Contextualising Ethnic Residential Segregation in Norway: Welfare, Housing and Integration Policies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Contextualising ethnic residential segregation in Norway: welfare, housing and integration policies SUSANNE SØHOLT*, TERJE WESSEL** *Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research **University of Oslo, Department of Sociology and Human Geography Country Report for Norway Published December 2010 This study is part of a four-year comparative research project on Nordic welfare states and the dynamics and effects of ethnic residential segregation (NODES) The project is funded by NORFACE’s Research Programme on Migration Contents PREFACE 3 CONTEXTUALISING ETHNIC RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION IN NORWAY: WELFARE, HOUSING AND INTEGRATION POLICIES 4 1. WELFARE IN NORWAY 4 1.1. Income inequality and poverty 4 1.2. Employment and unemployment 7 1.3. Social welfare 10 2. HOUSING POLICY AND HOUSING MARKET IN NORWAY 12 2.1. Norwegian housing policy – Main characteristics 12 2.2. The Norwegian housing stock and tenures 14 2.3. Access to different segments in the housing market 18 2.4. Policies to increase accessibility, affordability and creditworthiness 23 2.5. Conclusion 26 3. IMMIGRATION TO NORWAY 27 3.1. Historic background 27 3.2. Formal permits 30 3.3. Immigrant background – shades of difference 32 3.4. Demographic composition 33 3.5. Unemployment, employment and poverty 35 3.6. Education 39 3.7. Concluding remarks 40 4. POLICY ANALYSIS RELATED TO IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT AND INTEGRATION 41 4.1. Introduction 41 4.2. Integration and inclusion – interconnected but separate policy fields 44 4.3. Conclusion 52 5. MIGRATION FLOWS AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 53 5.1. Migration among refugees 54 5.2. Migration in the entire immigrant population 55 5.3. Segregation of immigrants in the Oslo region 57 6. CONCLUSIONS 63 6.1. The solidarity principle – a cornerstone of the Norwegian welfare system 63 6.2. Immigration to Norway 64 6.3. Policy analysis related to immigrant settlement and integration 64 6.4. Housing for all in the owner-occupied market 64 6.5. Migration flows and settlement patterns in Norway 65 REFERENCES 66 Preface This research paper is part of a comparative Nordic research project “Nordic welfare states and the dynamics and effects of ethnic residential segregation (NODES)”, funded by NORFACE’s Research Programme on Migration. NODES is a four-year research project which involves a team of fourteen researchers and six partner institutions from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. The NODES project comprises five multidisciplinary subprojects that aim to capture the links between the Nordic welfare state policies and trajectories of social and spatial integration. The main research question is: How are the Nordic welfare states shaping the conditions for ethnic residential segregation and de-segregation, and how are the patterns and processes of segregation affecting the wider social and spatial developments in the different host societies? The underlying causes and impacts of ethnic segregation are explored from the perspectives of both individual migrant families and the receiving society. This research paper is part of the first subproject, which analyses differences and similarities in policy frameworks, immigration flows and settlement patterns in the Nordic countries. The specific research questions are: 1) How do welfare, housing, immigration and integration policy goals and practices differ between the countries, and what are the most prominent policy practices with regard to immigrant settlement patterns?, 2) What are the characteristics of immigrants and their migration flows into and out of the countries, and the major urban regions?, and 3) What characterises settlement patterns of different immigrant groups? These questions are discussed in four individual country reports that comprise of case studies from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. The country reports function as background reports to contextualise the policy framework, and migration and settlement patterns that we hypothesize to shape and affect the processes of ethnic residential segregation in our countries. Each country report comprises five chapters focusing on recent changes in the policy goals, practices and structures of welfare (chapter 1), housing (chapter 2), immigration (chapter 3), integration (chapter 4), and segregation and settlement patterns (chapter 5). The main findings are summed up and discussed with reference to ethnic residential segregation in a concluding chapter. The four country cases and comparative cross-country conclusions are published in a joint book, titled “Immigration, Housing and Segregation in the Nordic Welfare States”. The book can be downloaded on the NODES webpage http://blogs.helsinki.fi/nodesproject/publications/. Contextualising ethnic residential segregation in Norway: welfare, housing and integration policies Susanne Søholt* and Terje Wessel** *Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research **University of Oslo, Department of Sociology and Human Geography 1. Welfare in Norway Terje Wessel 1.1. Income inequality and poverty Norway ranks close to the top of the OECD league in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), labour productivity and labour productivity growth (OECD 2009; St. meld. 9 2008-2009)). This favourable situation reflects, of course, a significant rise in oil and gas revenues. Currently, the petroleum sector accounts for more than 20 per cent of total GDP and approximately half of total export. The implications of an open and growing economy are diverse and difficult to grasp. It has, no doubt, become harder to maintain egalitarian principles and practices. This is evident in several sorts of statistics, particularly income statistics. The country as a whole has experienced a marked growth of income inequality since the late 1980s. The Gini coefficient for household disposable income grew from 0.208 in 1986 to 0.240 in 1996 and further to an average of 0.269 during 2004- 2007 (Table 1). The latter figure reflects huge fluctuations from year to year due to changes, and reported changes, in the capital gains taxation. The interplay between capital gains and capital gains taxation played a similar role in the early 1990s, when issues of economic inequality sparked a prolonged debate about distribution, equity and poverty. An often heard argument is that earnings inequality remains stable due to tripartite co-operation and long-term low-wage policies. This may have been true until the late 1990s, but not any longer. The Gini coefficient for wage inequality among full-employed employees grew from 0.165 in 1997 to 0.191 in 2007 (St.meld. 9 2008-2009). Equally important, a narrow focus on wage does not capture all premiums in the labour market. Many of the expanding sectors rely on low-priced shares, stock options and beneficial savings schemes as part of the reward structure. Norway has thus changed its position in the league tables of income inequality. Sweden, Denmark and Norway used to appear in one end of the OECD ranking, as the most equal societies. The latest report (OECD 2008), by contrast, places Norway behind 10 countries on a similar ranking and behind 13 countries on a ranking based on the squared coefficient of variation (SCV). Much of the change in Norway has occurred at the top end of the distribution, partly through upward mobility and partly through increasing income in the upper stratum. These types of change are effectively captured by the SCV measure, which concentrates on differences from the mean. It might be seen as a mitigating circumstance that poor households enjoy a certain amount of protection in restless times (e.g. ‘industrial shift’, trade union decline, fluctuating international Contextualising ethnic residential segregation in Norway markets, accelerating globalisation, etc.). The lowest decile has seen only a slight reduction (11 per cent) in its share of all incomes over two decades. A staggering 59 per cent of all incomes in the lowest decile are public transfers (St. meld. 9 2008-2009), which clearly indicates the role of government policies. Some experimental calculations show that the Gini coefficient increases by 0.154 if all taxable transfers are excluded, and by 0.022 if all tax-free transfers are excluded (NOU 2009:10).1 Another relevant comparison is the ‘risk-of-poverty rate’ before and after social transfers. Norway figures on this measure (2006) with the highest re-ranking effect of the Eurostat countries, followed by Sweden, Denmark and Finland.2 Table 1. Measures of income dispersion. Household equivalent income between persons. Early 80s Mid 80s Mid 90s Mid-2000s Gini coefficient* 0.208 0.240 0.269 Gini coefficient** 0.234 0.256 0.276 Gini coefficient*** 0.243 0.230 Squared coefficient of variation** 0.278 0.301 0.456 Interquintile share ratio* 2.9 3.4 3.8 Interquintile share ratio** 3.4 3.8 4.0 Decile 1: share of all incomes* 4.5 4.2 4.0 Decile 10: share of all incomes* 18.1 21.1 24.1 *Students are excluded. Year of registration: 1986, 1996 and an average for 2004-2007. Equivalent income is based on the EU-scale, which consists of the following weights: 1.0 for the first adult, 0.5 for every additional adult and 0.3 for every child. Source: Statistikkbanken (Statistics Norway), Income statistics for households (http://www.ssb.no/iffor_en/) and St.meld. 9 2008-2009. ** Students are included. Year of registration: 1982, 1986, 1995 and 2004. Equivalent income is based on the square root of the household size, without any distinction between adults and children. Source: OECD 2008. *** Students are included. Year of registration: 1982 and 1986. Equivalent income uses the following weights: 1.0 for the first adult, 0.7 for every additional adult and 0.5 for every child. Source: NOU 1993:17. Poverty varies a lot between demographic and social groups, and over time for these groups. A much applied approach in such research measures prolonged periods of low income, for instance the per centage of people with less than 50 per cent of median income (the OECD-scale) over a three year period.