Search

Over many decades, academics, policymakers and governments have been concerned with both the presence of inequalities and the impacts these can have on people when concentrated spatially in urban areas. This concern is especially related to the influence of spatial inequalities on individual outcomes in terms of health, education, work and income, and general well-being amongst other outcomes. In this commentary, we provide an overview of the literature on spatial inequalities and on contextual and neighbourhood effects. We address some of the main challenges in modelling contextual effects and provide evidence that no single study can definitively provide the answer to the question whether – and how much – spatial context effects are relevant for understanding individual outcomes. It is only when taken together that the rich body of research on spatial context effects shows convincingly that spatial context effects are relevant. The commentary ends with the presentation of the vicious circle of the segregation model and suggest some ways in which this vicious circle of spatial inequality and segregation can be broken.

Concentration to disadvantaged neighbourhoods may hinder immigrants' opportunities for social integration, so equal chances of translating available economic resources into mobility to less disadvantaged neighbourhoods are important. This paper adds to existing research on exits from poor neighbourhoods by focusing on the effects of income increase on residential mobility. We analyse intra-urban residential mobility from low-income neighbourhoods into non-low-income neighbourhoods among immigrants and native-born residents in three urban regions in Finland. We use longitudinal register data for the 2004–2014 period for the full Finnish population, allowing a dynamic analysis of changes in income and neighbourhood of residence. Based on multinomial logit modelling of migration outcomes, we found that an increase in income is associated with moving both to low-income and non-low-income areas even when controlling for initial income level. Upward income mobility was connected to exit from low-income areas in a quite similar way among immigrants and native-born Finns. The findings suggest that policies e.g. improving the labour market opportunities of immigrants are effective in reduction of residential segregation. However, we were not able to completely explain the differences between native-born Finns and immigrants in moving patterns. The differences between the cities were opposite for immigrants and native-born Finns, corresponding to differences in immigration history and levels of ethnic segregation. Therefore, the local context matters for spatial integration outcomes.

The neighbourhoods in which people live reflects their social class and preferences, so studying socio-spatial mobility between neighbourhoods gives insight in the openness of spatial class structures of societies and in the ability of people to leave disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We study the extent to which people move between different types of neighbourhoods by socio-economic status in different inequality and segregation contexts in four European countries: Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Estonia. The study is based on population registers and census data for the 2001–2011 period. For the UK, which has long had high levels of social inequalities and high levels of socio-economic segregation, we find that levels of mobility between neighbourhood types are low and opportunities to move to more socio-economically advantaged neighbourhoods are modest. In Estonia, which used to be one or the most equal and least segregated countries in Europe and now is one of the most liberal and market oriented countries, we find high levels of mobility, but these reproduce segregation patterns and it is difficult to move to better neighbourhoods for those in the most deprived neighbourhoods. In the Netherlands and Sweden, where social inequalities are the smallest, it is easiest to move from the most deprived to less deprived neighbourhoods. To conclusion, the combination of high levels of social inequalities and high levels of spatial segregation tend to lead to a vicious circle of segregation for low income groups, where it is difficult to undertake both upward social mobility and upward spatial mobility.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement no. 615159 (ERC Consolidator Grant DEPRIVEDHOODS, Socio-spatial inequality, deprived neighbourhoods, and neighbourhood effects) and from the Marie Curie programme under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/Career Integration Grant no. PCIG10-GA-2011-303728 (CIG Grant NBHCHOICE, Neighbourhood choice, neighbourhood sorting, and neighbourhood effects). The selective inflow and outflow of residents of different ethnic groups is the main mechanism behind ethnic residential segregation. In many studies it has been found that ethnic minorities are more likely than others to move to high-ethnic-minority-concentration neighbourhoods. An important question which remains largely unanswered is whether this can be explained by own-group effects, including own-group preferences, or by other neighbourhood factors. We use unique longitudinal register data from the Netherlands, which allow us to distinguish between different ethnic minority groups and simultaneously to take into account multiple neighbourhood characteristics. This allows us to test own-group effects—the effect of the share of the own-ethnic group on neighbourhood selection—while also taking into account other neighbourhood characteristics such as housing market composition. Using a conditional logit model, we find that housing-market constraints can partly explain the moves of ethnic minorities to high-ethnic-minority-concentration neighbourhoods: own-group effects are also found to be important in explaining neighbourhood selection. There are, however, important differences between ethnic minority groups. While these effects together explain why Surinamese and Antilleans move to high-ethnic-minority-concentration neighbourhoods, Turks and Moroccans are still found to move to neighbourhoods with concentrations of minorities other than their own ethnic group. Publisher PDF

Selective mobility into and out of neighbourhoods is one of the driving forces of segregation. Empirical research has revealed who wants to leave certain types of neighbourhoods or who leaves certain neighbourhoods. A factor which has received little attention so far is that some residents will have a desire to leave their neighbourhood, but are unable to do so. The residential mobility literature shows that the discrepancy between moving desires and actual mobility is larger for ethnic minorities than for natives. This paper uses a unique combination of register data and survey data. We combine data from a large housing survey in the Netherlands (WoON) with longitudinal register data from the Netherlands (SSB), which contains individual level information on residential mobility histories. This allows us to study which households with a wish to leave their neighbourhood are actually successful, and to which neighbourhoods they move. A more thorough insight in who wants to leave which neighbourhoods but is unable to do so will contribute to a better understanding of the drivers of segregation, especially in the context of the debate on voluntary segregation versus segregation due to a lack of choice. We find that ethnic minority groups are less likely to realise a desire to leave their neighbourhood and that if they succeed in moving from an ethnic minority concentration or poverty neighbourhood, they are more likely to end up in another minority concentration or poverty neighbourhood than native residents.

The selective inflow and outflow of residents by ethnicity is the main mechanism behind ethnic residential segregation. Many studies have found that ethnic minorities are more likely than others to move to ethnic minority concentration neighbourhoods. An important question which remains largely unanswered is to what extent this can be explained by own group preferences, or by other neighbourhood or housing market factors. By using longitudinal register data from the Netherlands, this study contributes to the literature on neighbourhood selection by ethnic minorities in two ways. First, it distinguishes between different ethnic minority groups where most studies look at the group as a whole. Second, it takes into account multiple dimensions of neighbourhoods where most other studies look at neighbourhoods one-dimensionally, which allows us to test the own group preferences hypothesis. Using a conditional logit model we find that housing market constraints can partly explain the selection of ethnic minorities into minority concentration neighbourhoods. Also own-group preferences are found to be important in explaining neighbourhood selection. There are, however, differences between ethnic minority groups. Own-group preferences and housing market constraints together explain why Surinamese and Antilleans select into minority concentration neighbourhoods. When these factors are taken into account, Turks and Moroccans are still found to select into concentration neighbourhoods of ethnic minorities other than their own ethnic group.

In this chapter we investigate the process of ethnic minority segregation in English social housing. Successive governments have expressed a commitment to the contradictory aims of providing greater choice - through the introduction of choice based letting - for households accessing an increasingly marginalised social housing sector whilst also expressing a determination to create more mixed communities and neighbourhoods. We consider the concept of choice in the context of a heavily residualised social housing sector, arguing that, for social housing tenants at least, the concept of real choice is a misnomer. We draw on research that has utilised unique administrative data and analysed the moves of all entrants into and movers within the social renting sector over a ten year period in England. The conclusion is that the introduction of choice based letting has influenced the residential outcomes of ethnic minorities and resulted in highly structured neighbourhood sorting that has segregated minority populations into the least desirable neighbourhoods of English cities.

In addition to neighbourhoods of residence, family and places of work play important roles in producing and reproducing ethnic segregation. Therefore, recent research on ethnic segregation and contact is increasingly turning its attention from residential areas towards other important domains of daily interethnic contact. The key innovation of this paper is to clarify the role of immigrants' pre-hire exposure to natives in the residence, workplace and family domains in immigrant exposure to natives in their current workplace. The study is based on Swedish population register data. The results show that at the macro level, workplace neighbourhood segregation is lower than residential neighbourhood segregation. Our micro-level analysis further shows that high levels of residential exposure of immigrants to natives help to reduce ethnic segregation at the level of workplace establishments as well.

Brussels’ urban and suburban landscape has changed considerably since the 1980s. The consolidation of socioeconomic fractures inside the city, a reinforcement of long-lasting disparities between the city and its prosperous hinterland, as well as the increasing diversification of migration flows—both high- and low-skilled—contributed to these disparities. Recent evolutions of these patterns, however, have not been investigated yet and therefore remain unknown. Besides, the extent to which segregation is primarily related to economic inequalities and to migration flows—or a combination/interaction between the two—so far has not been studied. This chapter offers a detailed overview of the socio-spatial disparities in the Brussels Functional Urban Area. Our analyses relied on fine-grained spatial data, at the level of statistical sections and of individualised neighbourhoods built around 100 m x 100 m grids. We analysed socioeconomic segregation measures and patterns, as well as their evolution between 2001 and 2011. Socioeconomic groups were defined based on individuals’ position with respect to national income deciles. In line with previous research, our results show very marked patterns of socioeconomic segregation in and around Brussels operating both at a larger regional scale and at the local level.