The spatial segregation of population groups is ancient. The phenomenon can be traced back to at least 2000BC or thereabouts, when the city of Babylon was described as being composed of distinct quarters. The outer ones were accessible to everyone; the inner ones, however, were reserved for those in power: kings and priests (Benevolo, 1980). In medieval cities in Europe, the city centres were inhabited by the well-to-do, while the outer districts housed the poorer segments of the population. According to Engels (1980), the European industrial city of the 19th century had separate territories for the poor, where they could live removed from the sight of ‘happier’ classes.
Research into segregation processes is not so ancient. Only since the beginning of the twentieth century have researchers tried to deal systematically with these topics. The enormous influence of the Chicago School is well known and much research into segregation has been focussed on ethnic and socioeconomic minority groups.
It is not the aim of this essay to spell out the effects of segregation. Rather, this essay intends to critically evaluate various ways to explain segregation in the case of both class and race. The basic standpoint being, that any explanation should take a wider perspective than the traditional focus on the choices and constraints of individuals. Therefore, macro-developments should be taken into account. Specifically, developments in the economy and demography of countries and cities, as well as institutional and political developments should be part of the explanation as developments on the macro-spatial level can influence choices and opportunities of population groups. In other words:
‘urban problems, including those relating to race and status, should not be treated in isolation from society at large but are best understood as results of a complex interrelationship between many processes’ (Sarre et al., 1989: 1).
Segregation can be seen as the residential separation of groups within a broader population. A group is said to be completely mixed in a spatial sense when its members are distributed uniformly throughout the population. The greater the deviation from a uniform dispersal, the greater the degree of separation (Johnston et al., 1986). Spatial segregation exists when some areas show an overrepresentation and other areas an under-representation of members of a group. The crux of the matter is spatial scale. Spatial segregation may exist between cities and their surrounding areas, between urban neighbourhoods, or even between housing estates within neighbourhoods. Segregation at one spatial level does not automatically imply segregation at another spatial scale.
In explaining patterns and processes of racial and socioeconomic segregation, three ‘traditional’ approaches can be discerned: the human ecology approach, social area analysis and factorial ecology.
These traditional approaches did not assign the individual a key role. In that light, the behavioural approach – in which acts and intentions of individuals are central – can be seen as a logical sequel to earlier approaches. The ethnic-cultural approach is an adaptation of the behavioural approach. The role of government – and consequently the role of institutional discrimination – also lies at the core of these later approaches. The key elements of all these approaches are summarised below.
The human ecology approach
The structural analysis of neighbourhood change, residential differentiation and the processes of segregation started with the human ecology tradition associated with the Chicago School. Human ecologists analysed the city as a discrete entity and were less concerned with the city as a reflection and manifestation of the wider society (Bassett and Short, 1989). The city developed through a competition for space to produce concentric zones, specific sectors or multiple nuclei, separating populations with different resources and other characteristics. Processes of invasion and succession involved a chain reaction, with each preceding population moving outwards and being succeeded by more recent, minority population groups (Park et al., 1925). The final pattern of segregation, the ‘mosaic of social worlds’ (Timms, 1971: 39) was seen as a ‘natural’ equilibrium. It was a consequence of various processes: invasion, dominance and succession. Behind it was the idea of population enclaves as transitional stages in the road to eventual acceptance and integration of minority groups in the larger society (Clark, 1996: 110).
It is argued that the social ecologists paid too little attention to how neighbourhood change actually occurs. Their explanations were insufficiently informed by empirical research referring to choice, preference and social action (Hollingshead, 1947). Moreover, their neglect of the influence of institutional and political factors rendered their account unsatisfactory, even for cities where state intervention through planning and housing provision was limited (Bassett and Short, 1989). For countries and cities where the role of the state has strongly influenced patterns of urban growth and residential developments, their approach was even more inadequate. The ideas of the Chicago School were essentially American and maybe even ‘Chicagoan’. They were developed in a specific time-period and under a specific system: the free market economy, in which terms such as social security and housing subsidies were not common. Therefore, the applicability of these ideas in the European situation has been questioned. Moreover, the classical formulation of human ecology was criticised for being derived from a biological model, rather than being based on cultural and social processes. As Bell puts it:
‘ … the early Chicago ecologists’ view of the city has been revised, and we now know that it gave a one-sided and partially false picture of the nature of urban life in its exaggerated portrayal of personal and social disorganisation and its adherence to the notion of natural forces as the prime movers of the emerging city’ (Bell, 1968: 136).
Despite heavy critique, the ideas of the human ecologists have stimulated much research. Some of the studies that have come out of the Chicago School are now considered classics in their field. Also, the approaches associated with the Chicago School have resulted in empirical studies that were sensitive to spatial variations and sympathetic to local conditions (Bassett and Short, 1989). Moreover, hypotheses advanced by the Chicago School are still referred to and even tested in empirical situations. However, testing these hypotheses – that is, checking whether or not the populations of neighbourhoods change in the ways the ecologists described – is only helpful if the mechanisms behind them are also clear. The explanatory concepts used by the classical ecologists may not be suited to present-day analysis. In particular, they are difficult to apply to cities in west European welfare states.
Social area analysis and factorial ecology
The human ecology approach was followed by positivist-empirical approaches like deductive social area analysis and inductive factorial ecology (Berry and Kasarda, 1977). Factorial ecology uncovered the socio-spatial layout of many cities in the world, though without focussing on causality. Census variables were selected and ‘run through the statistical mill of principle components analysis or factor analysis’ (Bassett and Short, 1989: 180). Many analyses revealed sectoral and zonal patterns of segregation. Differences between urban neighbourhoods could often, but not always, be summarised by socioeconomic status and ethnicity.
Critics of social area analysis and factorial ecology described the methods as descriptive and based on very meagre theoretical notions (Bassett and Short, 1989). Other critics pointed out that since most of the research had been done in the U.S., the results should not be applied automatically to the European situation.
The behavioural approach
Explanations that explicitly include the preferences, perceptions and decision-making of the individual in residential mobility were introduced in the behavioural approach. This can be seen as a reaction to the spatial analysis approach. The behavioural approach does not necessarily focus on the behaviour of members of minority groups, of course. Behavioural models mainly focus on the demand side of the housing market. One of the most famous models, formulated by Brown and Moore (1970), took ‘place-utility’ as the central concept. Place-utility can be seen as the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a certain spatial locale. In other words, push and pull factors play a role in spatially separating ethnic and socioeconomic minorities, as these populations may not be driven to migrate to ‘better’ areas as much as those from a typically white, middle-class background.
Innumerable large and small research projects of the behavioural type have now been carried out in the field of residential mobility and locational preference. The relation with the development of the neighbourhood and processes of segregation is not always clear. However, in any effort to come to grips with the position of the neighbourhood, it is believed that the opinion of the inhabitants themselves is an essential ingredient. To define a concentration area of minorities as a bad place to live, for example, is poor scholarship if it ignores the opinions of the inhabitants themselves and the position of the neighbourhood in their daily lives (Bolt and van Kempen, 1997).
The behavioural approach has been criticised for its emphasis on demand and the concomitant lack of attention on constraints. Neither the supply of dwellings nor their accessibility receives much attention. Although this might be true in general, several behavioural studies have incorporated variables and other constraints into the approach.
‘The reality of all choices is that they are made under conditions of constraint’ (Cross, 1992: 91).
Or in the words of Peach:
‘While the ‘constraint school’ did not recognise choice, the ‘choice’ school was keenly aware of constraint’ (Peach, 1991: 73).
The ethnic-cultural approach
The ethnic-cultural approach can be seen as a special form of the behavioural approach. The general argument within the ethnic-cultural approach runs thus: housing conditions and residential patterns differ between racial and socioeconomic groups, and these differences can be attributed to cultural differences between these groups. There is a clear element of ‘choice’ in this approach. In this vein, Clark (1996) states that whites and Asians have stronger preferences for neighbourhoods populated by their own race than do Hispanics and blacks and that this is one of the main explanations for their different settlement patterns. Robinson (1986) depicts differences in housing situations between Asian and West Indian groups and explains these differences by different cultural orientations. She states that the overwhelming majority of Asians in Britain are still inspired by the ‘myth of return’. Therefore, they are not interested in assimilation into British society.
The ethnic-cultural approach allows for inclusion of constraints in the explanation. The choice for owner-occupied dwellings can be seen as a cultural preference, but also as a defensive reaction against the racist practices of some landlords (Bowes et al., 1990). This approach concedes that differences within groups may be just as important as differences between groups. The ethnic-cultural approach opens our eyes to the fact that Asians, Turks, Moroccans and West Indians – to mention just a few of the backgrounds of immigrants in West European countries – are not single groups with unitary values. All kinds of sub-groups might attach different meanings to many aspects of life, including the kind of housing and neighbourhood in which they would like to live (Ballard, 1990).
The topic of race and class segregation has been studied for decades. Yet much more remains to be covered. The point of departure of this essay is that spatial segregation along class or race lines should be studied in terms of contextual factors in addition to the traditional concern with individual factors and developments. The contextual developments provide a framework within which preferences and resources of households and activities on the supply side of the housing market play a role.
References
Ballard, R. (1990) Migration and kinship: the differential effect of marriage rules on the processes of Punjabi migration to Britain. IN Clark, W. A. V., Peach, C. & Vertovec, S. (Eds.) South Asians Overseas: Migration and Ethnicity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bassett, K. & Short, J. (1989) Development and diversity in urban geography. IN Gregory, D. & Walford, R. (Eds.) Horizons in Human Geography. London, Macmillan.
Bell, W. (1968) The city, the suburb and a theory of social change. IN Greer, S. (Ed.) The New Urbanization. New York, St. Martins.
Benevolo, L. (1980) The History of the City, London, Scholar Press.
Berry, B. J. L. & Kasarda, J. D. (1977) Contemporary Urban Ecology, New York, Macmillan.
Bolt, G. S. & van Kempen, R. (1997) Segregation and Turks’ housing conditions in middle-sized Dutch cities. New Community, 23, 363
Bowes, A., McCluskey, J. & Sim, D. (1990) Ethnic minorities and council housing in Glasgow. New Community, 16, 523
Brown, L. A. & Moore, E. G. (1970) The intra-urban migration process: a perspective. Geografiska Annaler, 52B, 1
Clark, W. A. V. (1996) Residential patterns: avoidance, assimilation and succession. IN Waldinger, R. & Bozorgmehr, M. (Eds.) Ethnic Los Angeles. New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Cross, M. (1992) Black workers, recession and economic restructuring in the West Midlands. IN Cross, M. (Ed.) Ethnic Minorities and Industrial Change in Europe and North America. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Engels, F. (1980) The Condition of the Working Class in England, Moscow, Progress Publishers.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1947) A re-examination of ecological theory. Sociology and Social Research, 31, 194
Johnston, R. J., Gregory, D. & Smith, D. M. (1986) The Dictionary of Human Geography, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W. & McKenzie, R. D. (1925) The City, Chicago, Chicago University Press.
Peach, C. (1991) Review of ‘Ethnic Minority Housing: Explanations and Policies’. Housing Studies, 6, 73
Rodinson, V. (1986) Transients, Settlers and Refugees: Asians in Britain, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Sarre, P., Phillips, D. & Skellington, R. (1989) Ethnic Minority Housing: Explanations and Policies, Aldershot, Avebury.
Timms, D. W. G. (1971) The Urban Mosaic: Towards a Theory of Residential Differentiation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
