Housing Mix and Social Mix: Does it Matter?

Sako Musterd

Urban Geography

Universiteit van Amsterdam

The Issue

Housing Mix Social Mix

The Issue

Housing Mix Social Mix

IntegrationSocial InteractionSocial Opportunity

The Issue Assumptions regarding:

• Impacts of Segregation and Concentration• A specific role for Housing

Housing Mix Social Mix

IntegrationSocial InteractionSocial Opportunity

Central questions

1. What are the levels of residential segregation and concentration in European cities and what role does housing play?

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

3. Is there a relation between these mixes and social outcome?

Question 1

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

What kind of segregation and concentration?

• Ethnic (concentration area, ethnic neighbourhood, ghettos, levels of mix)

• Socio-economic (income mixed areas, gold coasts, poverty ghettos)

• Demographic (lifestyle areas, lifestyle mixed areas)

Here focus on ethnic and social

Index of SegregationEthnic Minorities

8 EU countries 20 cities

index (0-100 = low-high segregation)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Paris Portugese Dept. 75Frankfurt TurksMilan non-Italian

Frankfurt AmericansParis Algerians Dept. 75

Lille non-FrenchRotterdam Surinamese

Oslo 3rd w orld immigrantsDüsseldorf Turks

Leicester Black CaribbeanVienna Foreigners

Amsterdam SurinameseBirmingham Black AfricanOldham Black Caribbean

Bradford Black CaribbeanAmsterdam Moroccans

Amsterdam Turks 93 neighb.Amsterdam Turks metro areaBirmingham Black Caribbean

Rotterdam MoroccansLondon Black Caribbean

Leicester PakistaniLondon PakistaniRotterdam Turks

Manchester PakistaniBristol Black Caribbean

Stockholm Iranian 14 mun.Brussels MoroccanBradford Pakistani

Bristol PakistaniLondon Bangladeshi

Manchester BangladeshiBirmingham Pakistani

Birmingham BangladeshiAntw erp N. African, Bosnian, metro

Bradford BangladeshiLeicester Bangladeshi

London Bangladeshi EDOldham Bangladeshi

Oldham PakistaniBirmingham Bangladeshi ED

USA large cities Blacks

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

ConcentrationAmsterdam Surinamese 2004> 2sd above the mean> 19.8%In concentrations: 33%Of all Surinamese: 38%

These figures were the same in

1994!

Strong concentrationAmsterdam Surinamese 2004> 4sd above the mean> 27.8%In concentrations: 38%Of all Surinamese: 31%

These figures were the same in

1994!

Ethnic neighbourhoodAmsterdam Surinamese 2004 > 50%In concentrations: 57%Of all Surinamese: 2.9%

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

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

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

Ethnic concentrations are unstable 1994-2004 change relative to 1994; Turkish

concentrations in Amsterdam

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sur

inam

ese

Ant

illia

ns

Tur

ks

Mor

occa

ns

Sou

ther

nE

urop

ean

Non

-in

dust

rialis

ed

Indu

stria

lised

Dut

ch All

Migration balance Birth balance

Moroccans 2004

1973

Associations between housing and ethnic concentrations

‘non-western’ and social housing in Amsterdam, 2004

> 4sd above the mean> 51.5% non-western (blue)> 90.0% soc-housing (yellow)

LA Blacks, all in private housing

South Mediterranean

in Brussels, most in private

residual housing

Bron: N.I.S. volkstelling 1991KU Leuven kaartmateriaal

Zuid-Mediterranen in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, 1991.

Tot de categorie Zuid-Mediterranen worden Turken (21182), Marokkanen (77409), Algerijnen (2353) en Tunesiërs (2895) gerekend. Samen vormen zij 10,9% van de bevolking.

Percentage Zuid-Mediterranen.702 wijken.

37,4 - 68,3 (39)24,2 - 37,3 (38)10,9 - 24,2 (49)0,0 - 10,9 (461)

minder dan 250 inwoners. (115)

3 km

Grote Markt

Schaarbeek

St-Joost-ten-Node

Anderlecht

St-Jans-Molenbeek

Brussel

In short:

• Ethnic segregation levels in EU cities vary substantially

• Ethnic concentrations are unstable• Ethnic concentrations are not tenure unique• Most ethnic minorities do not live in ethnic

concentrations• Ethnic concentrations require explanations

at State, City, and Group level

Levels

Index of SegregationSocio-Economic Categories

0 10 20 30 40 50

Copenhagen 1st quintile

Amsterdam 1st quintile metro

Bern unemployed

Berlin hh income < € 900

Birmingham income support

Milan blue collar w orkers

Manchester income support

Manchester unemployed

Amsterdam 1st quintile

Berlin hh income > € 3500

Lille unemployed vs employed

Rotterdam 1st quintile

Amsterdam 5th quintile metro

Oslo social assistance

Birmingham unemployed

Leeds unemployed

Sheffield unemployed

Milan professionals

Copenhagen 10th decile

Amsterdam 5th quintile

Rotterdam 5th quintile

USA Portland OR MSA poor

Antw erp 'poor'

USA 100 largest cities poor

USA Rochester NY MSA poor

Social Mix is CommonIncome distribution of the richest (zuid, left) and poorest (westerpark, right) urban districts

of Amsterdam, quintiles, 1996

1st

15%

2nd

18%

3rd

18%

4th

21%

5th

28%

1st20%

2nd31%

3rd23%

4th17%

5th9%

richest poorest

In short:

• Socio-spatial segregation is higher for higher social classes than for lower classes

• Many ‘lower social class’ neighbourhoods are very mixed already

• Social segregation requires explanations at State, City, and Group level

Theories of segregation and concentration

• Globalisation• Economic restructuring• Cultural (language, religion, discrimination, identity, level of

acceptance of inequality, tolerance towards difference, eagerness to ‘enforce’ integration)

• Welfare regime - Benefit systems for unemployed, elderly and disabled - Education - Access to housing- Labour market access - Housing benefits- Health care systems - Income redistribution

• Historic social, economic and cultural urban paths• Political attitudes towards diversity (ideas regarding

assimilation; multiculturalism and mix)

Relevant scales for understanding segregation

• Global: globalisation and economic restructuring

• State: welfare regimes; policies towards segregation and ‘models’ of integration

• City: urban histories; path dependency

• Group: attitudes and identities; inter-generational differences

Question 2

Is there a relationship between housing mix and social mix?

Sweden (with Andersson)

• Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities (Urban Affairs Review 2005)

Data available

• Swedish longitudinal data 1991-1995-1999

• > 5.5 million cases

• Focus on 16-65 year old

• Neighbourhood characteristics for 9,200 SAMS areas (housing mix, social mix, ethnic mix)

• Social opportunities: measured through change from unemployment to employment

Key-variables

• Housing mix: from absolutely homogeneous to highly heterogeneous (mixed) (9 types, entropy measures)

• Social mix: clusters on the basis of scores in three classes of income deciles (low, mixed-low, mixed, mixed-high, high)

• Ethnic mix (based on nationalities and share of refugees)

• Socio-ethnic clusters (all combined)• Social mobility: change in employment position

Some findings on housing mix and social mix/ethnic mix

• General: housing mix and social mix association is not very strong

• Same holds for housing mix and ethnic mix (see next figure)

• ~25% of homogeneous housing areas are relatively homogeneous low income areas

• ~20% of the most heterogeneous housing areas are homogeneous low income areas

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ab

solu

tely

ho

mo

ge

ne

ou

s

rela

tive

lyh

om

og

en

eo

us

ave

rag

eh

om

og

eo

us

ave

rag

eh

ete

rog

en

eo

us

rela

tive

lyh

ete

rog

en

eo

us

Tota

l

low inc. high ethnic mix above avgrefugee

sparsely populated swedish

poor refugee

sparsely populated refugee

income and ethnic mix above avgrefugee

mixed low income refugee

low income swedish

rich ethnic mixed non-refugee

mixed low income non-refugee

income and ethnic mixed non-refugee

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

Additional findings on housing mix and social mix

• Homogeneous and heterogeneous areas in terms of housing mix type are different in terms of social and ethnic compositions, but the difference is not clear cut; in both types a large share of low-income households and non-Swedes can be found

• Many heterogeneous housing areas have a homogeneous social profile

• There is no clear relation between housing mix and social mix

Question 3

Is there a relation between housing mix, social mix and social outcome?

Positive

• Perhaps helpful interaction between different groups and stronger social networks

• Positive socialisation

• Less stereotyping

Negative

• More difficult interaction and conflict

• House value reduction

Expected effects of Mix

Sweden(Musterd & Andersson - Housing mix, social

mix and social opportunities Urban Affairs Review 2005 )

Some findings regarding impact of mix on social opportunity

• In highly socially mixed areas the lowest share of people that stays employed is found in both physically homogeneous and heterogeneous areas

• For homogeneous low income areas a similar conclusion can be drawn

• There are clear effects of education and of being a non-Swedish

Perc. individual staying employed in 91,95,99 in various social and housing environments

per educational attainment level 91-95

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

ho

mo

ge

ne

ou

s

he

tero

ge

ne

ou

s

ho

mo

ge

ne

ou

s

he

tero

ge

ne

ou

s

ho

mo

ge

ne

ou

s

he

tero

ge

ne

ou

s

ho

mo

ge

ne

ou

s

he

tero

ge

ne

ou

s

ho

mo

ge

ne

ou

s

he

tero

ge

ne

ou

s

all low stable medium medium high high

Mixed lowHighly mixed Mixed high Homogeneous low Homogeneous high

social

physical

education

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

low

sta

ble

med

ium

1

med

ium

2

high

(15+

)

low

sta

ble

med

ium

1

med

ium

2

high

(15+

)

low

sta

ble

med

ium

1

med

ium

2

high

(15+

)

low

sta

ble

med

ium

1

med

ium

2

high

(15+

)

entirely swedish swedish one parentforeign

swedish bothparents foreign

not swedish bothparents foreign

% e

mpl

oyed

91,

95,

99

Perc. individuals staying employed in 91,95,99 living in a poor refugee area per country of origin, per

educational attainment level 91-95

The Netherlands

(Musterd & Ostendorf in Housing Studies, 2001, 2003)

Some findings

• There are weak effects of social compositions on social mobility for people without a job

• There are fairly strong effects for people with a stronger position

Households that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter

% weak households in the environment in 1989

No. of households Relative to all households not belonging to pensioners

0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 1010 – 1212 – 1414 – 1616 – 2020 – 3030 – 4040 – 5050 – 7575 – 100

total

7603603675184859139921289408638

1336621777

7654667380464

99836

47.757.259.260.060.661.161.560.761.862.564.370.697.899.6

62.0

Households that in 1989 had at least one paid job and in 1994 lived on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius

250 meter

% weak households in the environment in 1989

No. of households Relative to all households not belonging to pensioners

0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 1010 – 1212 – 1414 – 1616 – 2020 – 3030 – 4040 – 5050 – 7575 – 100

Total

61603112071121544107966

86573693015304541713535105799713583

762217

90

779975

6,07,07,98,9

10,211,312,413,514,719,024,724,522,135,5

10.8

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 – 2

2 – 4

4 – 6

6 – 8

8 – 10

10 – 12

12 – 14

14 – 16

16 – 20

20 – 30

30 – 40

% on benefits in the environment 1989

%benefits in 1989 and1994

paid job in 1989, benefitsin 1994

Various householdsHouseholds 1989 N. of households benefits only 1994

Benefits only

All 134,993 63.5

Urban 32,645 63.3

Single 34,967 83.0

Non-movers 86,850 70.3

At least a paid job

All 1,247,684 9.9

Urban 119,670 16.6

Single 54,823 16.2

Non-movers 802,068 8.4

Households in the three big cities that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter

% weak households in the environment in 1989

No. of households Relative to all households not belonging to pensioners

0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 1010 – 1212 – 1414 – 1616 – 2020 – 3030 – 4040 – 50

Total

19118385565992

1402172223374738

128325639

471

31220

51,660,060,558,561,261,765,262,362,463,165,462,8

63.3

Single person households that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter

% weak households in the environment in 1989

No. of households Relative to all households not belonging to pensioners

0 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 6 – 8 8 – 1010 – 1212 – 1414 – 1616 – 2020 – 3030 – 4040 – 5050 – 7575 – 100 Total

92626

143619452086222622852204347161341966

196276347

25290

77,781,882,682,481,579,680,279,279,676,376,882,699,4

100,0

79.9

Other evidence(Andersson, Musterd, Galster & Kauppinen)

• Employment, social mobility and neighbourhood effects (International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2006)

• Are ethnic clusters good or bad? (under review)• What mix matters? (under review)

Percentage of unemployed in 1991 staying unemployed in 1995 and 1999, per environment type 1991, per educational attainment category 1991-1995 and both years (1991, 1995) living in one of the three big cities in Sweden

0

20

40

60

80

0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16

% unemployed in the environment 1991

%

low stable (<=10yrs)

medium stable (11-12yrs)

medium high stable(13-14 yrs)

high (15+)

upward

Some additional findings based on these studies

• Neighbourhood effects occur in both contexts; stronger effects in Sweden (through different state interventions?)

• Improved education during downturn removes neighbourhood effect

• Own group ethnic concentrations can initially pay dividends for immigrants, but these benefits turn into disadvantages over time

• The impact of other immigrants is positive only if unemployment levels are very low

Implications for Urban Policy • Segregation is influenced by global, national, local and

group level processes; so, more than housing• Most immigrants do not live in ethnic concentrations: do

not treat them as one group• Concentrations are unstable; this may be regarded

positively • Many areas already are socially mixed• Housing mix and social mix do not relate strongly• In the Netherlands neighbourhood effects may have been

reduced already through other policies• Do not automatically go for more mix as an instrument for

enhancing integration or social opportunity

Sako Musterd

Department of Geography, Planning and International Development StudiesUniversiteit van Amsterdam