Residential Segregation and Interethnic Contact in the Netherlands

Abstract

Dutch policy-makers perceive high shares of ethnic minorities in neighbourhoods as a problem; it might generate fewer opportunities for minorities to have contact with the native Dutch population and thereby hinder integration. The question, however, is whether the ethnic composition of neighbourhoods influences interethnic contact. In this paper, the focus is on the leisure contact of people from ethnic minorities aged 15 to 65 with native Dutch people. Binary logistic multilevel analysis shows that contact with native Dutch people is mainly explained by individual characteristics. In addition, living in one of the four largest cities-cities with high shares of minorities at the city level-leads to less contact with native Dutch people. The ethnic composition of the neighbourhood has no effect on contact, therefore segregation at the neighbourhood level does not necessarily hinder integration.

Where Do Ethno-Linguistic Groups Meet? How Copresence during Free-Time Is Related to Copresence at Home and at Work

“…For example, the pattern of attending churches [ 21 ] and visiting urban parks [ 27 ] differ significantly by ethnic and racial groups. On the other hand, common-interest–based activities, such as sporting or attending popular cultural and other events, can trigger people out of their networks, and facilitate inter-group contact and integration [ 28 , 29 ]. In other words, various activities performed outside home and work can integrate people on basis of their common interests irrespective of ethnic background [ 30 ].…”

Individual Activity Patterns and the Meaning of Residential Environments for Inter‐Ethnic Contact

“…It may very well be that ethnic composition of the population at higher scale levels, such as the municipality or region, does matter (cf. Boschman ). For creating inter‐ethnic social capital, investing in other settings of contact than neighbourhoods, such as sports, is likely to be more effective.…”

Could Neighbourhood Ties Still Be Important for the Migrants in a Metropolitan City?

“…Мы при-менили корреляционный анализ (Erginli и Baycan, 2016) 8 , выявивший районы, в ко-торых сосредоточены группы международ-ных и внутренних мигрантов. Ввиду чрез-мерной представленности международных мигрантов из Македонии, Албании и стран бывшей Югославии 9 в районе Байрампа-ша, а также чрезмерно высокой числен-ности внутренних мигрантов, прибывших из крупных столичных городов Турции, и небольшого превышения числа междуна-родных мигрантов из Македонии, Албании и региона Санджак в районе Бешикташ, в качестве территорий проживания мигран-тов были выбраны для исследования рай- 8 Анализ проводится с использованием данных переписи TURKSTAT 2000, которые содержат информа-цию о местонахождении мигрантов за 5 лет до переписи и их текущем местоположении во время переписи. 9 В 2000 году Югославия (Союзная Республика Югославия) включала Сербию и Черногорию.…”