3.5 • Understanding Segregation in the Metropolitan Area of Amsterdam Sako Musterd and Wim Ostendorf

B. The Social Dilemmas of Spatial Development 3.5 • Understanding Segregation in the Metropolitan Area of Amsterdam Sako Musterd and Wim Ostendorf Introduction A few years ago, in a paper entitled “The changing distribution of incomes in Dutch cities: myth and reality” (Musterd and Ostendorf 1998) we analyzed the development of segregation within the city of Amsterdam and – in a second phase – also analyzed the segregation between Amsterdam and the remaining part of the metropolitan area. We dealt with several dimensions of segregation. Among our findings: – Segregation with respect to income is lower than with respect to ethnicity and even with respect to age; this holds true within Amsterdam as well as between Amster- dam and the remaining part of the metropolitan area; – Segregation with respect to income is not really increasing, while segregation with respect to ethnicity and type of household appeared to be becoming more pro- nounced between Amsterdam and the remaining part of the metropolitan area. These findings appeared to be quite different from the assumptions in the ongoing political debate in the Netherlands. Therefore, the results were even more critically ap- proached than usual. Two types of comments were given. These were related not to our theoretical interpretation but to the empirical data. The first refers to the application of data that were predominantly collected at the municipal level; no integrated re- gional analysis could be performed at that time. Secondly, a lack of data only allowed for the presentation of some preliminary results. These comments encouraged us to try to extend and improve the analysis. There- fore, in this contribution we will analyse the socio-demographic, socio-cultural and socio-economic segregation of the population within the entire metropolitan area of Amsterdam, and present recent information on these spatial inequalities. We will make an effort to interpret the dynamics that are encountered, referring to theoretical debates that have been developing over the past decades. In Section 2, we will elaborate on the dimensions of segregation that appear to be recurring and why; we will also pay special attention to the question at what geographical level(s) segregation should be addressed. In Section 3, the focus will be on the theoretical debate about the conditions for segregation. Old and new theoretical considerations will be briefly discussed and theoretically linked to the segregation processes. Both sections 2 and 3 will focus 181 on the segregation issue from an international perspective. In Section 4, we will present empirical data on segregation. We will leave the international scope and focus on the analysis of segregation in the metropolitan area of Amsterdam. Finally, in Section 5, we will present some conclusions. Segregation: Dimensions and Geographic Scale A substantial share of the urban social change debate consists of views on and visions regarding spatial inequality. Extreme forms have been addressed, such as the heritage of the apartheid regimes in South African cities (Christopher 1994) and the persistent separation of Protestants and Catholics in Belfast and other cities in Northern Ireland (Boal 1998), the residential isolation of the poor from the rich in mega-cities, such as São Paulo, Brazil, and the processes of estrangement and exclusion that can be found in hyper-ghettos in American cities (Massey and Denton 1993). However, much more moderate forms of inequality have also been recurrently addressed; and this resulted in the “segregation issue” being put high on political agendas. Studies with such titles as “Divided cities” (Fainstein et al 1992) and “Towards un- divided cities” (Musterd et al 1999) reveal that the socio-spatial inequality issue exists in cities in states with and without a liberal regime and with or without institutional- ized apartheid histories. Among these states are Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, and France. The fact that spatial inequality is on the agenda is without doubt related to the immigration processes that occurred over the past four decades with regard to these countries (and several other rich Western countries). They have experienced the immigration of a large number of people originating from various countries. Mediter- ranean, Asian, or African labor migrants and their families, economic refugees, political refugees, and inhabitants of former colonies were the dominant contributors to these flows. These influxes were not without impact on the respective housing markets, labor markets, and social relations in cities in the countries of destination. Re- sentment developed, especially where the immigration process was relatively sudden and voluminous. The inequality issue became a socio-cultural, or even ethnic, segregation issue. The social inequality debate was not confined to socio-cultural differences, though. Because of a serious concern about social polarization in urban societies – or perhaps in order to address the ethnic issue indirectly – the socio-economic dimension of spatial inequality was also given a high position on political agendas, particularly in countries with a strong social democratic tradition. Politicians’ fear that social ghettos would develop seems to have been the driving force. Thus, two dimensions of segregation received and still receive frequent attention. However, efforts to understand the spatial distributions of the urban population can- not be successful without also considering the socio-demographic inequality dimension. In fact, perhaps the best strategy to understand segregation processes is to focus the attention on the multidimensional lifestyle differentiation, in which elements of 182 SAKO MUSTERD AND WIM OSTENDORF people’s socio-economic, demographic and socio-cultural positions are considered si- multaneously. Unfortunately, data combining these three dimensions are hard to ob- tain. However, in this contribution we will also look at socio-demographic segregation. The political attention to socio-cultural and socio-economic segregation is – as said – clearly related to integration objectives. Most politicians desire the rapid integration of those who are not yet entirely integrated into urban society. That is, after politicians became aware that the immigration processes we referred to had to be regarded as events with a permanent character (also in the sense that many immigrants would per- manently remain in the country of destination), they tended to formulate various forms of integration policies. The fear that cultural – and political – “worlds apart” would develop was often the impetus behind their policy aims. These integration objectives and associated social participation objectives were also the vehicles to formulate policies aimed at improving the conditions of the less well-off socio-economic sections of urban society. Specific aims to reduce social polarization and to integrate the poor into the rich society were formulated. In the integration efforts in both the socio-cultural and socio-economic domains, special attention is given to the spatial dimension, since many believe that it is specifi- cally spatial segregation that reduces the opportunities to integrate into and fully par- ticipate in society. It is assumed that the spatial concentration of a certain cultural group, or the spatial concentration of poor inhabitants in certain districts of the metropolitan area, will reduce the opportunities to realize the upward social mobility of those individuals who live in these concentrations. The assumption is that a neighbor- hood effect exists, which can have a negative impact on the participation of inhabitants in society. As far as the geographical scale is concerned, it may be argued that a metropolitan level seems to be the most appropriate one on which to present the various dimensions of segregation, since housing markets and labor markets operate on that level. Spatial sorting processes, the outcomes of choices and constraints, occur at that scale. In all contexts where suburbanization processes have developed, segregation has to be measured at the metropolitan level. However, there may be good reasons not to focus on that scale only. Sometimes data are not available for the complete metropolitan re- gion, but only for a part, such as the central city. It can also be interesting to find out if the real differences are between the central city and the suburbs, or whether there are real differences within these zones too. This situation occurs in metropolitan areas that have experienced substantial gentrification processes. Then, the inner city will be characterized by districts that are inhabited by the relatively better off, and by districts which are characterized by predominance of the relatively poor, not seldom immigrant households. Also, when the immigrant flows tend to be directed toward the central city of a metropolitan area, and the central city is still attractive for other cate- gories of households (e.g. students, urban-oriented small households, etc.), a certain duality may develop within the central city. In such situations it makes sense to focus attention on the differentiation within the inner city, too. With regard to suburban areas, similar developments may occur. Suburban areas UNDERSTANDING SEGREGATION IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF AMSTERDAM 183 are not homogeneous per se. In Europe, several examples can be given of planned new town developments in which substantial numbers of dwellings were

Load more