Counteracting Segregation: Swedish Policies and Experiences

Abstract

The issue of residential segregation has been on the Swedish political agenda since the early 1970s. This paper analyses the background for this interest, presents some basic features of socio-economic and ethnic residential segregation, and discusses some fundamental contextual properties regarding the Swedish welfare state, its institutional set-up and changes in housing and other policies that have affected the conditions for segregation processes. Three more specific anti-segregation policies are also identified and analysed: housing and social mix policy (first initiated in the 1970s); the refugee dispersal policy (initiated in the 1980s); and the area-based urban policy (initiated in the 1990s). Of these three, the last two have a clear ethnic focus while mix policies primarily aim for socio-economic and demographic mix. The analysis shows that none of the policies have managed to affect levels of segregation more than marginally, the reasons being ineffective implementation (the mix policy), failures in the design (the refugee dispersal policy) or conflicting aims inherent in the policy (area-based interventions).

Factors Shaping Workplace Segregation Between Natives and Immigrants

“…Previous studies conducted in U.S. context lead us to expect that neighborhood of residence could be a key determinant of workplace segregation of immigrants at the level of both workplace neighborhood (Ellis et al 2004) and workplace establishment (Hellerstein et al 2011). Three principal and complementary explanations have been suggested to account for this phenomenon: (1) lack of economic resources to settle in the same neighborhoods as natives; (2) effects of social networks and residential preferences among immigrants to live close to members of their own group; and (3) discrimination against immigrants in the housing market (Andersson et al 2010b;McPherson et al 2001;Semyonov and Glikman 2009). We turn now to a discussion of those explanations in greater detail.…”

The Stockholm Estates—A Tale of the Importance of Initial Conditions, Macroeconomic Dependencies, Tenure and Immigration

“…The most important ones are already well covered in earlier research, including in comparative European-funded research projects such as UGIS (Urban Governance, Inclusion and Sustainability), Restate (Restructuring Large housing estates in Europe) and Neighbourhood Governance-Capacity for Social Inclusion. (Andersson 1999(Andersson , 2006Andersson et al 2010) (Öresjö et al 2004;Lahti Edmark 2002) A series of programmes were initiated, especially in the 1990s, and were to be followed by new initiatives in the new millennium. As pointed out, there have been no demolitions and most of the State and municipal interventions have been people-based rather than placed-based (physical) in character.…”

Forty years of immigrant segregation in France, 1968–2007. How different is the new immigration?

“…Residential mobility and spatial dispersion are major phenomena, even in ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods (Simpson, 2004(Simpson, , 2005(Simpson, , 2007Simpson et al, 2008). In France, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, considerable spatial mobility has been documented, often into neighbourhoods with better characteristics for immigrants of all origins (Bråmå, 2008;Musterd and van Kempen, 2009;Pan Ké Shon, 2010;Andersson et al, 2010), thus suggesting an ongoing, progressive incorporation process. …”