand but

also because of increased regulation.

In London, an increase in the concentration of migrants can be observed, rising

from 24 per cent of the overall population in 1991 to 34 per cent in 2001. Figure 5

shows the stronger concentration of migrants particularly in the urban centre,

which includes the boroughs of Ken and Chelsea as well as Westminster as well as

in the western London boroughs of Brent. These areas may attract migrants due

to their greater affordability and the existence of social and economic migrant

networks. London’s policy to combine affordable with standard housing appears

28


to ensure an even spatial spread, with migrant concentrations scattered through

London’s wards, rather than concentrated in a particularly segregated fashion.

In figure 6, the contribution of each borough to overall growth in the number of

foreigners is illustrated. In particular, it is the north and south of London that

provides the greatest contribution to overall growth. This north-‐south growth in

the foreign-‐born population may be explained by the spread of social housing

away from traditional migrant communities to open up new areas to the

multicultural profile that represents modern London.

Maps

Figure 4 – foreigners as a proportion of total population by borough, 1991

29


Figure 5 – foreigners as a proportion of total population by borough, 2001

Figure 6 – contribution to foreign-population growth by borough, 1991-2001

30


Melbourne

Background

The Melbourne statistical division covers 7,673 km2 with a population of some 3.3

million people in 2006 according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Melbourne was formed through the arrival of European settlers; however, its

contemporary growth was driven by post-‐World War II migration. Its cultural

diversity and economic prosperity continues to attract regional and international

migrants.

Population growth in Melbourne is strong and the city is expected to contain

between 5-‐7 million people by 2030. Population density in Melbourne currently

stands at 1,566 per km2 but is expected to rise in order to accommodate forecast

population growth and maintain a commitment to current zoning regulations.

Melbourne joined the ranks of global cities as the pace of population growth

accelerated, driven primarily by flows of national and international migrants. The

proportion of foreign-‐born in Melbourne is high compared to Barcelona and

London and also at a global level.56 Population forecasts point to Melbourne

becoming Australia’s largest city by 2037,57 which will eventuate in capital and

cultural flows that are expected to confirm its place as a global city.

Australia’s migration policy is liberal and the government continues to pursue a

policy of multiculturalism. Migrants enter Australia through refugee avenues,

family reunification or as skilled migrants.

Melbourne’s demographic history is founded on immigration. Flows from the gold

rush of the 1850s saw large numbers of migrants from Europe including Germany

and Ireland as well as China and the United States. The next great influx of

immigrants came following World War II, when refugees arrived from Greece,

Italy, Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Lebanon, Cyprus and Turkey. Today, Melbourne

is a destination city for the world’s migrants, and in both 1996 and 2006, over 30 56 globalstudy.org, (2005). A Global Perspective on the Connections between Immigrants and World Cities, pg 9 57 Gadiel, Aaron., (April 2010). Going Nowhere, BIS Shrapnel

31


per cent of the total population was born outside Australia. Reflecting

Commonwealth ties, migrants from the UK and New Zealand were the largest

group, however in recent times, migrants from China, India and other south-‐east

Asian countries represent the largest component of migration flows.

There is a large proportion of public housing in Melbourne, which is regulated by

private organisations, public-‐private housing associations and government

bodies. Living conditions in Melbourne are good and there is easy access to social

housing, which like London is also oversubscribed. Melbourne is beginning to

experience affordability issues in the property market due to the city’s

exponential population growth. However, a robust welfare state, which includes

housing benefit systems and individual rent subsidies, ensures the city remains

an attractive prospect for migrants.

In Melbourne, the concentration of the foreign population was virtually

unchanged, dropping from 33 per cent in 1996 to 31 per cent in 2006. Figure 8

shows that traditional areas of migration – inner-‐city (Melbourne city) and on the

city fringes in the south-‐east growth area that includes Greater Dandenong – hold

true for Melbourne, which is a well-‐established city of migration. These areas of

concentration attract migrants and have the potential to lead to greater levels of

segregation, through the maintenance of a single ethnic profile.

Figure 9 considers the contribution of each local government area (LGA) to

overall growth in the foreign-‐born population. While the urban core contributed

to growth in the foreign population, it was in the emerging western and south-‐

eastern suburbs that the majority of growth originated. This may be attributable

to greater affordability and also to the existence of already-‐established migrant

communities. The representation may also be the result of infrastructure

investment linking outer-‐lying areas with the urban centre of Melbourne, which

functions as the primary population and job hub.

32


Maps

Figure 7 – foreigners as a proportion of total population by LGA, 1996

Figure 8 – foreigners as a proportion of total population by LGA, 2006

33


Figure 9 – contribution to foreign-population growth by LGA, 1996-2006

Methodology

Measurement

The primary measure of spatial segregation is the dissimilarity index, which

empirical analysis has shown to be the most useful and relevant measure of

segregation, a conclusion supported by Johnston et al.58 Nevertheless, Massey and

Denton promote the consideration of segregation through multiple measures,

arguing that segregation “...does not stem from a single process, but from a

complex interplay of many different social and economic processes that generate

various constellations of outcomes interpreted as ‘segregation’.”59

In the analysis of spatial segregation of the foreign-‐born in Barcelona, London and

Melbourne, segregation is considered through three contexts:

1. The dissimilarity index (D) is calculated to show the proportion of migrants that

would have to exchange places with a native in order to achieve even distribution.

58 Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., and Forrest, J., (2007). Ethnic and Racial Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1980-2000: The Dimensions of Segregation Revisited, Urban Affairs Review 42, pp 479-‐504 59 Ibid., Massey, D.A. and Denton, N.A., (1988). pp 309, 797-‐818

34


E.g., a score of 0.24 indicates that 24 per cent of the foreign population would

need to relocate for even spatial distribution to occur.

2. The isolation index (P) shows, in this paper, the probability that a randomly

chosen foreigner will meet with another foreigner. E.g., a score of 0.31 shows that

31 per cent of foreigners are likely to interact with another foreigner.

3. The concentration of migrants (C) shows the foreign-‐born proportion of the total

population by area. This data is represented in the preceding maps and provides a

visual support to understand segregation within each city

The calculation of these segregation measures is set out in Appendix 1.

Tracts

The tracts used for each city and are explained below.

Barcelona

Barcelona 1991 2008

Geography Zonas de estudio Zonas de estudio

Units 248 248

Average population 6,626 6,565

In Barcelona, zonas de estudio were used, of which there are 248 in the City of

Barcelona. In 1991, each zona de estudio contained an average 6,005 persons and

in 2008 there was an average of 6,565 persons. 60

London

London 1991 2001

Geography 1991 ward 2003 ward

Units 782 628


60 Ajuntament de Barcelona, Department of Statistics, accessed April 2011 * The difference in the number of wards in London between 1991 and 2001 is due to

boundary changes.

35


In London, data for wards was accessed*. For Greater London, there were 782

wards in 1991, with an average of 8,536 persons, while in 2001 there were 628

wards with an average of 11,786 persons. 61

Melbourne

Melbourne 1996 2006

Geography SLAs SLAs

Units 79 79


In Melbourne, data related to statistical local areas, of which there are 79 in the

Melbourne statistical region. There were an average of 39,724 persons in each

SLA in 1991 and an average of 42,006 persons in 2006. 62

Results

Barcelona

Table 1 – Barcelona statistical profile and segregation results, 1991 and 2008

Barcelona 1991 2008

Total population 1,643,388 1,628,120

Foreign population 23,329 291,379

Proportion foreign-born (C) 1% 18%

Dissimilarity index (D) 0.32 0.23

Isolation index (P) 0.03 0.24

63

The dissimilarity index for Barcelona fell from 0.32 in 1991 to 0.23 in 2008,

indicating that over this period the even distribution of the foreign-‐born

population throughout Barcelona improved. However, using data for secciones

censales, of which there are 1,061 (unavailable for 1991), the level of spatial

61 Office for National Statistics, Official Labour Market Statistics, accessed April 2011 62 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census 1996 and Census 2006, accessed April 2011 (SLA: statistical local area) 63 Ibid., Ajuntament de Barcelona, April 2011

36


segregation as measured by the dissimilarity index was 0.2910 in 2008. This

difference highlights the importance of context in calculating and interpreting

indices and other measures, which government and the private sector use to

influence policy formation.

During the same time period, the isolation index increased from virtually 0 to

0.24, indicating that segregation on the basis of exposure increased. The

significant demographic changes observed over the 17 years to 2008, which saw

foreigners as a proportion of the total population in Barcelona rise from 1 to 18

per cent, pushed ethnic diversity to levels witnessed in other global cities.

Therefore, while the isolation index increased markedly, its rise may simply be a

statistical anomaly of the fact that the foreign-‐born increased from such a

negligible proportion in 1991 and therefore distorted the base of the calculation.

As migration flows continue to transform Barcelona’s demographic profile, it can

be hypothesised that the level of segregation as measured by the dissimilarity

index will continue to decline provided integration policies are initiated that

allow for the even spatial distribution of migrants.

With the establishment of migrant networks, however, the isolation index may

potentially increase as new migrants are drawn to these already established

communities in order to take advantage of network forces. Therefore, migrants

are likely to be less segregated as measured by evenness while segregation, as

measured by exposure, may actually worsen.

London

Table 2 – London statistical profile and segregation results, 1991 and 2001

London 1991 2001


Foreign population 1,673,502 2,390,920

C 25% 32%

D 0.27 0.25

P 0.31 0.38

37


64

The dissimilarity index for London was virtually unchanged between 1991 and

2001, dropping from 0.27 to 0.25. This reflects a level of stability in the spatial

segregation of the foreign-‐born in London, perhaps suggesting that the spatial

structure at an institutional level and the ethnic preferences are entrenched.

When the index is calculated using the 24,000 output areas surveyed in 2001, the

index rises to 0.28. This indicates that when analysed at a finer level, segregation

rises, raising key questions around data representation. This analysis

acknowledges the limits of the units chosen and simply highlights the need to

keep in mind the limitations of data interpretation.

Between 1991 and 2001, the isolation index rose from 0.31 to 0.38, which

suggests that the probability that migrants will encounter natives dropped over

the 10-‐year period. However, within the context of London’s immigration history,

the relatively high isolation score may indicate that the spatial representation of

migrants, and their relative segregation functions as a positive factor. As has been

highlighted in the earlier theoretical analysis, segregation allows for the creation

of migrant networks, which empirical research has demonstrated may have a

positive influence on migrant integration.

The stability of the dissimilarity index between 1991 and 2001, may suggest that

London, as one of the most ethnically diverse global cities, has reached a natural

rate of segregation, on which increasing migration flows and changing policy have

little impact. The level of isolation also rose marginally over this period, which

may indicate that as the proportion of foreign-‐born increases, networks

strengthen, which points to segregation in London acting as a supportive, rather

than limiting factor.

64 Ibid., Office for National Statistics, April 2011

38


Melbourne

Table 3 – Melbourne statistical profile and segregation results, 1996 and 2006

Melbourne 1996 2006


Foreign population 1,032,524 1,036,713

C 33% 31%

D 0.18 0.19

P 0.36 0.35

65

Between 1996 and 2006, the dissimilarity index for Melbourne was essentially

unchanged, rising from 0.18 to 0.19. In comparison to Barcelona and London, the

results indicate that segregation in Melbourne is markedly lower. As was

observed in Barcelona and London, when the dissimilarity index is calculated at a

smaller geography (census collection districts, of which there are 6,326), the

index increases, to 0.23 in this case.

Segregation, as represented through exposure, remained virtually unchanged

over the 10 years to 2006, with the isolation index at 0.35. This may indicate, that

Melbourne, a city founded on immigration and enjoying a relatively even

distribution of the foreign-‐born population, may be functioning at a natural rate

of segregation. In this context, migrant communities are able to exist as separate

entities, allowing for the formation and maintenance of cultural ties, without the

need to cut contact with broader society, an action that may be necessary for

younger migrant communities, in order to guarantee cultural capital.

As population growth in Melbourne continues to be driven primarily by foreign-‐

born migrant flows, the dissimilarity index is expected to remain at the

comparatively low levels witnessed in 1996 and 2006. The isolation index is

similarly expected to remain stable, as migrant networks strengthen and

concentrations become positive sources of integration, ensuring interaction

continues to support a socially and economically functioning society.

65 Ibid., Australian Bureau of Statistics, April 2011

39


Comparative analysis

Intercity

In order for the results of individual cities to hold weight, intercity comparisons

are necessary. These comparisons allow for similarities and distinctions to be

found and insights to be made. The two outstanding results of this analysis are

the marked swing in Barcelona’s foreign population and the low D value in

Melbourne.

Table 4 – Summary of migrant segregation in Barcelona, London and Melbourne

Variable Barcelona London Melbourne

C – latest data 18% 32% 31%

C - change +17 pp +7 pp -‐2 pp

D – latest data 0.27 0.25 0.19

D - change -‐0.09 -‐0.02 +0.01

P – latest data 0.24 0.31 0.35

P - change -‐0.21 +0.07 -‐0.01

Table 4 shows that of the three cities, Barcelona was home to the lowest

proportion of foreigners, despite a marked increase between time periods.

Meanwhile, the proportion dropped marginally in Melbourne, but remained high

and matched the level experienced in London. The rapid urbanisation and

modernisation that Barcelona underwent between 1991 and 2008 appears to

indicate that migration is either an influencing factor of this process or an

outcome.

As the foreign proportion in Barcelona increased, the dissimilarity index declined

to levels more in line with London and Melbourne, where the index remained

virtually unchanged. One reading of this result may be to attribute the greater

concentration of foreigners to their more even spatial distribution, which could

be explained by the maturing of migrant networks. As these networks become

established, they may allow new migrants to settle in disparate areas of the city

and maintain the necessary cultural and economic connections, thereby removing

the reliance on physical concentrations for the maintenance of these linkages.

40


Spatial segregation eased in London while the proportion of foreign-‐born rose

above 30 per cent, possibly influenced by an easing of immigration controls in

response to labour demands. This new paradigm saw London emerge as a

popular destination amongst Asian (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) and Middle

Eastern (Turkey) migrants whose second language of choice was English.

Government policy in London prescribes certain levels of diversity in economic

and ethnic terms and the declining level of segregation may be attributable to this

approach. On the other hand, segregation may have naturally declined as the

proportion of foreigners increased and London became more experienced at

spatially integrating migrants to achieve a more even distribution.

The dissimilarity index in Melbourne was clearly the lowest of the three cities

analysed across both periods. Melbourne is still maturing as a global city in terms

of economic and cultural influence, however, in terms of migratory history, it is

the city with the most complete experience; having been founded on immigration.

The low D score could be interpreted as an indication of the interconnected

nature of the relationship the city has with migration. Playing such a crucial role

in the city’s evolution, migration is likely to have influenced the initial and

subsequent spatial patterns of migrants, whose social and economic integration

was key to Melbourne’s advancement. The internationally low score may

therefore indicate that the spatial segregation of migrants can be minimised by

creating a city while acknowledging and embracing the presence of migrants, as

was self-‐evident in Melbourne.

Another factor to consider in explaining spatial segregation results is the

evolutionary status of a city, as the distinct historic contexts of each city may

explain current patterns of segregation. The cities of Barcelona, London and

Melbourne each experienced the beginning and expansion of migration flows at

different points in their evolution, and the profile and context of this migration

was also distinct for each city.

London, as one of the original global cities, has been a city of migration for

centuries and its place in the world as a point of transience has seen migration

flows continue to increase over the last decades. Despite being a well-‐established

41


society, the declining spatial segregation score indicates that the city has been

able to integrate migrants through a combination of policy (social diversification)

and cultural frameworks (multiculturalism). The diversification policy of London

involves the conscious establishment of policy targets aimed at ensuring the

socioeconomic and ethnic profile of areas remains balanced. An example of this

policy relates to housing, where each borough of London must contain a mix of

residential, commercial affordable property stock, as well as having access to

public space and essential services such as health care and education.

Multiculturalism is currently undergoing debate in the UK as the city grapples

with constantly changing dynamics. The impact of this historically rooted policy

on migrant segregation is not clear, however its withdrawal is undoubtedly likely

to affect how migrants spatially locate.

As a city founded on migration, the evolution of Melbourne took place

simultaneously to the integration of migrants. This resulted in the formation of a

city whose structural and social form was determined to some degree by

migrants themselves. Their strong cultural presence – evident in the well-‐

established Little Italys, Chinatowns and Greek Quarters scattered through the

city – along with the virtually non-‐existent levels of reported intercultural

conflict, may indicate that low levels of migrant segregation in Melbourne’s may

be the reward of its migration history. The stability observed in Melbourne, in

terms of the foreign-‐born population and the dissimilarity index, may indicate

that the well-‐established culture of migration in Melbourne has resulted in the

consistent spatial integration of migrants. It may also suggest that there is a

natural level of both the foreign-‐born population and their segregation.

Barcelona, in contrast to Melbourne, is a city with a significant history but has

only experienced migrant inflows over the past two decades. The influx of

migrants was recorded alongside a significant decline in the level of spatial

segregation in Barcelona, the outlier city in this analysis. This may be explained

by its ability to apply integration lessons learnt in older countries of migration

and effectively ‘leapfrog’ the more moderate improvements in segregation

reduction seen in London. An alternative interpretation highlights the dramatic

change in the foreign-‐born proportion that took place between the periods

42


analysed. The significant migration flows into Barcelona took place in a city that

was sufficiently urbanised by the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century

and therefore migrants integrated themselves into existing economic, physical

and social structures. This context is very different to the one that faced London

and Melbourne, where migrants were part of the formation of the city. One may

infer that Barcelona was able to drastically reduce segregation despite an

increasing foreign-‐born proportion as a result of pre-‐existing social, economic

and physical structures, a result that follows, but to a much greater degree, the

changes observed in London.

In order to add weight to the assertion that a natural level of foreigners and

segregation exists within global cities, consideration across an increased number

of cities and periods is required. The following section highlights the results

across a limited number of cities and this study provides the basis for further

research in this area.

Global cities

In terms of providing an international context, the proportion and spatial

segregation of foreigners in global cities within 10 other countries are considered.

Using the results of this analysis, it is possible to make an observation that there

exists a particular ethnic profile that defines global cities. The foreign proportion

rose strongly in Barcelona and more moderately in London, but stabilised in

Melbourne at 31 per cent of the total. This may suggest that as a proportion of the

total population, a 30 per cent ‘threshold’ applies to global cities. This observation

is confirmed when comparing the results with other global cities (London: 32 per

cent, New York: 29 per cent, Paris: 31 per cent, Zurich: 30 per cent, San Francisco:

30 per cent, Toronto: 45 per cent and Frankfurt: 28 per cent).66

The journey towards current ethnic structures has differed for the three cities

analysed. However, the increases observed in Barcelona and to a lesser extent

London, together with the slight decline that took place in Melbourne, point to a

66 Benton-‐Short, L.M., M. Price and S. Friedman. (2005). Globalization from Below: Ranking World Cities, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(4): pp 945-‐959

43


dynamic process that continues alongside the similarly evolving processes of

urbanisation. In order to clarify whether greater foreign populations are a

precursor of this urbanising trend or an outcome, as well as proving the assertion

that there exists a natural ethnic profile of global cities, further research is

necessary.

Table 5 – The spatial segregation and proportion of the foreign-born in global cities

City (Country) Year D C

Barcelona (Spain)67 2008 0.27 18%

London (United Kingdom )68 2001 0.25 32%

Melbourne (Australia )69 2006 0.19 31%

Avg all cities (Japan )70 2006 0.29 2%

Zurich (Switzerland )71 2000 0.33 30%

Paris (France)72 1999 0.23 31%

Athens (Greece )73 2001 0.19 24%

Rome (Italy)74 2001 0.38 17%

Gateway Cities* (USA)75 2000 0.48 28%

New Destinations** (USA) 2000 0.41 14%

Avg all cities (Mexico)76 2000 0.50 1%

Avg all cities (Germany)75 2000 0.36 28%

67 Author’s calculation, June 2011 68 Ibid., June 2011 69 Ibid., June 2011 70 Census Japan 2006, accessed May 2011, 71 Swiss Population Census 2000, accessed May 2011, 72 Sari, F, (May 2009)., Living in deprived neighbourhoods in the Paris agglomeration: an empirical analysis, Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi et TEPP, pg 14 73 National Centre for Social Research, (2005). Panorama of Greek census data 1991-2001, accessed May 2011, http://www.grsr.gr/preview.php?c_id=220 74 Bonifazi, C, Heins, F and Strozza, S., (2007) The settlement patterns of the foreign population in Italy at the start of the 21st century, http://209.128.81.248/view/167187-‐ZmJjY/4th_International_Conference_on_Population_Geographies_The_Chinese_University_of_Hong_Kong_1013_July_flash_ppt_presentation 75 Park, J and Iceland, J, (2009). Immigrant Residential Segregation in the U.S. in Established Immigrant Gateways and New Destinations 1990-2000, Princeton University, pp 9-‐10 76-‐ 77 Anderson, R.M., Ellison, G and Fudenberg, D., (2005). Location Choice in Two-Sided Market with Invisible Agents, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Discussion Paper 2056, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, http://www.economics.harvard.edu/pub/hier/2005/HIER2071.pdf

44


Avg all cities (India)76 2000 0.59 0.1%

Avg all cities (China)77 2000 0.62 0.2%

* Include cities such as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco.

**Include cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Orlando, Phoenix, Seatle and Washington D.C

Table 5 shows the stark differences in residential segregation and the foreign

profile in other global cities (due to data limitations, the average of all cities

within a particular country has been used in some cases).

This international comparison allows for a number of observations. In terms of

the proportion of foreign-‐born, there is a clear distinction between northern

European and other well-‐developed cities, excluding Japan, and those of southern

Europe (Barcelona, Rome and Athens). In the first group of cities, the foreign-‐

born represent close to or over 30 per cent of the total population, while in the

southern European group, the proportion is below 20%. Time series data and

additional analysis is required to draw firm conclusions, however, results may

indicate that increased foreigner-‐presence is linked to more developed

economies. This foreign presence may be the initiating factor of economic

development, as foreigners provide labour, contribute innovation and balance

demographic profiles, thereby supporting an environment for growth that relies

on a steadily expanding tax base and consumption. Or their presence may be the

consequence of development. With economic advancement, countries have a

greater humanitarian obligation, which results in increased migrant and refugee

intake. More developed countries also have a greater need for a steady supply of

foreigners to maintain the economic paradigm labour markets and governments

find themselves in.

A concrete conclusion regarding the level of segregation in other global cities is

difficult to make and the results of the dissimilarity index appear to cut across a

number of different contexts. When considering the level of development, we see

scores of 0.25 (London), 0.19 (Melbourne), 0.36 (Germany) and 0.48 (USA) in

cities that could all be classified as highly developed, while results are similarly

mixed for cities possessing a lower level of economic power with scores of 0.27

(Barcelona), 0.19 (Athens) and 0.50 (Mexico). Equally, levels of segregation are

45


scattered when overarching migration policies are considered. In Paris, where the

migration policy is decidedly assimilationist, the dissimilarity index is 0.23. Cities

that support the guest-‐worker model such as Germany and Switzerland have

scores of 0.36 (all German cities) and 0.33 (Zurich) respectively. While in cities

that champion multiculturalism, scores of 0.25 (London), 0.19 (Melbourne) and

0.48 (USA) are evident. Additional time series data is necessary in order to

interpret and link economic and policy changes with changing levels of foreigners

and their segregation within cities.

While a clear pattern in the proportion of foreign-‐born or the level of segregation

is difficult to observe, three key points can be made. Firstly, a single value to

describe spatial segregation does not provide great insight without

understanding the trend established through multiple time points. Secondly,

while international comparisons are interesting, they do not present significant

value or insight into the forces driving segregation or its implications. It is only

through the contextualisation of the social, economic and physical structure of the

city that the dissimilarity index has a role to play in the consideration and

recasting of government policy. Finally, an understanding of segregation at a

global governmental level is important in order to acknowledge similarities and

differences between cities and identify risks and opportunities in integration

policies at a social, economic and spatial level.

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

Barcelona, London and Melbourne are distinctly different cities in terms of their

structural and cultural evolution, which has influenced power relations between

different groups, economic development and demographic change. As global

cities, inextricably linked with the process of migration, there is an obligation, and

opportunity, to integrate migrants for mutual gain.

This study seeks to analyse how segregation exists in three global cities –

Barcelona, London and Melbourne – and promotes the consideration of seemingly

disparate, yet fundamentally connected forces, including demographic evolution,

46


cultural trends, government policy and the structural form in interpreting

segregation. Through a comparative global analysis, it specifically seeks to draw

attention to the consideration of segregation at a city level, which has been

empirically proven to play a key role in successful migrant integration.

Barcelona’s ethnic profile has undergone significant change over the 17 years to

2008, recording a spike in the proportion of foreign-‐born from 1 per cent in 1991

to 18 per cent. The city has experienced declining levels of residential segregation

of the foreign-‐born population, as measured by the dissimilarity index, while

segregation, as measured by the isolation index has increased. This indicates that

while migrant flows have accelerated, there has been both the more even

distribution of migrants (as the dissimilarity index drops) as well as the creation

of distinct self-‐contained migrant communities (evidenced by a higher score on

the isolation index).

In London the dissimilarity index was virtually unchanged, indicating that the

distribution of foreign-‐born persons between 1991 and 2001 remained relatively

constant. Meanwhile, the level of isolation increased, which may indicate the

increasing strength of networks. As the dissimilarity index remains comparatively

low, it is unlikely that the swing towards greater segregation represents a

negative force.

Melbourne has been a city of migration for several decades and no discernible

change in the proportion of foreign-‐born persons was observed over the 10-‐year

period considered. Similarly, the level of segregation as measured in terms of

evenness and exposure did not changed markedly. However, the most striking

change can be observed in the spatial profile of the foreign-‐born population, with

a strong shift to the inner and outer suburbs, for lifestyle and affordability

reasons respectively.

The formation of spatial segregation occurs at various levels and its render is

determined by seemingly disparate but fundamentally interrelated factors.

Migratory circumstances, reception on arrival, integration policies, socioeconomic

status, cultural norms and ingrained native attitudes, reflected in the level of

discrimination and prejudice latent in the host society all contribute to its

47


formation. Other factors highlighted in this study include the influence of

networks and government policy on how segregation is represented.

Addressing segregation requires a flexible approach, at a national and city level,

which takes into account the preferences and prejudices of the migrant and the

host society. Linkages between segregation and factors indicative of integration

have been well established by Massey and Denton; therefore a commitment at a

planning level is crucial in order to understand its representation and stand a

better chance of achieving the socioeconomic equality, residential and personal

mobility and freedom to which the migratory process aspires.77

A number of questions arise from this analysis demanding additional research.

Will immigrant segregation stabilise as cities continue to urbanise?

How will the changing ethnic profile of immigration flows, largely determined by

geopolitical fluctuations and national policy, influence levels of migrant

segregation?

How is the socioeconomic advancement and cultural assimilation of migrants

influenced by their patterns of segregation?

How much of a factor is the city in determining the render of segregation;

whether it exists as a positive force through migrant networks or a limiting factor

driven by attitudinal and social discrimination?

Global cities of the future

Global trends are leading to increasing urbanism, driven by immigration, and

reflected primarily in cities, which remain the ‘bedrock of integration.’78 As hubs

of diversity – of opinion, culture and ideology – cities provide the atmosphere in

which this diversity can be embraced and celebrated. However, attaining this

utopia relies on coordinated action at all levels of the public and private sector.

Not only do central governments have a part to play in the design of national

77 Ibid., Massey, D. and Denton, M., (1998) 78 Ray, B., (2002). Immigrant Integration: Building to Opportunity, Migration Policy Institute: http://www.migrationinformation.org/

48


policy, in order to facilitate and positively influence migrant integration, but local

authorities also play a crucial, perhaps more important role, in influencing

migrant city-‐level integration. Cities are becoming increasingly important in

maintaining nation-‐state political stability by advancing economic and social

development. The role of the city entity, and the governments, institutions,

organisations and individuals of which it comprises, will therefore become

increasingly important in the future, which reiterates the crucial relationship

cities have with migrants, a leading actors in each other’s future.

Pennix questions at what level policy decisions determining the profile and scale

of immigration (traditionally organised at a national level) should be made as

well as who should manage the social integration of migrants (a responsibility

that cities have and must continue to control).79

Without defined roles and a clear understanding of the relationship, cities risk a

fractured integration process, which has the potential to lead to social exclusion,

spatial segregation, discrimination and inevitably conflict. This conflict, brought

on by migrants’ inability to access housing, the labour market or enjoy social

mobility, impacts not only at a city level, but cuts across all levels of society, which

makes the coordination of policies even more important. Equipping cities with

the skills and authority to effect integrative policies is crucial in order to ensure

the negative outcomes of immigration, experienced by both the migrant and city

are minimised and the positive outcomes amplified.

It is in global cities where cultural diversity truly flourishes. Barcelona, London

and Melbourne are most definitely global cities and receive migrants from all

corners. These cities define the cultural, social, and religious diversity that

appears a necessary factor for places to thrive – in a social and economic context

– in an era of global interconnectedness. Managing this cultural diversity and

ensuring it does not lead to negative representations of segregation will be a key

challenge facing cities aiming to remain both socially inclusive and culturally

diverse.

79 Pennix, R., (2003) Integration: The role of Communities, Institutions and the State, Migration Policy Institute: http://www.migrationinformation.org/

49


In order to encourage integration, migrant needs – spanning education, labour

market entry, health and housing – must be addressed. While education,

employment and health may be more effectively addressed at a national level,

housing requires a coordinated approach to distinguish between segregated and

desegregated areas and to also acknowledge the various types of segregation that

may exist within one distinct area.

The evolution of urban areas into global cities reflects a patchwork history of

actions and decisions by social, economic and political entities from diverse

backgrounds. These formative actions relating to construction, density, land use,

infrastructure economic priorities and social policies, were generally made in the

context of homogeneity, when migration-‐driven diversity was not an obvious

characteristic, and the results must now be adapted to the current pluralistic

environment. This is true for the modern version of the cities founded in the

1800s, such as the three considered, or those of more recent creation, established

with a greater awareness of the role of urban areas in providing contexts where

socioeconomic equality could be pursued.

Recommendations

At a national level

Addressing segregation at a national level is made possible by the public policy

framework – where government is both the source of regulation and the

regulative institution – which interprets the roles of other institutions and sets

the tone for society’s involvement in the process. However, as the forces of

globalisation dilute the regulative power of the nation-‐state, inter-‐institutional

interactions must be viewed in a new light.

No single level of government has the power to determine the spatial

representation and development of places. Instead, that power is spread across

the entire institutional framework, with multiple actors involved in the policy

making process.

This laissez-‐faire environment has allowed the positive involvement of not for

profit organisations, whose broad aims are to assist the migratory process and

50


minimise the causes of intercultural conflict. On the other hand, it has also seen

the entry of profit-‐oriented organisations, whose motivations are less clear. In

exerting their influence over urban development, profit-‐based organisations – in

response to market forces – commodify people and place. This market-‐based

approach has the potential to create rich enclaves and ghettos for the poor, both

of which achieve economies of scale in the provision of housing and services.80

As place becomes commodified and economised, the power to determine the type

and level of service shifts away from the public sector, which has a more relaxed

mandate in how efficiently it must provide services, towards the private sector,

whose economic models, rather than area-‐specific needs, determine tight, cost-‐

effective service provision. This shift is evident in the increasing privatisation of

key services such as education, public transport, health and housing.

The commercialistion of these essential services pushes the costs beyond those at

lower socioeconomic levels, the groupings of which often coincide with spatial

representation. The individuals living in these areas are forced to adjust their

standard of living in terms of consumption and more importantly, their place of

residence. This adjustment commonly involves the choice to locate in more

affordable neighbourhoods, which are also likely to be more segregated, further

reinforcing existing disadvantages.81

The shift in regulative control of places towards private institutions has resulted

in a recalibration of the services profile of specific neighbourhoods. Tiebout found

that the type and cost of services influences the profile of the residents drawn to

these areas. Those persons desiring a particular level of public good, who possess

the ability to pay for that public good, will live in areas that match these needs.

Therefore, it can be observed that people at similar socioeconomic levels live in

the same area as each other (spatial segregation on the basis of class), a pattern

with the potential for replication in the context of ethnicity. The declining role of

the state in regulating the distribution of these essential services, together with

80 Ibid., Madanipour, A., (2003). pp 181-‐188 81 Massey, D. S., (2009). Globalization and Inequality: Explaining American Exceptionalism, European Sociological Review, pp 9-‐23

51


the entry of profit-‐motivated organisations, has the potential to exacerbate the

disadvantage faced by individuals in their spatial outcome.82

At a national level, policy dictates the level and type of migrant that enters, which

impacts their spatial representation and integration outcomes. At this national

level – where policy dictates assimilation, multiculturalism or a combination of

the two – influence over the formation and outcomes of segregation is at its

strongest.83

At a city level

While the number and type of immigrants may be determined at a national level –

sowing the seeds of segregation – it is at a city level that spatial segregation is

represented and its effects most sharply interpreted.

The spatial representation and subsequent concentration of ethnic groups is a

reality city authorities and planners must accept as a result of large and

increasing flows of migrants from diverse origins. The resultant dispersion of

these groups throughout the city can add to the cultural capital of the place and

support migrant integration through the existence of networks. However, it may

also present a source of conflict, as cultures interact, and in some cases clash,

thereby delaying integration.

The ability to manage the fluidity of immigration flows and the fixedness of place

is a complex challenge that policymakers in global cities must consider in the

existing paradigm of increasing urbanisation, driven primarily by international

migration to cities. Governments at a national level have the task of building

inclusive societies that foster integration and assist policy aims located along the

spectrum of assimilation and multiculturalism. At the next level down, authorities

are charged with the challenge of creating and sustaining cities that allow for

economic advancement, social mobility and equality of access to housing, key

82 Tiebout, C. M., (1956). The pure theory of local expenditures, Journal of political economy, pp 416-‐424 83 Murdie, R. A. and Borgegaerd L., (August 1997). Immigration, Spatial Segregation and Housing Segmentation of Immigrants in Metropolitan Stockholm, 1960-1995, Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 10: pg 1872

52


services and the labour market, all of which combine to improve integration

outcomes and reduce the potential for intercultural conflict.

However segregation is not the sole cause of intercultural conflict. Indeed, there is

no direct correlation between spatial segregation and integration. Segregation is a

key characteristic of cities, evident since their inception and is “…a universal

phenomenon, which is as old as the city itself. The socio-‐spatial structure of the

city can be read like a map recording the structure of society.”84

If segregation is an accepted phenomenon based on hierarchy and incentives,

then the focus of policy, at any level, must be on ensuring this segregation does

not lead to exclusion and polarisation and instead encourages integration and

individual and societal advancement.

While fundamental social, economic, and financial policies are developed at a

national level, it is at the local, city level where the social and economic affairs of

individual groups become most visible and inequalities most easily rectified.

Cities are to a large extent responsible for the daily urban activities that are

crucial to the social and economic inclusion of residents and ensuring the

opportunity for interaction between different groups remains a key activity.

The challenge facing suburban municipalities, where the majority of segregation

is observed, involves being able to provide the necessary services to encourage

social inclusion and integration. It is necessary for neighbourhoods to promote

cross-‐cultural communication and encourage interaction among individuals from

diverse cultural backgrounds, in spaces that are still adapting to the context of

plurality that they now exist within.

To remain competitive within the globalised setting they exist within, cities must

create environments conducive to social inclusion by consciously undertaking

urban management initiatives that are positive in terms of outcomes for

immigrants, natives and society as a whole, which relies on the successful

interaction between the two for harmonious evolution. 84 Haubermann & Siebel, quoted in Aleman, Alonso., (2001). A theoretical framework of the integration process of barrios in Caracas, Venezuela, pg 1

53


Works cited

• Ajuntament de Barcelona, Department of Statistics, accessed April 2011

• Alba, R. D., and Logan, J. R., (1993). Minority Proximity to Whites in Suburbs: An

individual-level Analysis Of Segregation, American Journal Of Sociology, 98 (6)

• Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census 1996 and Census 2006, accessed April

2011 (SLA: statistical local area, CCD: census collection district)

• Balakrishnan, T.R., and Feng Hou., (1999). Socioeconomic integration and spatial

residential patterns of immigrant groups in Canada, Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Population Research and Policy Review 18

• Bauder, H., and Sharpe, B., (2002). Residential segregation of visible minorities in

Canada's gateway cities, The Canadian Geographer, 46(3)

• Beaverstock, J., (July 1998). Globalization and the World Cities Research Network

(GaWC), GaWC Research Bulletin 5, GaWC, Loughborough University

• Beck, U., (2000). What is Globalisation?, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press

• Bell, W., (1954). A Probability Model for the Measurement of Ecological

Segregation, Social Forces 32

• Benton-‐Short, L.M., M. Price and S. Friedman. (2005). Globalization from Below:

Ranking World Cities, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(4):

pp 945-‐959

• Bertrand, M., Luttmer, E., and Mullainathan, S., (October 1998). Network Effects

and Welfare Cultures, Princeton University, Working Paper 405

• Bobo, L., et al, (February 2000). Multi-city study of Urban Inequality (1992-1994):

Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Michigan: Inter-‐university Consortium for

Political and Social Research, 3rd version

• Boozer, M. A,. Krueger, A. B., and Wolkin, S., (1992). Race and School Quality Since

Brown v Board of education, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity:

Microeconomics

• Cabre, A. and Módenes, J. A., (2004). Home Ownership and Social Inequality in

Spain, Centre d’Estudis Demogràfics, Stanford: Stanford University Press

• Castells, M., (1996). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age:

Economy, Society and Culture (Vol. 1). Cambridge, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Ltd

54


• Cotter, D. A., JoAnn DeFiore, J., Hermsen, J.M., Kowalewski, B. M., and Vanneman,

R., (1997). All women benefit: the macro-level effect of occupational integration on

gender earnings equality, American Sociological Review 62

• Cutler, D., and Glaeser, E,. (1997). Are Ghettos Good or Bad?, Quarterly Journal of

Economics 112

• Fairbairn, K., & Khatun, H., (1989). Residential segregation and the interurban

migration of South Asians in Edmonton, Canadian Ethnic Studies, 21

• French, K. N., (2008). Patterns and Consequences of Segregation: An analysis of

Ethnic residential patterns at two geographic scales, University of Nebraska,

Lincoln

• Friedmann, J., (1995). The World City Hypothesis. World Cities in a World System,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

• Harrison, R. and Weinberg, D., (1992). Residential Segregation – Measure

Definitions in Racial and Ethnic Segregation, working paper, U.S. Bureau of the

Census, Washington, D.C.

• Haubermann & Siebel, quoted in Aleman, Alonso., (2001). A theoretical framework

of the integration process of barrios in Caracas, Venezuela

• James, D. and Taeuber, K., (1985). Measures of Segregation, Sociological

Methodology 15

• Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., and Forrest, J., (2007). Ethnic and Racial Segregation in

U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1980-2000: The Dimensions of Segregation Revisited,

Urban Affairs Review 42

• Kaplan, D., and Woodhouse, K., (2004). Research in Ethnic Segregation I: Causal

Factors, Bellwether Publishing, Urban Geography 25

• Koopmans, R and Statham, P., (1999) Challenging the Liberal Nation-State?

Postnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants

and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany, The University of Chicago

• Logan, J. R., and Alba, R. D., (1999). Minority Niches and Immigrant Enclaves in

New York and Los Angeles: Trends and Impacts, pp 173-‐ 293 in Immigration and

Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States, edited by F. D.

Bean and S. Bell-‐Rose. New York: Russell Sage Foundation

55


• Logan, J. R., Wenquan, Z., and Alba, R. D., (April 2002). Immigrant Enclaves and

Ethnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles, American Sociological Review,

Vol. 67, No. 2

• Madanipour, A., (2003). Social Exclusion and Space, The City Reader, London and

New York: Routledge

• Massey, D. and Denton, M., (1998). American Apartheid: Segregation and the

Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press

• Massey, D. S. and Denton, N. A., (December 1988). The Dimensions of Residential

Segregation, Social Forces 67:2

• Massey, D. S., (2009). Globalization and Inequality: Explaining American

Exceptionalism, European Sociological Review

• Massey, D.A. and Denton, N.A., (1988). Residential Segregation of Blacks, Hispanics,

and Asians by Socioeconomic Status and Generation, Social Science Quarterly, 69

• Mayadas, N., and Segal, U., (2000). Refugees in the 1990s: A U.S. Perspective in

Social Work Practice with Immigrants and Refugees, New York: Columbia

University Press

• McGraw, D and Watson, G., (1976). Political and social inquiry, Wiley, pg 134

• Murdie, R. A. and Borgegaerd L., (August 1997). Immigration, Spatial Segregation

and Housing Segmentation of Immigrants in Metropolitan Stockholm, 1960-1995,

Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 10: pg 1872

• Office for National Statistics, Official Labour Market Statistics, accessed April 2011

• Ottiaviano, G. and Prarolo G., (November 2008). Cultural Identity and Knowledge

Creation in Cosmopolitan Cities, Bocconi University of Bologna

• Park, R. E., Burgess, E., McKenzie, R., (1925). The City, University of Chicago Press

• Pennix, R., (2003) Integration: The role of Communities, Institutions and the

State, Migration Policy Institute: http://www.migrationinformation.org/

• Pisati, M., (Novembe 2009). Spatial Indices of Residential Segregation,

Department of Sociology and Social Research University of Milano-‐Bicocca (Italy),

6th Italian Stata Users Group meeting

• Rasmussen, S. E., (1982). London: The Unique City, The MIT Press

• Ray, B., (2002). Immigrant Integration: Building to Opportunity, Migration Policy

Institute: http://www.migrationinformation.org/

56


• Reardon, S. F and O'Sullivan, D., (2004). Measures of spatial segregation,

Sociological Methodology, pg 34

• Rosado, C., (1997). Toward a definition of multiculturalism. www.rosado.net

• Sassen, S., (2001). The Global City: New York, London, and Tokyo (Second ed.).

Princeton University Press

• Tiebout, C. M., (1956). The pure theory of local expenditures, Journal of political

economy

• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division,

(2009). Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision, United Nations

database

• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division,

(2004). World Population to 2300, New York

• Van Kempen, R., and Ozuekren, A. S., (1998). Ethnic segregation in cities: New

forms and explanations in a dynamic world, Urban Studies, vol 35, issue 10

• Zelinsky, W. and Lee, B. A., (1998). Heterolocalism: An alternative model of the

sociospatial behaviour of immigrant ethnic communities, International Journal of

Population Geography, 4

• Zubrinsky-‐Charles, C., (2001). Processes of Racial Residential Segregation in Urban

Inequality: Evidence from Four Cities, New York: Russell Sage Foundation

57


Appendix 1

• Index of dissimilarity D =

• Index of isolation: P =

Assuming:

• n=the number of areas (tracts) in the larger area

• ti=the total population of area i

• T=the sum of all ti (the total population)

• pi=the ratio of xi to ti (proportion of area i's population that is minority)

• P=the ratio of X to T (proportion of the metropolitan area's population that is minority)

• xi=the minority population of area i

• X=the sum of all xi (the total minority population)

• ti=the total population of area i

a comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: barcelona, london and...

Business

spatial segregation

global city

formation of segregation

theorising segregation

dimensions of segregation

spatial assimilation

d d e p o

city selection