Housing markets and ethnic segregation in the Nordic countries

Hans Skifter Andersen

Affiliated professor

Danish Building Research Institute at Aalborg University

The NODES project about ethnic segregation

NODES = Nordic welfare states and the dynamics and effects of ethnic residential segregation• Research on causes of ethnic segregation in the Nordic

countries and how it is influenced by housing policies and housing markets

• Financed by the NORFACE research programme on migration

• Co-operation between 12 researches in four countries 2010-2014

Content of the presentation

• Some conclusions from the research literature on causes of social and especially ethnic segregation

• Empirical findings on some of the causes from the Nordic countries

• Discussion in short of the connection between housing policies, housing markets and ethnic segregation

• A NODES analysis of this connection in the four capital cities

Aspects of spatial segregation

1. Different social or ethnic groups are separated from each other in the cities

2. Some neighbourhoods have a high concentration of certain social or ethnic groups

3. Especially concentrations of low income groups and ethnic minorities are for different reasons seen as problematic

Causes of segregation and concentration1. Socio-economic inequality and ethnic/cultural differences

• Groups with higher income can choose to live in the most attractive places and avoid others – low-income groups can not

• Different social and ethnic groups might prefer to live close to people that are alike themselves, or avoid other specific groups

2. Inequality among different neighbourhoods in the city (spatial inequality)• Differences in housing supply• Differences in attractiveness of the physical and social

environment, social status, access to services, transportation etc.3. Segregation and spatial inequality interacts because

concentrations of low-income groups and ethnic minorities make these neighbourhoods less attractive

Special causes of ethnic segregation and concentration• Ethnic minorities have lower incomes. Social segregation produces

also ethnic segregation, but studies show no straight-forward connection

• Immigrants often prefer to rent because they are uncertain about their future limitations on where to live

• Ethnic minorities have often difficulties in getting access to private renting they move to social housing (in Norway co-operatives)

• Especially new immigrants prefer to settle nearby an ethnic social network where they can get support

they often move into ‘multi-ethnic neighbourhoods’ • But preferences change over time and some ethnic minorities move out

again (called spatial assimilation)• Natives move away or avoid moving to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods

(White flight and avoidance)

Reduced probability among immigrants for moving into homeownership compared to ‘natives’

Copenhagen

Helsinki Stockholm-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

Eastern Europe

Africa and West Asia

Other Asia

Region of origin

Development with years of stay in per cent of Non-Western immigrants living in social housing (DK)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Immigrants who did not come with family reunification

Before 1987

1988-91

1992-94

1995-96

1997-2000

2001-04

2005-08

Years of stay in Denmark

Immigration period

Number of multi-ethnic neighbourhoods in Denmark with different proportions of Non-Western ethnic minorities

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20080

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

> 20 > 30 > 40 > 50 > 60

Prop. of non-W minorities in neighbourhood (%)

Average proportion of Non-Western ethnic minorities = 7.2 % in 2008

The development in ethnic concentrationPer cent of immigrants from Non-Western countries living in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20080

10

20

30

40

50

60

> 20 > 30 > 40 > 50 > 60

Prop. of N-W Minorities in neighbourhood (%)

Development with duration of stay in Denmark for living in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods for all NW immigrants since 1984 and for newly moved. (increased statistical probability compared to situation at arrival)

2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-24 years1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

AllMoving families

Four kinds of selective moving behaviour creating and maintaining spatial concentrations of ethnic minorities (multi-ethnic neighbourhoods)

• White Flight: Natives tend more often to move away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods

• White Avoidance: Natives tend to avoid moving to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods

• Ethnic Attraction: Ethnic minorities tend more often to move into multi-ethnic neighbourhood

• Ethnic Retention: Ethnic minorities tend less often to move away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods

Size of segregation processes in Denmark depending on ethnic composition of neighbourhood (based on statistical estimations of ‘normal ‘moves)

0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 -59 60-69 70- -1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

White flight

White avoidance

Ethnic retention

Ethnic attraction

Proportion of ethnic minorities in neighbourhood

Reasons for leaving neighbourhood Percentage of ‘native’ leavers stating ethnic composition of neighbourhood and schools as important reason

Oslo ethnic nbhs

Oslo other nbhs

Helsinki ethnic nbhs

Helsinki other nbhs

Stockholm ethnic nbhs

Stockholm other nbhs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Too many immigrants

Too many immigrant children in school

Important for choosing neighbourhoodPercentage of native movers stating ethnic and social composition of neighbourhood and schools as important for choice

Oslo Helsinki Stockholm0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45Similar income and/or occ. statusMajority with native backgroundEthnic composition in school

The effects of housing markets on segregation

• Housing market segmentation: Different social and ethnic groups are separated in different housing tenures

• Spatial segregation of housing tenures: Tenures are separated in different neighbourhoods in the city. Large urban areas with uniform tenures have been created

• Strong housing market segmentation and strong segregation of tenures results in strong social or ethnic segregation

• But segregation within housing tenures is also important, especially in homeownership

Main features of Nordic housing systems• Major social housing sectors in Denmark, Finland and

Sweden, small in Norway• Social housing in Denmark and Sweden open to all, in

Norway and Finland they are reserved for low-income groups

• Norway and Sweden have large market based co-operative sectors.

• Norway based on homeownership and have relatively few rented dwellings, mostly in private renting.

• Private renting and co-operatives in Denmark are under rent control, queues and non-market distribution

Immigrants (foreign born) in the four Nordic capital regions 2008

The capital regions Copenhagen Helsinki Oslo Stockholm

Population in regions, 1000 inhabitants 1.369 1.022 1.079 1.849

Proportion of population born outside the country. per cent 11.7 8.8 14.3 21.3

Per cent of population. coming from Eastern Europe 1.9 3.5 3.0 3.5

Per cent of population coming from Non-European countries 6.8 3.6 9.3 11.1

Non-Western immigrants total 8.7 7.1 12.3 14.6

Housing markets in Nordic capitals

Copen-hagen Helsinki Oslo

Stock-holm

Distribution of population on tenure per cent

Owner-occupied 42 57 57 34Co-operatives 16 3 22 29Private renting 16 16 15 17Social housing 25 22 3 17Other 1 2 2 4Total 100 100 100 100

Non-Western immigrants distributed on housing tenures in the Nordic capital regionsDistribution % Copenhagen Helsinki Oslo Stockholm

 Housing tenures Non-Western immigrantsOwner-occupied 19 18 27  14Co-operatives 8 - 30  20Private renting 14 16 25  24Social/public housing 58 62 13  41Other 1 4 4  0Total 100 100 99 100

Over-representation      Owner-occupied -55 -69 -52 -59Co-operatives -48 -65 37 -31Private renting -11 4 66 41Social/public housing 131 182 306 141Other 18 23 70 57

Index of tenure segmentation 33 42 30 32

Measures of uneven spatial distribution of different housing tenures across neighbourhoods in the Nordic capitals (Index of segregation).

 Copenhagen Helsinki   Oslo  Stockholm 

Owner-occupied single  .56 .62 .32 .55

Owner-occupied flats .47 .12 .39

Co-operatives .50 .43 .36

Private renting .42 .27 .21 .45

Social/public housing .56 .33 .35 .52Combined index of tenure segregation .51 .23 .33 .46

Illustration of ethnic segregation and concentration: Proportion of Non-Western immigrants in neighbourhoods ordered in deciles after increasing proportion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Copenhagen Helsinki Oslo Stockholm

Neighbourhood deciles

Ethnic segregation in Nordic capitals(Index of dissimilarity)

Copenhagen Helsinki Oslo Stockholm .00

.10

.20

.30

.40

.50

.60

All immigrantsFrom Eastern EuropeFrom Non-European countries

Segregation of Non-Western immigrants, and proportion caused by the housing market (statistical analyses)

Copen-hagen

Hel-sinki Oslo

Stock-holm

Index of tenure segmentation 33 42 30 32

Segregation of tenures .51 .23 .33 .46

Segregation: Index of dissimilarity .36 .27 .40 .48

- caused by tenure segmentation and -segregation 48 % 70 % 65 % 61 %

Other causes 52 % 30 % 35 % 39 %

Conclusions on the effects of housing systems for ethnic segregation

• Nordic Welfare States have important differences in housing policies, which affect the ethnic (and social) segmentation of their housing markets

• Also the spatial structure of the housing markets differ, to some extent because of differences in urban policies

• The effect of ethnic segmentation of housing tenures can be overruled by the way tenure composition varies across neighbourhoods, which seems to have a stronger effect

• Housing policy and housing market have a major influence on the spatial distribution of immigrants and on ethnic segregation, but the effects differ across countries and cities, probably because the extent of social, ethnic and spatial inequality differs