A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and...
-
Upload
joel-serra-bevin -
Category
Business
-
view
1.519 -
download
5
description
Transcript of 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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
Figure 2 – foreigners as a proportion of total population by barrio, 2008
Figure 3 – contribution to foreign-population growth by barrio, 1991-2008
26
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
Figure 5 – foreigners as a proportion of total population by borough, 2001
Figure 6 – contribution to foreign-population growth by borough, 1991-2001
30
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
Average population 8,536 11,786
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
Average population 39,724 42,006
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
Total population 6,675,152 7,401,608
Foreign population 1,673,502 2,390,920
C 25% 32%
D 0.27 0.25
P 0.31 0.38
37
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
Melbourne
Table 3 – Melbourne statistical profile and segregation results, 1996 and 2006
Melbourne 1996 2006
Total population 3,138,188 3,318,496
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
• 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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
• 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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
• 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
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
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