In this paper, we use geo-coded, individual-level register data on four European countries to compute comparative measures of segregation that are independent of existing geographical sub-divisions. The focus is on non-European migrants, for whom aggregates of egocentric neighbourhoods (with different population counts) are used to assess small-scale, medium-scale, and large-scale segregation patterns. At the smallest scale level, corresponding to neighbourhoods with 200 persons, patterns of over- and under-representation are strikingly similar. At larger-scale levels, Belgium stands out as having relatively strong over- and under-representation. More than 55% of the Belgian population lives in large-scale neighbourhoods with moderate under- or over-representation of non-European migrants. In the other countries, the corresponding figures are between 30 and 40%. Possible explanations for the variation across countries are differences in housing policies and refugee placement policies. Sweden has the largest and Denmark the smallest non-European migrant population, in relative terms. Thus, in both migrant-dense and native-born-dense areas, Swedish neighbourhoods have a higher concentration and Denmark a lower concentration of non-European migrants than the other countries. For large-scale, migrant-dense neighbourhoods, however, levels of concentration are similar in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Thus, to the extent that such concentrations contribute to spatial inequalities, these countries are facing similar policy challenges.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10680-018-9481-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The purpose of this study is to compare socioeconomic segregation patterns and levels in Brussels, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo, and Stockholm with uniform measurements. Socioeconomic segregation is a persistent reality in European cities that may have negative effects on social cohesion and individual outcomes. Previous research has been hampered by conceptual and methodological shortcomings, preventing comparable studies of segregation. We use harmonized datasets from 2011 containing geocoded indicators based on a nearest-neighbors approach, allowing for comparable measures of socio-economic segregation at multiple scales. Our analyses offer an unprecedented comparison of patterns and levels of socio-spatial inequalities in European capitals. Using maps, segregation indices and percentile plots, we find that for all cities, the level of segregation by affluence is much larger than that of poverty. Macro-scale poverty segregation is most prominent in Stockholm and Brussels, and quite low in Amsterdam. At microscales, Brussels and Stockholm stand out with very high concentrations of poverty at the local level. In such poor neighborhoods, there are hardly any non-poor, indicating high levels of polarization. Macro-scale segregation by affluence is most pronounced in Oslo. Differences in levels and patterns are interpreted in the light of their particular welfare regimes, housing systems, area-based policies and migration dynamics.

Although their market scope often exceeds the neighborhood level, for most entrepreneurs of small‐scale firms the neighborhood is the relevant arena for both their professional activities and their personal affairs. Dutch local economic policy aims to stimulate new firm formation and firm survival in (disadvantaged) neighborhoods by conditioning economic, social, and physical aspects of the neighborhood such as economic zoning and clustering, livability, and the quality of the built‐up area. Although substantial differences in firm success exist across neighborhoods, it is not clear whether area‐level factors contribute to these differences, suggesting that area‐level policies are useful, or whether differences are due to either urban effects or to microlevel entrepreneurial and firm composition effects. This article distinguishes neighborhood effects from composition effects on local firm survival and firm growth, thereby also taking into account spatial dependence across neighborhoods. Our results suggest that aspects of the local livability of neighborhoods and of economic agglomeration are significantly related to individual firm survival and firm growth. The models provide proof for spillover effects of livability problems and market potential between adjacent neighborhoods. Neighborhoods and cities are therefore potentially places for area‐based policies, aiming at the survival and growth of local firms.