Ethnic Segregation in Cities: New Forms and Explanations in a Dynamic World

Abstract

Summary. As an introduction to this special issue on ethnic segregation in cities, we offer the readers an overview of the explanatory factors of ethnic segregation and spatial concentration in modern welfare states. After a discussion of the disadvantages and advantages of segregation and concentration, which can be seen as the impetus behind the widespread interest in this topic, we will brie¯y review som e`traditional' theories. That review will be followed by a closer look at behavioural theories and explanations in which constraints are central. The next section will elaborate on restructuring processes, giving special attention to economic change and its effects on cities, groups and spatial arrangements. W e will conclude this introduction with a few remarks on the future of ethnic segregation and concentration and outline some possible directions for future research in this ® eld.

Neighbourhood cohesion under the influx of migrants in Shanghai

“…Informal social control is also higher in migrant enclaves partly due to the absence of a formal state governed system, which forces migrants to take matters into their own hands. The downside of migrant enclaves could be the lack of intergroup relations between migrants and locals, which may prevent migrants from further socially integrating into the host society (Kempen and Ö zu¨ekren, 1998;Logan et al, 2002). It is important to note the difference between migrant enclaves and urban villages as can be seen from the positive effect of migrant enclaves and the negative effect of urban villages on informal social control.…”

“…Increasingly some evidence signal that the relationship between minority concentration and cohesion may be fundamentally different depending on the actual intensity of minority concentration. For instance, studies on migrant enclaves, which have an extremely high share of migrant residents, suggest that enclaves do not necessarily lack cohesion amongst its residents as migrant residents have formed their own in-group community, which is more pragmatically oriented and based on solidarity and mutual support (Kempen and Ö zu¨ekren, 1998;Logan et al, 2002). On the other hand, studies from countries with moderate levels of ethnic segregation such as the Netherlands reveal that the minority concentration of a neighbourhood hardly affects the social and economic integration of ethnic minorities, such as education level and labour market participation (Musterd, 2003).…”

Minority Ethnic Groups in the Dutch Housing Market: Spatial Segregation, Relocation Dynamics and Housing Policy

“…Finally, the idea that differentiation is an effective means to combat segregation disregards the fact that spatial segregation is determined by a large number of factors, many of which are unrelated to the housing stock characteristics of neighbourhoods (Musterd, 2003;Van Kempen and Özüekren, 1998). In this paper, we have specifically looked at ethnic-specific differences with regard to neighbourhood choice.…”

“…Demographic developments on different spatial scale levels are of great importance in the competition between different groups on the housing market: more immigration in an area means in principle more competition. Social-cultural developments are of importance for the demands people put on their dwelling and residential environment (Van Kempen and Özüekren, 1998).…”

The Decline and Rise of Neighbourhoods: The Importance of Neighbourhood Governance

“…According to followers of the neo-weberian approach, for example, there is competition between households to gain access to desirable dwellings ('housing classes') (Rex & Moore, 1967). Whether a household has this access or not is highly influenced by its resources, for example income (see Van Kempen & Özüekren, 1998, for an overview of these resources). The social rented sector, on the other hand, employs bureaucratic or (more recently) 'choice-based' allocation to achieve almost similar results.…”