The Geography of Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Comparative Study of Five Countries

Abstract

Few studies have undertaken rigorous comparative analyses of levels of ethnic residential segregation across two or more countries. Using data for the latest available censuses (2000-2001) and a bespoke methodology for such comparative work, this article analyses levels of segregation across the urban systems of five major immigrant-receiving, English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. After describing the levels of segregation in each, the paper tests a model based on generic factors which should influence segregation levels in all five countries and then evaluates-for the urban population as a whole, for the "charter group" in each society, and for various ethnic minority groups-whether there are also significant country-specific variations in segregation levels. The findings show common factors influencing segregation levels in all five countries-notably the size of the group being considered as a percentage of the urban total, but also urban size and urban ethnic diversity-plus country-specific variations that cannot be attributed to these generic factors. In general there is less segregation in Australia and New Zealand than in the other three countries.

Cultural diversity: a matter of measurement

“…Even without socio-cultural diversity, the presence of people with different socio-economic attributes and heterogeneous preferences will lead through competitive market forces and through societal institutions to a non-random 'sorting' of people. This sorting can take place spatially within cities (as already explained by urban land rent theories of Alonso, 1964, andMuth, 1971; but see also : Borjas, 1998;Ihlanfelt and Scafidi, 2002;Johnston et al, 2007), but also more broadly geographically across regions (e.g., Roback, 1982;Moretti, 2011). Finally, sorting can be by skills and occupations across and within firms (e.g., Heckman et al, 1998).…”

Better residential than ethnic discrimination! Reconciling audit and interview findings in the Parisian housing market

“…Ethnic minorities are often concentrated in underprivileged neighborhoods in Western societies (Johnston, Poulsen and Forrest, 2007;Musterd, 2005;Peach, Robinson and Smith, 1981). Emanating from discriminatory processes, ethnic segregation may also lead in turn to "residential traps" that affect minority populations' socioeconomic achievements, from access to education to economic success and the building of social networks (Crane, 1991;Sampson, Morenoff and Gannon-Rowley, 2002).…”

Residential Segregation in the Industrializing City: A Closer Look

“…Variations in the sizes and types of urban settlements, as well as the scales at which individual-level data are aggregated and assessed, is likely a major source of differences between studies (Pooley, 1984). Even the most elaborate modern studies relied on data aggregated into administrative wards or tracts, and are cautious about making comparisons among cities or between censuses taken at different times with modified administrative boundaries (for recent comparative analyses, see Walks and Bourne, 2006;Johnston et al, 2007; and a rare historical exception by DeBats and Lethbridge, 2005). Sociologists undertaking temporal rather than spatial analyses have reported that differences of social status, notably the blue-collar/white-collar divide, were more rigidly constructed in Britain and yielded in the United States to a nuanced and continuous gradient of incomes.…”