Paper for ENHR Conference, Lisbon, 27-29 of June 2015, workshop Migration, Residential Mobility and  Housing Policy

What kind of moving behaviour is most crucial for spatial concentrations of ethnic minorities: White Flight, White

Avoidance, Ethnic Attraction or Ethnic Retention?Hans Skifter Andersen

Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, has@sbi.aau.dk

AbstractOptions for and choices of residence both among both ethnic minorities and the native majority are influenced by the ethnic composition of neighbourhoods. Spatial concentrations of ethnic minorities – so-called multi-ethnic neighbourhoods - in Europe might in principle be created and maintained by four different kinds of moving behaviour stemming from special housing preferences and options among either ethnic minorities or the native population. Inclination among natives to move away from neighbourhoods dominated by ethnic minorities has in the literature been called ‘White Flight’, and disposition to avoid them ‘White Avoidance’. Preferences among ethnic minorities for living together with kinsmen or countrymen might create an inclination to move into multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, here called ‘Ethnic Attraction’, or to remain there, called ‘Ethnic Retention’. This behaviour among ethnic minorities might also be due to that multi-ethnic neighbourhoods are easier to access for ethnic minorities because natives avoid them, and because they have few other options. In this paper is estimated the effect on ethnic spatial concentrations of these four kinds of behaviour based on data from Denmark on moves for the period 1985-2008. It is concluded that white avoidance is the strongest reason for ethnic concentrations followed by ethnic attraction. White flight has a smaller impact and ethnic retention is without importance.

Introduction and research questionsIn the European literature, there is a general consensus verifying the disadvantage faced by immigrants in the housing market (Fonseca et al. 2010). The literature on segregation and housing market positions of immigrants in Western European cities has shown that they are typically confined to the least desirable housing. In many countries, immigration has grown in recent years and there has been a general tendency among immigrant families to settle – either voluntarily or due to constraints – in certain segments of the housing market and in limited parts of cities. Often they have settled in social/public housing. In this way some neighbourhoods in the cities have obtained a large proportion of immigrants coming from different countries and have been transformed into what is sometimes called ‘multi-ethnic neighbourhoods’, in which the native-born majority population has become a minority.

Residential segregation is created by the behaviour of individual households, who move across neighbourhoods, inside and across cities. This behaviour is a result of individual residential preferences and options on the housing market. Ethnic segregation is not only a result of the behaviour of ethnic minorities but also of the behaviour of the native born population. In the research literature explanations of the housing and neighbourhood choices of ethnic minorities is explained by having either restricted options or by special preferences for living in neighbourhoods with an ethnic network. The behaviour of natives is explained by, what has been called ‘white flight and avoidance’; a propensity to move away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods and to avoid to move into them.

The question is; which kind of moving behaviour has the dominant importance for ethnic segregation? Is it the behaviour of ethnic minorities or the behaviour of natives? Is it because ethnic minorities more often move into multi-

1

ethnic neighbourhoods or because they tend to remain there when they have got access? Or is it because natives move away, when ethnic minorities move in, or because they do without choosing these neighbourhoods?

In this article these kinds of moving behaviour is examined and the size of them is estimated based on data on moves in Denmark from all years 1985 to 2008. Four kinds of special moving behaviour are examined:

‘White flight’: Danes more often move away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods than they normally would do from similar neighbourhoods with an average ethnic composition

‘White avoidance’: Danes less often move to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods than they normally would do to similar neighbourhoods

‘Ethnic attraction’: Ethnic minorities more often move to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods than they normally would do to similar neighbourhoods. This could be either because they have preferences for living in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods or because it is difficult for them to get access to other housing.

‘Ethnic retention’: Ethnic minorities less often move away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods than they normally would do from similar neighbourhoods. This could be because of special preferences for living there or because they have few other options

The paper contains two kinds of investigations. The first kind analyses if selective migration behaviour can be identified by using logistic regressions of factors determining when Danes and immigrants move to and from neighbourhoods with different proportion of ethnic minorities among residents. In the second is made an effort to estimate the size of these movements to show their importance for ethnic segregation in Denmark. The method is to use regression models to estimate expected moving patterns of both immigrants and Danes, which are not influenced by the ethnic composition of neighbourhoods. These expected moves are then compared with actual moves to and from neighbourhoods with different proportion of ethnic minorities.

The importance and causes of ‘selective migration’ for ethnic segregationSome of the research literature on ethnic segregation has focused on the importance of what has been called ethnic selective migration that is ethnic differences between those leaving, entering and staying in so-called multi-ethnic neighbourhoods (Andersson 2014, Andersson and Bråmå 2006, Magnusson and Özüekren 2002, Bolt et. al. 2008). It is assumed that the moving behaviour among both ethnic minorities and natives (in the US white Europeans) differs in connection with multi-ethnic neighbourhoods from the behaviour displayed in connection with other neighbourhoods, and that this divergent behaviour creates and maintains spatial concentrations of ethnic minorities and ethnic segregation in the cities.

The divergent behaviour among natives has been denominated white flight, if natives tend to have a higher mobility out of multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, and white avoidance if they less often move to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods than to similar neighbourhoods without ethnic minorities. The concepts originally stems from the US where they denote a tendency for white Americans to leave or avoid neighbourhoods with an increasing proportion of Afro Americans or other ethnic minorities (Quillian 2002, Wright et. al. 2005, Crowder et. al. 2011).

Evidence of white flight and avoidance has also been found in some European countries. Andersson (2014) showed in a study of Stockholm that Swedes tend to avoid moving to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, but he did not find evidence of white flight. He showed clear evidence that native-born Swedes are less inclined than most immigrant categories to move into immigrant dense areas while ethnic origin does not seem to matter much when explaining who leaves such areas. Bramå 2006 found some evidence of white flight in Stockholm, but also concluded that white avoidance were far the most important process. Vilkama (2011) shows that despite Helsinki’s much lower proportion of immigrants, both flight and avoidance are relevant also in that context. She furthermore confirms what has also been found for Sweden: out-migration rates from immigrant-dense neighbourhoods are similar for immigrants and natives but immigrants tend to more often circulate within the same segment of neighbourhoods, that is to say, immigrant-dense neighbourhoods. Bolt et. al. (2008) in a study of migration in the Netherlands concluded that ‘Dutch and Western immigrants are much

2

more likely than non-Western groups to move out of concentration neighbourhoods and to opt more often for neighbourhoods with a low proportion of minorities’.

The reasons for white flight and avoidance in Europe are not very well researched. Do natives avoid multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, because they are averse to living amongst minority ethnic groups, or is it perhaps because these neighbourhoods often are haunted by social problems and crime? The last assumption has been called the ‘racial proxy hypothesis’. Dekker (2013) found evidence of that dissatisfaction with the neighbourhood among residents in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods was not strongly connected to the ethnical composition, but she also concludes that this do not necessarily influence actual moves out of the neighbourhood. Andersson (2014) state that the ethnic differences in neighbourhood choices only to a very limited extent is ascribed to differences in socioeconomic status. Other studies based on survey data have found evidence of that natives in the Nordic countries leave or avoid multi-ethnic neighbourhoods because they want to live in neighbourhoods with fewer immigrants. A study in three Nordic cities (Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm) showed that among native leavers from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods stated from 18 to 51 per cent that it was an important reason for moving that there were too many immigrants in the neighbourhood (Brattbakk et. al. 2013). The study also showed that avoidance attitudes and behaviour were found among the majority of natives. In a Danish survey based study among Danes leaving three large multi-ethnic neighbourhoods (Skifter Andersen 2006) only six per cent stated that it was a very important reason for their decision to move out that there was too many ethnic minorities among residents.

Another hypothesis is that schools in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods often have a lower quality, which motivates middle income families and especially native families with children to move away from or avoid these neighbourhoods. Rangvid (2009) found that Danes are more likely to opt out of their local public school if it has a large concentration of immigrant pupils. Danes are far more likely to opt out as soon as the concentration exceeds 35 per cent. However, only 20 per cent of those immigrants, who speak Danish at home, respond to higher immigrant concentrations by opting out. These results lend support to that native flight from immigrant dense schools and ethnic segregation across schools is increased by Danes’ and immigrants’ differing behavior. Similar behavior has been found in the US (Mingliang 2009). A growing number of studies have tried to study the complex interplay of schools and neighbourhoods, and bringing the school issue into research on neighbourhood preferences, residential mobility and “white flight”. Most of the studies are carried out in the US-context (e.g. Clark & Maas 2012, Cascio 2012, Zhang 2011, Ledwith & Clark 2007), but there are also studies from the Netherlands (Gramberg 1998, Sykes 2011, Boterman 2012) and the UK (Burgess et al 2005, Johnston et al 2006, Hamnett 2012). The Nordic survey based study (Brattbakk et. al. 2013), among natives leaving multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, showed that 17 per cent in Helsinki, 19 per cent in Stockholm and 45 per cent in Oslo stated that too many ethnic minorities in the schools was an important reason for leaving. As this study showed, the role of schools in ethnic segregation is very context dependent and differs much between cities.

More research has been done on causes of diverging moving behaviour among ethnic minorities. In the literature has been pointed to two different main explanations for why immigrants’ choice of residence might differ from natives, resulting in what we have called ‘ethnic attraction’ to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods. The first line of explanations concerns if immigrants, for different reasons, have special preferences for tenure and for where to settle in cities. The other focuses on the options and constraints immigrants face on the housing market and the importance of the spatial distribution of different kinds of housing across neighbourhoods in the cities.

In earlier American research, the spatial location of immigrants was assumed to be closely connected with their social, cultural and economic integration in the host society. According to the American ‘ecological’ theoretical tradition of the Chicago School (Park 1925), the spatial distribution of immigrant groups is a reflection of their human capital and the state of their social and economic integration, called ‘assimilation’ (Alba and Nee 1997). The basic tenets of the ecological model are that residential mobility follows from cultural and social integration. A basic assumption is that for different reasons especially new immigrants prefer to settle in neighbourhoods dominated by their own ethnic group and with strong ethnic social networks, called ethnic enclaves (Fong and Chan 2010). Some authors (Peach 1998, Murdie 2002, van Kempen and Özuekren 1998) have argued that for new immigrants, moving to neighbourhoods with many countrymen – called ethnic enclaves - is part of a strategy for survival and integration in their new country. Some of the arguments for this strategy are that immigrants often have family or acquaintances in the enclaves, who can supply them

3

with a social network, which can lessen their isolation, and who can support them in the face of disadvantage and discrimination. Finally, the feeling of security and safety in a well-known social and cultural environment might be important.

There is much evidence that immigrants tend to cluster in specific neighbourhoods in European cities, but there is disagreement about to what extent this is caused by immigrants having special preferences for where to live, or by other reasons. Some researchers (Musterd et. al. 1998, van Kempen 2003, Bolt et. al. 2010) have questioned if preferences for enclaves is important for immigrants’ settlement in Europe. A limitation on most of the studies on causes of ethnic clustering is that they are based on data on how ethnic minorities actually settle and move from which preferences and other causes are deduced (e.g. Johnston et. al. 2002). A Canadian study, based on survey data (Fong and Chan 2010), on two recently arrived immigrant groups, Asian Indians and Chinese, concluded, however, that co-ethnic locational preferences were strong and highly explained co-ethnic clustering. In a Danish study among ethnic minorities, also based on survey data (Skifter Andersen 2010 and 2015), was found that some ethnic minorities in Denmark actually possess strong preferences for living close to an ethnic social network and in neighbourhoods dominated by ethnic minorities. A strong connection was found between these measured preferences and indicators of social integration, also when controlled for other variables like income. Ethnic minorities with strong preferences for enclaves tended less often to master the Danish language, to have work and to have good contacts to Danes. The study thus supported the hypothesis that some immigrants have preferences for ethnic enclaves and for multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, and that this was influenced by their social integration.

Alternative explanations for selective migration focus on limited options for immigrants on the housing market and are often called the ‘place stratification model’ (Bolt and van Kempen 2010). Besides the disadvantage of lower incomes, immigrants might have special difficulties on the housing market. If the housing market is not easy to see through, it is likely to make it more difficult for immigrants with a limited knowledge of the host society to act on the market and find good solutions to their housing needs (Søholt 2007, Søholt and Astrup 2009). In parts of the housing market, good contacts to persons or institutions are decisive for access to dwellings. It is also important to have a good knowledge of the possibilities and rules on the housing market, which often also requires good language skills or good access to advisers. Moreover, immigrants might be exposed to discrimination on the housing market, which diminishes their options. Some studies (Aalbers 2002, Andersson 1998, Søholt and Astrup 2009) have concluded that discriminatory practices on the housing market are also found in Europe, where especially private landlords to some extent exclude ethnic minorities.

The spatial clustering of immigrants might also be influenced by their preferences for housing tenure. Several studies have indicated that immigrants have much higher preferences for renting than natives, which limits their housing and neighbourhood options. Kauppinen et al. (2015) have showed that immigrants in the Nordic countries far more seldom than natives move into homeownership and that this cannot be explained by differences in background variables like income, education, employment, age, urbanisation and family situation. As discrimination of immigrants by banks in the Nordic countries must be expected to be low1, it was concluded that immigrants might be expected to have stronger preferences for renting than natives. A possible explanation was put forward that households’ preferences for owner-occupied housing are very much determined by their expectations of the future as described in the literature on housing demand (Artle and Varaiya 1978, Carliner 1974). If people have strong expectations of staying in a certain city and of a stable and perhaps increasing income, the preference for homeownership will be stronger. Immigrants might more often have uncertain expectations about their future employment and income and about whether they are going to stay in the country and therefore more reluctant to invest in homeownership. The likelihood for immigrants of gaining access to a particular type of neighbourhood is thus dependent on the quantity and quality of destination opportunities on local housing markets, especially the supply of rented housing. Some researchers have pointed to this as a special kind of explanation for selective migration and ethnic segregation called ‘The housing availability model’ (South and Crowder 1997, South et. al. 2011). A study of the connection between the spatial structure of the housing markets and ethnic segregation in the capitals in four Nordic countries (Skifter Andersen et. al 2015) has thus showed that differences in

1 A Danish survey among moving ethnic minorities by Skifter Andersen (2006b) showed that only seven per cent have had trouble getting mortgages.

4

the tenure composition of neighbourhoods could explain between 40 and 70 per cent of the ethnic segregation in the cities.

The chance of ethnic retention in immigrant dominated neighbourhoods was contradicted by the theories of the Chicago School. The 'spatial assimilation theory' was formulated (Massey and Denton 1985, Massey 1985, South et al. 2005). It stated that immigrants often start their career in a new country by moving to ethnic enclaves, but that most of them after some time move out again to housing and neighbourhoods that are more in accordance with changes in their preferences, resources and needs. Preferences among ethnic minorities for moving to and from neighbourhoods, where they find enclaves, are thus assumed to depend on the extent to which they are socially integrated in the new society and if they are stigmatised and discriminated in general. New immigrants and less integrated ethnic minorities have a greater need of the support that they can get from networks in the enclave, which in turn influences their housing choice. On the other hand, residents in enclaves that during the course of time get a stronger position in the new country could change their preferences in favour of moving away from the enclave.

A presumption for the spatial assimilation theory is that increased integration/assimilation of immigrants into the host country will weaken their preferences for living in enclaves and that these changes will result in moves away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods. There has been some discussion about this in the literature. Some argue that access to ethnic networks and resources, combined with mobility possibilities inside enclaves, will motivate ethnic minority households to pursue a housing career inside the same neighbourhood (Murdie 2010). Based on a review of American literature Wright et. all. (2005) states that ‘The successive waves of arrivals who enter the immigrant neighbourhood spin intricate webs of social networks that provide information on housing and labour markets and other institutions. As the number of foreign-born arrivals increases, so too does the density of networks and social bonds. These links operate to unite first-generation immigrants (and their progeny) together in a mutually supportive system of reciprocal relations centred on the immigrant neighbourhood’. Competing with the spatial assimilation theory is the 'Ethnic resources' theory (Portes and Bach 1985) or the ‘Ethnic enclave model’ (Bolt and van Kempen 2010). They both assume that the advantages for ethnic minorities to live in neighbourhoods with a strong ethnic network are so important that they exceed the benefits by spatial assimilation. This phenomenon is what we have called ‘Ethnic retention’. Fong and Chan (2010) concluded from their study of Asian, Indian and Chinese immigrants in Toronto that ‘levels of co-ethnic clustering are not related to the economic resources of immigrants’, which points to a persistent clustering among the more economically integrated members of these groups.

In Europe immigrant neighbourhoods are more mixed, with many different minorities, than in the US, due to more regulated housing markets, especially because of the strong role of public housing in many countries where immigrants tend to cluster. It is possible that ethnic networks and bonds are less intensive in these neighbourhoods and that there are weaker advantages for immigrants to remain. It is not very well researched what are the possible motives behind a spatial assimilation of immigrants. What are the advantages for immigrants by moving away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? It is sometimes assumed that living in other neighbourhoods provide better contacts to natives, which could be important for getting jobs and careers. Better schools could also be a motive for immigrants. The most plausible explanation in the Danish context might be dissatisfaction with the quality of housing in the multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, e.g. demand for homeownership and detached homes, and bad conditions in the area, e.g. social problems. A study of immigrants’ moves from renting into homeownership in the Nordic capitals (Kauppinen et al. 2015) showed that this migration was reduced when immigrants were living in a multi-ethnic neighbourhood. A Danish study (Skifter Andersen 2010) has, however, shown that a considerable proportion of immigrants in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods move out every year and that out movers are more socially integrated in Denmark than both permanent residents and in movers, measured by indicators as employment, income and Danish citizenship. Also a Dutch study of immigrants moving pattern (Schaake et. al 2014) showed signs of spatial assimilation based on data on income and education.

Data and methodsIn Denmark, researchers have the possibility to create their own databases inside the national statistical organisation, Statistics Denmark, where all public registers can be used as sources. Moreover, Denmark has a special housing and

5

building register, which makes it possible at any point in time to connect data on the population with data on their housing conditions and tenure.

For this study, data was collected on the whole population and their housing from 1985 to 2008. From these data a database was created containing information on Non-Western immigrants aged 15+ and on a seven per cent similar sample of Danes. This made it possible to construct data on immigrants’ situation on arrival in Denmark and the development over time in their residential situation. Change of resident between years could be identified.

Moreover, it was possible to construct a dataset on the neighbourhoods during the period. In the study, Denmark was divided into 9,000 neighbourhoods with in average about 600 inhabitants. This division was constructed in an earlier project on segregation (Damm et al. 2006) based on the following principles: cities were first divided in accordance with physical boundaries like railways, big roads, space used for industrial purposes and empty spaces. These bigger areas were sub-divided in such a way that different tenures were separated as much as possible. This meant e.g. that bigger social housing estates were separated from neighbourhoods with other tenures. Aggregate data on the population and housing in these neighbourhoods were constructed for the years 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2009. In particular the proportion of residents belonging to different ethnic minorities (immigrants and their descendants) was calculated and the proportion of residents 18+ years, who do not have work or are under education. This was used to identify neighbourhoods with many ethnic minorities, called multi-ethnic neighbourhoods.

The analyses in the paper concentrated on immigrants aged 15+, who did not live with parents and who came to Denmark in the period 1985 to 2008 from so-called non-Western countries. These countries are defined as being outside Western Europe (the old EU, Switzerland etc.), North and South America, Australia and New Zealand. Immigrants from the new EU member states from Eastern and Central Europe are included in non-Western immigrants, like all Asia and Africa. In the statistical analyses, they are divided into four groups: 1. Eastern Europe, 2. Middle East and North Africa (all the Muslim countries from Afghanistan to Morocco. 3. Other Africa and 4. Other Asia.

Selective migration for Danes and Non-Western immigrants is elucidated by help of logistic regressions. Individual outmigration of neighbourhoods is analysed by regressions for both Danes and immigrants controlling for data on individuals and their household, including data on changes in their situation the current year, data on the neighbourhood they leave concerning proportion of ethnic minorities, residents without work and housing, plus data on the municipality, its urbanisation, proportion of immigrants and immigration. Moreover time period is a variable. The pivotal variables in the analyses are the proportion of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhood and the social composition measured by proportion in employment. In-migration to neighbourhoods is analysed by logistic regression of the probability of incomers being either Danes or immigrants using the same independent variables.

In the second is made an effort to estimate the size of these movements to show their importance for ethnic segregation in Denmark. The method is to use regression models to estimate expected moving patterns of both immigrants and Danes, which are not influenced by the ethnic composition of neighbourhoods. The data used are aggregated on neighbourhoods/years based on the selected individuals 15+ years, not living with parents. The dependent variables in the four regressions are the proportion of Danes/immigrants in a neighbourhood who have left or arrived during the last year. The independent variables concern the social and demographic composition of the neighbourhood, housing tenures, the municipality and the time period. The ethnic composition is not included. The statistical models are used to calculate the number of moves for both Danes and immigrants to and from every neighbourhood/year, which should be expected independently of the ethnic composition of them. These expected moves are then compared with actual moves to and from neighbourhoods with different proportion of ethnic minorities.

Immigration to Denmark For centuries there have been different kinds of immigration to Denmark from other European countries, but it was never felt to be something that needed special integration initiatives. In connection with the high economic growth in the 1960s, Danish firms actively searched for labour in countries like Italy, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Pakistan and Morocco. In this period, it was very easy for foreigners to get residence permits to Denmark and look for work. This

6

was changed in 1973 when the upcoming economic crisis and increasing unemployment motivated the government to make a stop for the immigration of migrant workers. It was expected that labour immigrants would return to their home country in case of unemployment, but they did not. Instead most of them moved their family to Denmark by applying for family reunification, which was granted them under Danish law.

Denmark also felt it as a responsibility to receive refugees. The country received refugees from Chile and Vietnam in the 1970s and from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon (Palestinians), and Sri Lanka in the 1980s. Besides these groups, refugees from Yugoslavia and Somalia appeared in the 1990s. In many cases, these groups applied for family reunification with their relatives from the homeland, which had been granted them since 1983.The number of residence permits granted on the grounds of family reunification increased in the 1990s from about 5,000 in the beginning of the decennium to 11,000 in 2001. Some of these concerned immigrants from Western countries. 6,400 were persons who were granted family reunification with other immigrants, while 4,600 were granted family reunification with people of Danish origin.

After 2001, the total number of residence permits granted on the grounds of family reunification dropped to 3,500 in 2005. Reunification with immigrants dropped even more and was only 550 in 2008. This was the result of new immigration policies introduced by a new right-wing government in 2001. One of the main objectives of these policies was to reduce the number of immigrants from third-world countries. New rules for family reunification were introduced. Family reunification was limited to persons older than 24 years and there was a rule that the family as a whole should have greater affiliation to Denmark than to any other country. In practice, this rule was difficult to enforce and the administration of it concerned many conditions like for how long each of the spouses had lived in Denmark, whether they had other family in in Denmark or in other countries, whether they had work or education in Denmark, how well they spoke Danish and how long they had stayed in other countries. Moreover, the person living in Denmark must have a minimum income judged to be big enough to support a family and his dwelling must have a certain minimum size.

Moreover, 'de-facto' rules were abolished, meaning that everyone who appeared inside the borders had the right to apply for asylum and stay until his case was solved. Residence permits for asylum seekers peaked with 20,000 in 1995 owing to many refugees from Bosnia, but after this the level in the last part of the 1990s stayed at about 5,000 per year increasing to 6,300 in 2001. After 2001, the number of refugees granted asylum decreased year after year to about 1,000 at the lowest level in 2006.

After 2001, the Danish unemployment rate dropped and there was a beginning shortage of labour in some sectors of the economy. Therefore, the immigration of skilled labour came on the political agenda. In 2002, a 'green card' arrangement was introduced which made it easier for immigrants coming to work in certain sectors in accordance with a 'positive list'. After 2007, it was possible for everyone to come and work in Denmark provided that they would get a specific income. Immigrants with qualifications could get a residence permit for a period of six months to seek employment. These rules were further developed in 2008 to make it possible for Danish firms to recruit labour from other countries. The income limit was reduced and the green-card arrangement was extended.

Of even greater importance was the extension of the EU with countries from Central Europe in 2004. As a transitional agreement, immigrants from the new countries were covered by the general rules for labour immigration. These rules were relaxed in 2008 and from 2009 citizens from the new EU countries were free to seek employment in Denmark. As residence permits were also granted in connection with education, this meant that immigration to Denmark after a short drop in 2003 increased very much in the following years. The total number of residence permits increased from 30,000 in 2003 to 70,000 in 2008.

At the same time as the reasons for immigration to Denmark changed, a shift occurred in the national composition of immigrants. The most important immigration countries outside Europe and North America could be divided into 'labour immigration countries' and 'refugee countries'. The most important of these labour immigrant countries were Turkey (32,000 immigrants in the period 1980-2008), Pakistan (17,000) and Morocco (5,500). Immigration from these

7

countries began as early as the 1960s, but after 1973 labour immigration was stopped and all residence permits were granted on the grounds of family reunification except for Kurdish refugees from the Eastern part of Turkey. Until 1984, the number of refugees coming to Denmark was quite small. In 1985, however, about 4,000 Iranian refugees came to the country followed by 2,500 Palestinians from Lebanon in 1985. In the following years, the total number of immigrants from the seven countries fluctuated around 3,000 to 4,000 people. Immigration from Somalia increased to a peak of 2,000 in 1996 followed by a steep decrease in the following years. In particular immigration from Iraq came after 1992 and peaked in the latter part of the 1990s. Afghans arrived after the NATO invasion in 2001. Immigration from all these countries diminished from 2001. Besides these refugee countries, there was also a stream of refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the middle of the 1990s. From 1995 to 1997, 24,000 refugees were received.

Immigrants living in Denmark

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

Num

ber o

f per

sons

Nordic countries

Other West European

Eastern and central European

North Africa and Western Asia

Rest of Africa

Eastern Asia

Latin America

North America, Australia, NZ

Figure 1 Development in the number of immigrants and descendants in Denmark (Note: Descendants are defined as persons born in Denmark whose parents both are immigrants.( Source: Statistics Denmark)

The number of immigrants and descendants in Denmark increased from 150,000 in 1980 to 490,000 in 2009 (Figure 1). Some of these immigrants became permanent settlers while others stayed only temporarily in the country.

Immigrants from the Middle East (North Africa and Western Asia) more often stayed in Denmark, which was the reason why their number increased steadily over the years from 20,000 in 1980 to 160,000 in 2009. The number of immigrants from other African countries rose from 2,200 to 33,000 in the same period. The number of immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe and from Eastern Asia also increased, but in recent years these immigrants have to a greater extent been seeking work or education. Many of them can be expected to leave the country again and cannot be considered permanent settlers in the country. This is even more pronounced for immigrants coming from the Nordic Countries, from Western Europe and from North America etc.

As a result, the proportion of immigrants in Denmark rose to about 10 per cent in 2010. A little less than half are immigrants from non-European countries and about 1 per cent is from Eastern and Central Europe.

Table 1. The proportion of immigrants in Denmark 2010

8

Proportion of population born outside the country, % 9.8Immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe, % 0.8Immigrants from other Non-Western countries, % 4.5

Source: Statistics Denmark

Immigrants’ position on the housing market in Denmark Denmark has a large social housing sector, which is relatively easy to get access to, even if some waiting time occurs in the bigger cities. Table 2 lists how non-Western immigrants and descendants aged 15+ are distributed on housing tenures.

Table 2. Danes and ethnic minorities from non-Western countries aged 15+ distributed on housing tenures in 2008 (%)Owner-

occupied detached

Owner-occupied

flats

Co-operatives

Social housing Private renting

Not a self-contained

flatAll

Danes 60 4 6 15 14 1 100Non-Western ethnic minorities 20 5 5 54 14 2 100Overrepresentation of ethnic minorities % -67 25 -17 260 0 100

Note: Ethnic minorities includes descendants aged 15+, but this is a relatively small group. Source: Database on the population in Denmark 1985-2008

In Denmark, the dominating majority of ethnic minorities is located in social housing while relatively few have obtained homeownership. The proportion of all non-Western immigrants and descendants living in social housing rose from about 38 % in 1985 to 60 % in 2001. In the following years, the proportion declined somewhat to 54 % in 2008.

The proportion of ethnic minorities in private renting is on average the same as for Danes, but taking into account that ethnic minorities have much lower incomes than Danes it has been shown that they are quite underrepresented. In Skifter Andersen (2010), it was thus shown by a statistical analysis that when controlling for background variables like income, employment and family situation, non-Western immigrants in Denmark are underrepresented by nearby 60% in private renting. No proper studies have been made on the reasons but it may be assumed that the main reason is discrimination by private landlords and missing social relations to them, which are very important in Denmark (see Skifter Andersen, Søholt and Magnusson Turner 2013).

Settlement in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods As far back as the 1970s, immigrants in Denmark began to concentrate in certain parts of the cities. In the first years, they settled in the older parts with cheap and deteriorated private rented housing. As the immigrant population grew and many of these neighbourhoods underwent urban renewal, immigrants more and more settled in neighbourhoods in the suburbs with social housing. Figure 2 shows the development in the number of neighbourhoods with more than 20 per cent residents from non-Western countries.

9

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20080

100200300400500600700800900

1000

Number of multi-ethnic neighbourhoods

> 20 > 30 > 40 > 50 > 60

Prop. of n-W minorities (%)

Figure 2. The development in the number of multi-ethnic neighbourhoods with more than 20 per cent, or more, residents being non-Western ethnic minorities (immigrants + descendants). Source: Database on the population in Denmark 1985-2008.

Partly due to the increasing number of immigrants and their descendants, the proportion of ethnic minorities increased much in some neighbourhoods. The number of neighbourhoods with more than 20 per cent ethnic minorities from non-Western countries increased from 60 in 1985 to nearly 900 in 2008 (out of 9.000 neighbourhoods) . It can be seen that the fastest growth took place in the 1990s. After 2000, it slowed down, especially after 2005.

In 1985, only half of the dwellings in these multi-ethnic neighbourhoods were social housing. In 2008, it was 70 per cent. However, it must be expected that the actual concentration in social housing estates was higher because some of the neighbourhoods could contain other tenures with few ethnic minorities.The proportion of all non-Western immigrants living in these neighbourhoods rose from about 11 % in 1985 to 46 % in 2008. This development is illustrated in Figure 3.

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20080

10

20

30

40

50

60

Non-Western ethnic minorities living in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods (%)

> 20 > 30 > 40 > 50 > 60

Prop. of n-W minorities (%)

Figure 3. Proportion of ethnic minorities from non-Western countries living in neighbourhoods with more than 20 per cent, or more, residents being non-Western ethnic minorities (immigrants + descendants)

10

The proportion of non-Western ethnic minorities living in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods grew very rapidly in the 1990s and stagnated after 2000. Actually, there was a small decrease from 2005 to 2008.

Moves out of multi-ethnic neighbourhoodsIn this section differences between neighbourhoods with different proportion of ethnic minorities among the residents are examined. In Figure 4 is shown the average proportion of respectively ethnic minorities and Danes, who moved away within a year from neighbourhoods with different degrees of concentration of ethnic minorities.

0-19 % 20-29 % 30-39 % 40-49 % 50 -59 % 60-69 % 70- %0

5

10

15

20

25Average proportion moving away (%)

DanesEthnic minorities

Proportion of ethnic minorities in neighbourhood

Figure 4. Average proportion of respectively ethnic minorities and Danes, who moved away within a year from neighbourhoods with different proportions of ethnic minorities among residents 1985-2008.

There is a clear tendency in the figure. In neighbourhoods with few ethnic minorities, which constitute far the major part of the population, ethnic minorities more often move away from the neighbourhood than Danes. But already in neighbourhoods with 20-29 per cent ethnic minorities Danes more often leave than ethnic minorities and the difference between the two groups raise with increasing concentration of ethnic minorities. In the most immigrant dense neighbourhoods with more than 70 per cent the mobility increases for both Danes and ethnic minorities.

These average tendencies can, however, be caused by other differences between the neighbourhoods; among others that the social composition might be different. Some statistical analyses (logistic regression) have been made to control for such differences and for differences among residents moving away. The dependent variable is moving away from the neighbourhood or not. The following independent variables have been used:

A. Neighbourhood variables Proportion of ethnic minorities: 0-19 %, 20-29 %, 30-39 %, 40-49 %, 50 -59 %, 60-69 %, 70- % Neighbourhood size: number of residents Residents 15+ years old in employment: Position in neighbourhood hierarchy divided into quintiles with

increasing employment Proportion of social housing in neighbourhood Period: 1985-87, 1988-92, 1993-97, 1998-02, 2003-06, 2007-08B. Person/household variables Ethnic group: Danish, East European immigrants, Middle East and North Africa, Other Africa, Other Asia Woman?

11

Age group: 17-29, 30-44, 45-59, 60- Family type: Single without children, Single with children, couples without children, couples with children Housing space per person before move, sq. m. In employment? Household income level: National quintile Are moving together with a partner when moving Are getting divorced Are getting employment Have increased income (moving up to a higher quintile) Are getting new jobC. Municipality variables Proportion of ethnic minorities in municipality Proportion of social housing Urbanisation: Copenhagen area, three largest provincial cities, towns larger than 10.000 inhabitants, other

municipalities.

Five analyses have been carried through for respectively all movers, Danes with and without employment, and ethnic minorities with and without employment. In Table 3 is shown the odds ratios for two of the neighbourhood variables, proportion of ethnic minorities and proportion in employment. The control variables are not shown.

Table 3. Results on neighbourhood variables from logistic regression (odds ratios) of moving away from neighbourhood in all years 1985-2008.

All AllDanes

Employed Danes

Ethnic minorities

Employed ethnic minorities

Proportion ethnic minorities (ref. 0-19 %)20-29 % 1.02 1.05 .94 .9230-39 % 1.02 1.09 .91 .8740-49 % 1.04 1.19 1.07 .88 .8350 -59 % 1.04 1.33 1.15 .87 .7960-69 % 1.41 .86 .7870- % .93 1.34 .94 .83Proportion in employment, neighbourhood Quintiles (ref. Quintile 5)Quintile 1 1.16 1.16 1.62 1.03 1.23Quintile 2 1.23 1.23 1.48 1.05 1.18Quintile 3 1.21 1.22 1.41 1.03 1.13Quintile 4 1.18 1.18 1.31 1.05 1.12Nagelkerke R2 .261 .263 .267 .207 .199

Note: All shown results are significant within the 5 per cent limit.

The results confirm selective behaviour among Danes and immigrants. The average mobility out of multi-ethnic neighbourhoods does not seem to be much larger than other neighbourhoods (first column) when controlling for other variables, except for the most immigrant dense neighbourhoods where mobility is lower. This might be due to that they are located in the largest cities, where mobility in social housing in general is low. The social composition of neighbourhoods has some importance, as mobility is higher in all neighbourhoods with higher unemployment than neighbourhood quintile 5 with the highest employment (lowest section in the figure). For Danes out-mobility is clearly increasing with proportion of immigrants and is up to 40 per cent higher in the second-most immigrant dense neighbourhoods. For ethnic minorities there is no straight forward connection between mobility and ethnic composition of the neighbourhood, but mobility in general is a little lower in all neighbourhoods with more than 20 per cent ethnic minorities, and this is even more pronounced for the employed.

12

Somewhat unexpected Danes in employment are not influenced much by proportion of ethnic minorities, perhaps because there are few of them in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods. The employment ratio in the neighbourhood has a much stronger influence. Also for employed ethnic minorities do employment status for the neighbourhood have importance, while it does not affect ethnic minorities in general.

Moves into multi-ethnic neighbourhoodsAs can be seen from Figure 5 there has on average been a straight forward negative connection between the proportion of Danes among in-movers and the proportion of ethnic minorities among residents in the neighbourhoods. There has been nearby the same connection in all periods since 1985.

0-19 % 20-29 % 30-39 % 40-49 % 50 -59 %

60-69 % 70- %0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%Proportion of Danes among in-movers

1985-871988-921993-971998-022003-062007-08

Proportion of ethnic minorities in neighbourhood

Period

Figure 5. The average proportion of Danes among in-movers to neighbourhoods with different percentages of ethnic minorities among residents 1985-2008.

To make a more precise measure of the effect of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhoods on the composition of in-movers statistical analyses (logistic regression) were made to control for the influence of other factors. Four analyses have been carried through on all in-movers 15+ years to neighbourhoods, with four different dependent variables dependent on if the in-mover is: 1. Danes, 2. Danes in employment, 3. Non-Western ethnic minorities or 4. Ethnic minorities in employment.

The used independent variables are:

A. Neighbourhood variables Proportion of ethnic minorities: 0-19 %, 20-29 %, 30-39 %, 40-49 %, 50 -59 %, 60-69 %, 70- % Proportion of ethnic minorities coming from respectively East Europe, Middle East and North Africa, Other

Asia or Other Africa Neighbourhood size: number of residents Residents 15+ years old in employment: Position in neighbourhood hierarchy divided into quintiles with

increasing employment, reference is quintile 5 Proportion of social housing Period: 1985-87, 1988-92, 1993-97, 1998-02, 2003-06, 2007-08B. Person/household variables Ethnic group: Danish, East European immigrants, Middle East and North Africa, Other Africa, Other Asia

13

Woman? Age group: 17-29, 30-44, 45-59, 60- Family type: Single without children, Single with children, couples without children, couples with children In employment? Household income level: QuintileC. Municipality variables Proportion of ethnic minorities in municipality Proportion of social housing Urbanisation: Copenhagen area, three largest provincial cities, towns larger than 10.000 inhabitants, other

municipalities.

In Table 4 only the odds ratios for the neighbourhood variables are shown.

Table 4. Neighbourhood factors that influences if in-movers 15+ years old are respectively Danes, Danes in employment, Non-Western ethnic minorities or ethnic minorities in work 1985-2008 (odds ratios from logistic regression)

DanesDanes in

employment

Ethnic minorities

Ethn. min. in

employmentProp. of etn. min. in nbh. (ref. 0-19 %)20-29 % .54 .57 1.86 1.4330-39 % .45 .47 2.24 1.3840-49 % .36 .41 2.77 1.3550 -59 % .30 .34 3.29 1.2860-69 % .25 .28 4.06 1.2370- % .14 .17 7.34 1.10Employment rate in nbh. (ref. Quintile 5)Quintile 1 .57 .48 1.77 1.11Quintile 2 .65 .61 1.53 1.25Quintile 3 .73 .70 1.37 1.19Quintile 4 .83 .80 1.21 1.13Neighbourhood size /1000 1.02 1.05 .98Proportion of social housing % 1.20 1.29 .83 1.07Ethnic composition of neighbourhood (ref. East Europeans)Prop. from Middle East and North Africa .59 .70 1.71 1.60

Prop. from Other Africa .59 .77 1.68 1.51Prop. from Other Asia .77 .93 1.29 .86R2 .249 .499 .215 .190

Note: All shown results are significant within the 5 pct. limit.

It can be seen that the proportion of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhoods have a dramatic effect on the composition of in-movers. Even in neighbourhoods with only 20-29 per cent ethnic minorities the probability of Danes among in-movers is only the half of the ‘ordinary’ neighbourhoods with less than 20 per cent. The probability decreases further with increased concentration of ethnic minorities and is very small in the most immigrant dense neighbourhoods. Instead the proportion of ethnic minorities among in-movers is increasing.

The pattern for Danes in employment does not deviate much from all Danes, while ethnic minorities in employment deviate much from all ethnic minorities. Their presence among in-movers decreases with increasing proportion of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhoods. This is in accordance with an earlier study (Skifter Andersen 2010), which showed that in-movers to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods have lower incomes and are less often in employment than residents and out-movers. This pattern is in accordance with the so-called ‘Spatial Assimilation Theory’, which says that

14

newly arrived and less integrated immigrants tend to settle in immigrant dense neighbourhoods and leave them after some years when they have got employment and better incomes.

It is also shown in the table that the social composition of the neighbourhoods have some importance for if Danes move in. In the analyses all the neighbourhoods have been grouped every year in one out of five quintiles after increasing employment rate among residents more than 15 years old. Quintile 5, the quintile with the highest employment, is reference in the analyses. The probability for that an in-mover is a Dane is much smaller in quintile 1 (about half), and the probability increases with higher quintiles. The reverse pattern is obviously found among ethnic minorities. They are more likely to move into neighbourhoods with many unemployed residents, even when controlling for their income and employment. There are only small differences between the employed Danes and the whole group, while ethnic minorities in employment behave differently than al ethnic minorities. They have a slightly higher probability of moving into the first four quintiles than in quintile 5, but the differences between these four quintiles are small.

The national composition of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhoods is also important. Three variables are used, the proportion of Non-Western residents from respectively Middle East and North Africa, Other Africa and Other Asia. The reference is residents from Eastern Europe. Especially many residents from the Muslim countries in Middle East and North Africa results in fewer Danes among in-movers, but also when there are many from other African countries. Immigrants from East European have the smallest effect.

These analyses tell us something about the balance between Danes and ethnic minorities among in-movers, but they cannot tell us much about the causes. Is it because fewer Danes want to live in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods or is it because more families among ethnic minorities do? We also do not know how this influences the progress in segregation and concentration of ethnic minorities. In the next section we will try to estimate the causes of segregation.

Estimating the extent of different processes of segregationThe forces creating and maintaining concentrations of ethnic minorities in neighbourhoods might be due to restrained housing options or special preferences and behaviour among them, as discussed in the theoretical section, but it might also be a result of preferences and special behaviour among Danes. If fewer Danes move to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods it could be a result of white avoidance, but it could also be because there is a stronger demand for social housing from ethnic minorities. The waiting list system in the social housing association favours those who have the time to wait or who do not have other possibilities. And ethnic minorities have fewer other options than social housing in Denmark. On the other hand, if fewer Danes want to move into multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, waiting lists are shorter and it is easier for ethnic minorities to get housing there.

In this section we will try to estimate the impact on segregation of four different processes:

1. ‘White flight’: Danes more often move away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods than they normally would do from similar neighbourhoods of the same character, regardless of the proportion of ethnic minorities

2. ‘White avoidance’: Danes less often move to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods than they normally would do to similar neighbourhoods of the same character, regardless of the proportion of ethnic minorities

3. ‘Ethnic attraction’: Ethnic minorities more often move to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods than they normally would do to similar neighbourhoods of the same character, regardless of the proportion of ethnic minorities. This could be either because they have preferences for multi-ethnic neighbourhoods (enclaves) or because it is difficult for them to get access other housing.

4. ‘Ethnic retention’: Ethnic minorities less often move away from multi-ethnic neighbourhood than they normally would do from similar neighbourhoods of the same character, regardless of the proportion of ethnic minorities. This could be because of preferences for enclaves or because they have few other options

The problem, which has to be solved, is to make an estimate of the ‘normal’ in- and out-moves, depending on the character of the neighbourhoods. It might be expected that the moves to and from different neighbourhoods, beside the

15

ethnic composition, depends on other factors like the composition of housing and the social and demographic composition of residents.

Estimates of ‘normal’ moves to and from the neighbourhoodsThe expected moves to and from each neighbourhood is estimated by help of linear regression analyses of the connection between different neighbourhood characteristics and actual moves in the 9000 neighbourhoods for each of the years 1986 to 2008, in all about 216.000 observations. The data on the social and demographic composition of neighbourhoods is made by aggregating data on all individuals more than 15 years old, who do not live with parents after moving. Two datasets were constructed; one with Danes alone on the neighbourhood level and one with ethnic minorities. Two regressions have been made with dependent variables defined as the proportion of Danes moving respectively in and out of neighbourhoods, based on the neighbourhood data with Danes. And two other similar regressions were made on neighbourhood data with ethnic minorities. The independent variables used in the models are:

A. Proportion of residents (either Danes or ethnic minorities) 15+ years in neighbourhood who are1. 30-44 years old2. 45-59 years3. 60+ years4. Pensioner5. On welfare6. On unemployment benefits7. In employment8. Belongs to income quintile 19. Belongs to income quintile 210. Belongs to income quintile 311. Belongs to income quintile 412. Single without children13. Single with children14. Couple without children

B. Proportion of dwellings in neighbourhood, which are 1. Homeownership 2. Social housing 3. Co-operatives 4. Private renting

C. Urbanisation1. In the Capital Region2. In three largest provincial cities3. Size of city

D. Conditions in the municipality1. Proportion of ethnic minorities among residents who moved out of neighbourhoods2. Proportion of Danes among residents who moved out3. Proportion of ethnic minorities moving in and coming from other neighbourhoods4. Proportion of Danes moving in and coming from other neighbourhoods

E. Time period1. 1988-922. 1993-973. 2003-064. 2007-08

Data on the ethnic composition of the neighbourhoods are not included because we want to estimate expected moves that are not influenced by this.

16

By help of the regression models is calculated the expected number of moves to and from every neighbourhood in every year. This is compared with the actual moves. In Table 5 is shown the R2 for the regression models and the average moving rates to and from the neighbourhoods compared to those estimated by the models.

Table 5. Average calculated moving rates from regression models compared to actual ratesDanes

moving outDanes

moving inEthnic minorities

moving outEthnic minorities

moving inR2 for regression model .464 .313 .223 .173Average estimated expected moving rates 10.0% 10.4% 15.1% 14.1%Actual moves. 10.1% 10.4% 14.2% 13.5%

It is seen that the regression models to a reasonable extent can explain the variation in moves across neighbourhoods and years. The average moving rates also are quite close to the actual rates. The largest deviation is found for moves among ethnic minorities. The calculated expected moves are therefore adjusted for this deviation I the calculations below.

In the four segregations processes at the bottom of the table. is shown the actual and calculated in- and out-moving rates for respectively Danes and Non-Western ethnic minorities in neighbourhoods with different proportion of Non-Western ethnic minorities among residents. Based on this the net in-moving rates are calculated. It is seen that the net in-migration for Danes in average has been negative in all multi-ethnic neighbourhoods seen over the whole period 1985 to 2008.

Moreover is calculated how big a proportion both the actual and the expected calculated moves made up of all residents in the neighbourhoods. Based on a comparison of these figures are calculated estimates for the four segregations processes at the bottom of the table.

17

Table 6. Actual and expected moves every year 1985-2008 of Danes and Non-Western ethnic minorities, 15+ years, in and out of neighbourhoods with a different proportion of ethnic minorities among residents. Calculation of estimates for four segregation processes.

Proportion of ethnic minorities in neighbourhood (%)0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 -59 60-69 70-

Actual moving rates per yearProportion of Danish residents moving out 9.8 % 13.8 % 14.6 % 14.7 % 16.1 % 16.4 % 21.4 %Ethnic minorities moving out 14.4 % 12.6 % 11.5 % 10.4 % 10.4 % 9.6 % 13.2 %Danes moving in 10.2 % 13.3 % 14.0 % 13.5 % 13.9 % 14.0 % 18.7 %Ethnic minorities moving in 13.6 % 13.5 % 12.8 % 12.0 % 11.5 % 10.3 % 13.1 %Net moves to neighbourhoodsDanes 0.4 % -0.5 % -0.4 % -0.8 % -1.3 % -1.2 % -0.9 %Ethnic minorities 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.3 % -0.1 %Moves as a percentage of all residents in neighbourhoodDanes moving out 9.6 % 11.6 % 11.1 % 10.0 % 9.5 % 8.1 % 7.3 %Danes moving in 9.9 % 11.1 % 10.7 % 9.2 % 8.1 % 6.9 % 6.4 %Ethnic minorities moving out 0.4 % 2.0 % 2.7 % 3.3 % 4.3 % 4.9 % 8.7 %Ethnic minorities moving in 0.4 % 2.2 % 3.0 % 3.8 % 4.8 % 5.2 % 8.6 %Calculated expected moves as a percentage of residentsDanes moving out 9.5 % 11.4 % 10.4 % 9.1 % 7.9 % 6.6 % 5.9 %Danes moving in 9.7 % 12.4 % 12.5 % 12.2 % 12.2 % 11.8 % 14.9 %Ethnic minorities moving out 0.4 % 1.9 % 2.6 % 3.3 % 4.2 % 4.8 % 8.3 %Ethnic minorities moving in 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.6 % 0.6 % 0.7 %

Difference between actual and expected moves as a percentage of residentsWhite flight 0.0 % 0.1 % 0.6 % 0.8 % 1.4 % 1.5 % 1.4 %White avoidance -0.4 % 1.3 % 1.8 % 3.1 % 4.1 % 4.9 % 8.5 %Retention of ethnic minorities 0.0 % -0.1 % -0.1 % 0.0 % -0.1 % -0.1 % -0.3 %Attraction of ethnic minorities -0.3 % 1.5 % 2.4 % 3.2 % 4.1 % 4.6 % 7.9 %Note: The classification of neighbourhoods is based on all residents, while the figures in row 1 are based on residents 15+ years.

The contributions from the four processes to the creation and maintenance of concentration of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhoods, shown at the bottom of the table, are calculated as:

White flight = Actual moves out of the neighbourhoods minus expected moves, as a proportion of all residents in the neighbourhood

White avoidance = Expected in-moves minus actual in-movesEthnic retention = Expected moves out minus actual moves outEthnic attraction = Actual in-moves minus expected in-moves

The results are illustrated in Figure 6.

18

0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 -59 60-69 70- -1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

White flight White avoidance Ethnic retentionEthnic attraction

Proportion of ethnic minorities in neighbourhoodFigure 6. Calculated effects of the four processes of segregation in neighbourhoods with different proportion of Non-Western ethnic minorities among residents 1985-2008. Percentage of population in neighbourhoods per year.

It is seen that white avoidance increases strongly with increasing proportion of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhoods and is the most important of the four processes in the most immigrant dense neighbourhoods. When Danes do not move in it is obvious that the in-movers will be ethnic minorities (there is a residual of Western minorities). In multi-ethnic neighbourhoods with less than 50 per cent ethnic minorities ‘Ethnic attraction’ is stronger than white avoidance, while it is weaker for the most concentrated minority neighbourhoods. It is not possible from these data to tell if it is because ethnic minorities just are ‘filling the gabs’ or if it is because they have preferences for these neighbourhoods. White flight also has some importance, which increases with increasing proportion of ethnic minorities until 50 per cent. It is a little smaller in the most minority dense neighbourhoods. An explanation could be that Danes left in these neighbourhoods mostly are low-income families with no other options.

Ethnic retention, the phenomena that ethnic minorities tend to remain more often in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, seems to have little importance in the Danish case. An unexpected result, compared with the analysis in Table 3, is that ethnic minorities a little more often, than should be expected, move out of neighbourhoods with higher proportions of ethnic minorities. There is some uncertainty connected to the method used and the figures are small, but it can be concluded that ethnic retention is not an important factor in the segregation of ethnic minorities.

ConclusionsBased on data on moves for a long period in Denmark, 1985-2008, it is shown that the moving behaviour of both Danes and ethnic minorities in and out of multi-ethnic neighbourhoods have differed among neighbourhoods, which are quite similar except for the concentration of ethnic minorities. The analyses thus document a pronounced selective migration pattern in Denmark.

White flight is documented by the fact that the probability for Danes of moving out of a neighbourhood was clearly increasing with an increasing proportion of immigrants, and was 40 per cent higher in the most immigrant dense neighbourhoods. White avoidance was found to be the most important selective moving process, as the proportion of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhoods had a dramatic effect on the ethnic composition of in-movers. Even in neighbourhoods with only 20-29 per cent ethnic minorities the probability of Danes among in-movers was only the half of the ‘ordinary’ neighbourhoods with less than 20 per cent. The probability decreased further with increased concentration of ethnic minorities and was very small in the most immigrant dense neighbourhoods.

19

The analyses showed that the pattern cannot be explained by the so-called ‘racial proxy theory’, saying that white flight and avoidance is caused by a correlation between ethnic segregation and social segregation. In the statistical analyses are controlled for the social composition of neighbourhoods, measured as the proportion of residents in employment. The results are thus independent of the extent to which neighbourhoods have high or low concentrations of unemployed. The social composition of the neighbourhoods did not affect much if Danes moved out of neighbourhoods, except for employed Danes. It had a strong effect, however, on their representation among in-movers, especially for employed, but this did not neutralise the strong effects of the proportion of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhood.

The national background of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhoods was also important for if Danes moved in. Especially many residents from the Muslim countries in Middle East and North Africa resulted in fewer Danes among in-movers, but it was also the case when there were many from other African countries. Immigrants from Eastern Europe had the smallest effect. These results indicate that religion and skin colour have importance for white avoidance.

‘Ethnic attraction’ was documented by a very strong connection between proportion of ethnic minorities in neighbourhoods and the proportion of ethnic minorities among in-movers. It is, however, not possible to deduce the causes for this. It is evident, that white avoidance and ethnic attraction are connected. Ethnic minorities move in when Danes do not, unless dwellings are left empty. An interesting fact is that ethnic minorities in employment showed an opposite pattern compared to all ethnic minorities. Their representation among in-movers declined with increasing concentration of ethnic minorities. This confirms the assumption in accordance with the spatial assimilation theory that it is mostly less integrated immigrants who settle in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods.

The results only partly confirm the hypothesis on ‘ethnic retention’. There was no systematic connection between the proportion of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhood and the probability of moving out, but there was a general little higher mobility in the neighbourhoods with the lowest proportion of ethnic minorities (less than 20 per cent). The probability of moving out was thus five to ten per cent higher in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods with more than 20 per cent ethnic minorities.

To make an estimate of the importance for the actual development and maintenance of ethnic segregation in Denmark, produced by the different kinds of selective migration among Danes and ethnic minorities, actual moves to and from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods were compared with the moves, which should be expected to and from similar neighbourhoods, irrespectively of their proportion of ethnic minorities. The expected moves to and from each neighbourhood was estimated by help of linear regression analyses of the connection between different neighbourhood characteristics and actual moves in the 9000 neighbourhoods for each of the years 1986 to 2008.

In general it is a problem when trying to identify the extent of the four selective moving processes that they are linked. To what extent is white avoidance in Denmark for example a result of immigrants having so strong demands for living in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods that they outmatch Danes in the allocation of social housing in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? Social housing is allocated by help of waiting lists, which often leads to very long waiting times. Immigrants, who often have no other choices, might be more prepared to wait for housing in multi-ethnic neighbourhood than Danes, who have other choices. In this way immigrants in cities with lack of rental housing might have dislodged Danes.

The analysis showed that ‘white avoidance’ is the most important of the four processes and that it increases strongly with increasing proportion of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhoods. Also ‘Ethnic attraction’ is strong. It is not possible from these data to tell us if this is because ethnic minorities just are ‘filling the gabs’ when Danes avoid neighbourhoods, or if it is because they have stronger preferences for these neighbourhoods. White flight also has some, but much less, importance, which increases with increasing proportion of ethnic minorities until 50 per cent, but decreases somewhat in the most minority dense neighbourhoods. An unexpected result is that ethnic minorities a little more often moves out of neighbourhoods with high proportion of ethnic minorities than they do from similar

20

neighbourhoods. It can thus be concluded that ‘ethnic retention’ is not an important factor in creating the segregation of ethnic minorities.

ReferencesAlba R. and Nee V. (1997) Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration. International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 4

Andersson R. (1998) Socio-spatial dynamics: ethnic divisions of mobility and housing in post-Palme Sweden. Urban Studies. 35(3). pp. 397–428.

Andersson R. (2013) Reproducing and reshaping ethnic residential segregation in Stockholm: the role of selective migration moves. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 95 (2):163–187.

Andersson R. and Bramå Å. (2006).Selective migration in Swedish distressed neighbourhoods: can area‐based urban policies counteract segregation processes? Housing Studies, 19:4, 517-539.

Artle R. and Varaiya P. (1978) Life cycle consumption and homeownership. Journal of Economic Theory 18. pp. 38–58

Baum-Snow, N., & Lutz, B. F. (2011). School Desegregation, School Choice, and Changes in Residential Location Patterns by Race. The American Economic Review, 101 (7), pp. 3019-3046.

BOLT, G., VAN KEMPEN, R. and VAN HAM, M, (2008): ‘Minority Ethnic Groups in the Dutch Housing Market: Spatial Segregation, Relocation Dynamics and Housing Policy’, Urban Studies 45 (7): 1359-1384.

Bolt G., Ozuekren A. S and Phillips D. (2010) Linking Integration and Residential Segregation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 169_186

BOLT, G. and VAN KEMPEN, R (2010) Ethnic Segregation and Residential Mobility: Relocations of Minority Ethnic Groups in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 333_354.

Boschman S. Kleinhans R. andelsboliger van Ham M. (2014) Ethnic Differences in Realising Desires to Leave the Neighbourhood. IZA DP No. 8461. Institute for the Study of Labor

Boterman, W.R (2012) Dealing with Diversity: Middle-class Family Households and the Issue of 'Black' and 'White' Schools in Amsterdam, Urban Studies, online first, 17 October 2012.

Brattbakk I, Andersson R. and Dhalman H. (2013) The role of the school for residential mobility and ethnic residential segregation in Nordic capital regions. Extended abstract for the ENHR-conference in Tarragona, June 19-22, 2013.

BRÅMÅ, Å. (2006): ‘“White flight”? The production and reproduction of immigrant concentration areas in Swedish cities, 1990–2000’, Urban Studies 43 (7): 1127–1146.

Burgess, S., Wilson, D. and Lupton, R. (2005) Parallel Lives? Ethnic Segregation in Schools and Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, vol. 42 (7), pp. 1027-1056.

Carliner G. (1974): Determinants of Homeownership. Land Economics. Vol. 5. pp. 109-19.

Cascio, E.U., & Lewis, E.G. (2012) Cracks in the Melting Pot: Immigration, School Choice and Segregation, The American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 4 (3), pp. 91-117.

21

Clark, W.A.V., & Maas, R. (2012) Schools, Neighbourhoods and Selection: Outcomes Across Metropolitan Los Angeles, Population Research and Policy Review, Vol.31 (3), pp. 339-360.

Crowder K. (2000) The Racial Context of White Mobility: An Individual-Level Assessment of the White Flight Hypothesis. Social Science Research, Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 223–257

Crowder , K., HALL, M. and TOLNAY, S. E. (2011): Neighborhood immigration and native out-migration,American Sociological Review 76 (1): 25–47.

Damm, A. P., Schultz-Nielsen, M. L. & Tranæs, T. (2006) En befolkning deler sig op? (Copenhagen: Gyldendal).

Dekker K. (2013) Testing the racial proxy hypothesis. What is it that residents don’t like about their neighbourhood? In van Hamm M. Manley D., Bailey N. Simpson L. and Maclennan D. (eds.) Neighbourhood dynamics. New insights for neighbourhood effects research. Dordrecht: Springer.

Fairlie R. W. and Resch A. M. Is There "White Flight" into Private Schools? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey. JCPR Working Paper 211. Joint Center for Poverty Research, IL.Spencer Foundation, Chicago.

Fong E. and Chan E. (2010) The Effect of Economic Standing, Individual Preferences, and Co-ethnic Resources on Immigrant Residential Clustering. International Migration Review. Volume 44, Issue 1, pages 111–141.

Fonseca M. L. , J. McGarrigle and A. Esteves (2010) Possibilities and limitations of comparative quantitative research on immigrant’s housing conditions. Working Paper No. 06. PROMINSTAT

Gramberg, P. (1998) School Segregation: The Case of Amsterdam, Urban Studies, vol. 35 (3): pp. 547-564.

Hamnett, C., (2012) Concentration or Diffusion? The Changing Geography of Ethnic Minority Pupils in English Secondary Schools, 1999-2009. Urban Studies, vol. 49 (8), pp. 1741-1766.

Johnston, R., Burgess, S., Wilson, D. & Harris, R. (2006) School and Residential Ethnic Segregation: An Analysis of Variations across England’s Local Education Authorities. Regional Studies, vol. 40, 9, pp. 973-990.

Johnston R., Forrest J. and Poulsen M. (2002). Are there Ethnic Enclaves in English Cities? Urban Studies 39:591-618.

Kauppinen T., Skifter Andersen H. and Hedman L. (2015) Determinants of immigrants’ entry to homeownership in three Nordic capital city regions. Forthcoming IN Geografiska Annaler B.

van Kempen R. and Özuekren A. S. (1998). Ethnic segregation in cities: new forms and explanations in a dynamic world. Urban Studies 35, pp. 1631-1653.

van Kempen R. (2003) Segregation and Housing Conditions of Immigrants in Western European Cities, Eurex Lecture 7, 13 March. Available at http://www.shiva.uniurb.it/eurex/syllabus/lecture7/Lecture7-VanKempen.pdf.

Ledwith, V. & Clark, W.A.V. (2007) The effect of the residential mosaic and “White flight” in public school composition: Evidence from Los Angeles County, Urban geography, Vol.28 (2), pp.160-180.

MAGNUSSON, L. and ÖZÜEKREN, A. Ş. (2002): ‘The housing careers of Turkish households in middle-sized Swedish municipalities’, Housing Studies 17 (3): 465–486.

Massey D. S. (1985) Ethnic residential segregation: a theoretical synthesis and empirical review. Sociology and Social Research. 1985

22

Massey D. S og Denton (1985) Spatial assimilation as a socioeconomic outcome. American Sociological Review, vol 50, 94-106

Mingliang L. (2009) Is there “white flight” into private schools? New evidence from High School and Beyond Economics of Education Review, Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 382–392.

Murdie, R. A. (2002) The Housing Careers of Polish and Somali Newcomers in Toronto’s Rental Market. Housing Studies, 17 (3), 423-443.

Murdie R. A and Ghosh S. (2010) Does Spatial Concentration Always Mean a Lack of Integration? Exploring Ethnic Concentration and Integration in Toronto. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Volume 36, Issue 2,pp 293-311.

Musterd, S., Ostendorf, W. and Breebaart, M. (1998) Multi-ethnic Metropolis: Patterns and Policies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publications.

Park R. E. (1925) The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behaviour in the urban environment. in: R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess (Eds) The City. pp. 1–46. Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press.

Peach, C. (1998) South Asian and Caribbean ethnic minority housing choice in Britain, Urban Studies, 35(10), pp. 1657–1680.

Portes, A. & Bach, R. L. (1985). Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States (Los Angeles, CA: University of California).

Quillian L. (2002) Why is Black–White residential segregation so persistent? Evidence on three theories from migration data, Social Science Research, 31, pp. 197–202.

Rangvid B. S (2009) School Choice, Universal Vouchers and Native Flight from Local Schools. European Sociological Review Volume 26 , Issue 3 Pp. 319-335.

Schaake, K., Burgers, J., and Mulder, C. H. (2014). Ethnicity, education and income, and residential mobility between neighbourhoods. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(4), 512-527

Skifter Andersen, H. (2006c). Undersøgelse af til- og fraflytningen fra tre multietniske boligområder (A study of moves in and out of three multi-ethnic neighbourhoods . SBi 2006: 12. Hørsholm: Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut.Skifter Andersen H. (2010) Spatial Assimilation in Denmark. Why do Immigrants move to and from Multi-ethnic Neighbourhoods? Housing Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3,pp 281–300.

Skifter Andersen, H. (2015): Explanations for differences in immigrants' preferences for neighbourhood. Social integration or ethnicity? Net publication in Housing, Theory and Society

Skifter Andersen H., Magnusson Turner, L. and Søholt, S. (2013): ‘The Special Importance of Housing Policy for the Housing Situation of Ethnic Minorities. Evidence from a Comparison of Four Nordic Countries’, International Journal of Housing Policy 13 (1): 17-36.

Skifter Andersen H., Andersson R., Wessel T. and Vilkama K. (2015). Housing Systems and Ethnic Spatial Segregation: Comparing the Capital Cities of Four Nordic Welfare States. Forthcoming in International Journal of Housing Policy.

23

South, S. J., & Crowder, K. D. (1997). Escaping distressed neighborhoods: Individual, community, and metropolitan influences. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 1040–1084

South S. J., Crowder K. and Chavez E. (2005). Migration and Spatial Assimilation Among U.S. Latinos: Classical Versus Segmented Trajectories. Demography. Vol. 42, Number 3, pp. 497-521

South, S. J., Crowder, K., & Pais, J. (2011). Metropolitan structure and neighborhood attainment: Exploring intermetropolitan variation in racial residential segregation. Demography, 48(4), 1263-1292.

Sundell, T. (2008). «Hvit flukt» blant barnefamilier i Oslo? En kvantitativ studie. Master thesis. Institutt for sosiologi og samfunnsgeografi. Universitetet i Oslo.

Sykes, B. (2011) Spatial order and social position: neighbourhoods, schools and educational inequality. (Thesis) Department of geography, University of Amsterdam

Søholt S (2007) Gjennom nåløyet – en sammenligning av tilpasninger til boligmarkedet blant hushold av pakistansk, tamilsk og somalisk bakgrunn, Oslo 1970 – 2003 (Through the eye of a needle – a comparison of adaptions to the housing market among households with Pakistani, Tamil and Somali background, Oslo 1970 – 2003). Thesis. Oslo: Institute for Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo.

Søholt S and Astrup K (2009) Etniske minoriteter og forskjellsbehandling i leiemarkedet (Ethnic minorities and unequal treatment in the rental market). NIBR-report: 2. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research.

VILKAMA, K. (2011): Yhteinen kaupunki, eriytyvät kaupunginosat? Kantaväestön ja maahanmuuttajataustaisten asukkaiden alueellinen eriytyminen ja muuttoliike pääkaupunkiseudulla [Shared city, divided neighbourhoods? Residential segregation and selective migration of the native and immigrant populations in the Helsinki metropolitan Area]. Tutkimuksia 2011:2, Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus, Helsinki.

Wright R., Ellis M. and Parks V. (2005) Re-placing Whiteness in Spatial Assimilation Research. City and Community, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp. 111-135.

Zhang, H. (2011) School Desegregation and White Flight Revisited: Analysis from a Metropolitan Perspective, Urban Geography, Vol. 32 (8), 1208-1226.

Aalbers, M. B. (2002). The neglected evidence of housing market discrimination in the Netherlands, Radical Statistics Journal, 79/80, pp. 161–169.

24