A	  comparative	  analysis	  of	  spatial	  segregation	  in	  three	  global	  cities:	  	   1	                   	      ...
                                  A	  comparative	  analysis	  of	  spatial	  segregation	  in	  three	                   ...
                                  A	  comparative	  analysis	  of	  spatial	  segregation	  in	  three	                   ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                         A	  comparative	  analysis	  of	  spatial	  segregation	  in	  three	              	             ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                          A	  comparative	  analysis	  of	  spatial	  segregation	  in	  three	           ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                          A	  comparative	  analysis	  of	  spatial	  segregation	  in	  three	           ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                         A	  comparative	  analysis	  of	  spatial	  segregation	  in	  three	           	              21...
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne

1,626

Published on

Diversity is an inherent characteristic of global cities and is likely to intensify in the future as globalization spurs complex migration flows.

Spatial segregation, as measured by the dissimilarity index, is calculated and analysed in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne.

Understanding its formation and representation is crucial in order to achieve both migrant integration and host society acceptance.

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,626
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
37
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A comparative analysis of spatial segregation in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne

  1. 1. A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three  global  cities:     1         July   11            A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three    global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne      Joel  Francis  Serra  Bevin    Diversity  is  an  inherent  characteristic  of  global  cities  and  is  likely  to  intensify  in  the  future  as  globalisation   spurs   complex   migration   flows.   Spatial   segregation,   as   measured   by   the    dissimilarity  index,  is  calculated  and  analysed  in  three  global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne.   Understanding   its   formation   and   representation   is   crucial   in   order   to   achieve    both  migrant  integration  and  host  society  acceptance.                U n i v e r s i d a d   d e   P o m p e u   F a b r a      
  2. 2.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     2     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Table  of  Contents  Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4  Motivation ............................................................................................................................................................... 4  Background............................................................................................................................................................. 5  Spatial  segregation .............................................................................................. 7  Defining  spatial  segregation............................................................................................................................ 7  The  formation  of  segregation ......................................................................................................................... 8   Cultural .....................................................................................................................................................................9   Discrimination .......................................................................................................................................................9   Urban  structure.................................................................................................................................................. 10  Theorising  segregation....................................................................................................................................10   Heterolocalism.................................................................................................................................................... 11   Ethnic  enclaves ................................................................................................................................................... 12   Place  stratification............................................................................................................................................ 13   Spatial  assimilation.......................................................................................................................................... 13  Networks ...............................................................................................................................................................14  Spatial  segregation  measures ............................................................................15  Dimensions  of  segregation.............................................................................................................................16   Evenness ................................................................................................................................................................ 17   Exposure ................................................................................................................................................................ 17   Concentration ..................................................................................................................................................... 17  The  global  city .....................................................................................................18  The  creation  of  the  global  city ......................................................................................................................18  Migration  and  the  global  city ........................................................................................................................19  City  selection .......................................................................................................21  Barcelona...............................................................................................................................................................22   Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 22   Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24  London....................................................................................................................................................................26   Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 26   Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28  Melbourne .............................................................................................................................................................30   Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 30   Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31  Methodology ........................................................................................................33  Measurement .......................................................................................................................................................33  Tracts.......................................................................................................................................................................34   Barcelona.............................................................................................................................................................. 34   London.................................................................................................................................................................... 34   Melbourne............................................................................................................................................................. 35  Results..................................................................................................................35  Barcelona...............................................................................................................................................................35  London....................................................................................................................................................................36  Melbourne .............................................................................................................................................................37  Comparative  analysis .......................................................................................................................................39   Intercity ................................................................................................................................................................. 39   Global  cities.......................................................................................................................................................... 42  Conclusions  and  recommendations ..................................................................45    
  3. 3.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     3     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................45  Global  cities  of  the  future ...............................................................................................................................47  Recommendations.............................................................................................................................................49   At  a  national  level ............................................................................................................................................. 49   At  a  city  level........................................................................................................................................................ 51  Works  cited..........................................................................................................53  Appendix  1 .............................................................................................................57      
  4. 4.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     4     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Introduction  Motivation  In   this   paper   the   spatial   segregation   of   migrants   in   three   global   cities   –   either  founded   on,   or   now   characterised   by   immigration   –   is   considered.   In   Barcelona,  the   foreign-­‐born   make   up   18   per   cent   of   the   population,   London’s   foreign-­‐born  population   represents   32   per   cent   of   the   total,   and   foreigners   in   Melbourne  comprise  31  per  cent  of  the  population.  The   location   preferences   of   migrants,   together   with   the   institutional   forces  imposed   on   them   by   the   host   society,   leads   to   a   residential   pattern   that   reflects  their  equal  or  unequal  distribution.  These  patterns  represent  the  degree  of  spatial  segregation,  which  is  measured  through  various  tools  in  the  context  of  evenness  of  distribution  and  exposure.  It   is   important   to   investigate   segregation   patterns   in   global   cities   –   those  influential   and   connected   in   a   structural,   economic   and   cultural   context   –   as  intensifying  urbanisation  will  see  these  constructs  assume  increasing  power  in  a  globalised   world.   Migrants   are   already   an   integral   characteristic   of   urban   areas  and   are   likely   to   become   even   more   important   as   the   global   cities   of   the  developed  world  struggles  to  meet  the  demographic  challenge  posed  by  an  ageing  population.   Consequently,   migrant   integration   is   a   crucial   component   of   a   city’s  success  in  order  for  migrants  to  become  economic  and  cultural  participants  in  a  host   society   that   is   receptive   to   this   contribution.   Understanding   the   level   of  spatial   segregation,   which   has   been   empirically   linked   to   migrant   integration,   is  therefore  critical.  The  term  ‘global  cities’  can  be  applied  with  consideration  of  a  range  of  variables  and   while   no   consensus   exists   on   the   exact   criteria,   they   can   broadly   be  understood   to   exert   global   influence   at   an   economic,   political,   logistical   and  cultural  level.1                                                                                                                  1  Doel,  M.  and  Hubbard,  P.,  (2002).  Taking  World  Cities  Literally:  Marketing  the  City  in  a  Global  Space  of  flows,  City,  vol.  6,  no.  3,  pp.  351-­‐368    
  5. 5.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     5     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    The   three   cities   chosen   –   Barcelona,   London   and   Melbourne   –   differ   in   terms   of  urban   structure,   immigration   trends   and   policy   environment,   but   all   are   global  cities  in  their  interconnectedness  and  ethnic  diversity.  However,  diversity  alone  is  not  enough  to  bring  about  harmonious  interaction  and  evolution  of  the  different  groups  that  comprise  a  city.  The   subsequent   analysis   seeks   to   illustrate   how   segregation   of   the   foreign-­‐born  population   is   represented   in   Barcelona,   London   and   Melbourne.   Reflections   are  made  as  to  whether  this  segregation  poses  risks  of  dislocation  and  disadvantage  or  is  the  basis  for  integration  and  social  mobility.  Moreover,   this   study   will   highlight   the   importance   of   considering   spatial  segregation  –  at  a  governmental,  institutional  and  individual  level  –  in  achieving  migrant  integration.  Background  As  globalisation  shapes  cities  of  mass  –  mass  of  place  and  mass  of  people  –  they  assume   increasingly   homogenous   globalised   behavioural   and   attitudinal  characteristics  yet  at  the  same  time  experience  rising  levels  of  cultural  diversity  as  a  result  of  increasing  and  complex  migration  flows.  Through  the  interaction  of  multiple   cultures,   this   diversity   offers   both   amplified   opportunities   for   progress  while  also  posing  risks  of  conflict.  Migration,  as  phenomenon  of  globalisation,  and  in   the   same   vein   as   its   more   visible   effects   such   as   trade   and   communication,   is  the  cause  of  this  diversity.  The  United  Nations  estimates  that  in  2010,  214  million  (3  per  cent)  of  the  world’s  9.1   billion   people   were   migrants2.   This   figure   is   expected   to   soar   in   the   coming  years   due   to   a   combination   of   economic,   social   and   institutional   push   and   pull  factors.3  Migration  is  an  issue  that  cuts  across  multiple  dimensions,  impacting  all  levels   of   the   nation-­‐state,   which   is   charged   with   the   role   of   integrating   this  growing   mass   of   people,   while   also   affecting   the   private   sector,   which   relies   on                                                                                                                  2  United  Nations,  Department  of  Economic  and  Social  Affairs,  Population  Division,  (2009).  Trends  in  International  Migrant  Stock:  The  2008  Revision,  United  Nations  database  3  United  Nations,  Department  of  Economic  and  Social  Affairs,  Population  Division,  (2004).  World  Population  to  2300,  New  York    
  6. 6.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     6     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    migrant  integration  and  social  mobility  in  order  to  satisfy  labour  market  demand  and   support   the   productivity   and   economic   growth   that   stems   from   social  cohesion.   As   such,   the   issue   is   entrenched   at   the   forefront   of   local,   national,  regional  and  international  agendas.  Migrant  integration  into  society  is  a  multi-­‐stage  process;  it  includes  entry  into  the  labour   market,   access   to   education,   improvements   in   socioeconomic   status   and  participation  in  the  political  sphere.  That  said,  the  element  that  is  both  the  initial  and   principal   measure   of   integration   at   its   most   basic   level   is   a   migrant’s   housing  situation.   The   ability   to   access   housing   and   then   be   mobile   within   the   market  remains   the   grounding   factor   that   allows   migrants   to   achieve   subsequent  measures   of   integration.   The   house   is   more   than   simply   physical   protection;   it  represents   a   foothold   in   a   new   society,   a   physical   representation   of   the   formation  of   a   new   cultural   identity.   Understanding   the   manner   in   which   migrants  physically   settle   is   therefore   of   critical   importance,   in   order   to   support  integration,   an   outcome   pursued   for   mutual   gain   by   both   nation-­‐states   and  migrants  themselves.  Migrant  integration  must  also  be  considered  in  the  context  of  the  networks  that  are   built   at   a   neighbourhood   level   and   allow   for   economic,   social   and   cultural  links  to  be  established  between  new  and  existing  migrants.  The  complexity  of  migration  is  based  on  its  inherent  diversity;  a  diversity  that  has  the   potential   to   cause   segregation   and   discrimination,   resistance   to   integration  and   conflict   in   various   forms,   but   a   diversity   that   also   offers   opportunities   for   the  dismantling  of  stereotypes  and  subsequent  individual  and  societal  evolution.  The  resultant  cultural  intersections  remain  crucial  for  continued  social  and  economic  development   and   present   a   balancing   force   in   the   demographic   paradigm   in  which  the  developed  world  currently  finds  itself.  Segregation   exists   as   a   mechanism   that   can   both   exclude   individuals   from  particular  social  and  physical  settings,  thereby  preventing  their  integration,  while  also  allowing  an  environment  that  supports  integration,  in  which  cultural  group  identities   can   be   strengthened   and   where   productivity   gains   and   diversity-­‐driven  innovations  are  possible.    
  7. 7.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     7     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Similarly  the  spatial  segregation  of  the  foreign-­‐born  takes  place  at  the  local  level  and   has   potential   for   positive   or   negative   representation.   It   is   the   role   of  governments   and   the   societies   they   represent   to   acknowledge   the   extent   and  implications  of  the  spatial  segregation  of  the  foreign-­‐born  population  and  initiate  policy  that  supports  its  positive  function.  Spatial  segregation  Defining  spatial  segregation  Spatial   segregation   is   driven   by   disparate   factors   and   multiple   theories   exist   to  explain   its   creation   and   persistence.   In   the   1920s,   the   human   ecology   model   of  segregation,   developed   by   a   group   of   sociologists   known   collectively   as   the  Chicago   School,4   explained   residential   patterns   of   segregation   by   analysing   the  city   as   “a   separate   entity”   rather   than   as   a   “reflection   and   manifestation   of   the  wider  society.”  5  The   Chicago   School   views   cities   as   representations   of   migrant   flows,   which  created   “…a   chain   reaction,   with   each   preceding   immigrant   wave   moving  outwards  and  being  succeeded  by  more  recent,  poorer  immigrants”.6  This  theory  is   based   on   the   assumption   that   arriving   migrants   have   limited   economic  resources,   are   less   educated   than   natives   and   are   not   aware   of   existing   social  networks,   which   relegate   them   to   less   desirable   areas   of   the   city.   The   Chicago  School   holds   that   residential   segregation   is   transient,   with   migrants   capitalising  on  their  progressively  attained  economic  and  social  mobility  by  improving  their  residential  circumstances  and  exiting  segregated  environments.7  Massey,   who   concluded   that   residential   segregation   is   not   a   neutral   factor,  supports  the  latency  of  this  discrimination.  Again,  with  reference  to  blacks  in  the  United   States   (whose   segregation   has   been   studied   for   over   half   a   century),  Massey   argues   that   segregation   “…systematically   undermines   the   social   and                                                                                                                  4  Park,  R.  E.,  Burgess,  E.,  McKenzie,  R.,  (1925).  The  City,  University  of  Chicago  Press  5  Van  Kempen,  R.,  and  Ozuekren,  A.  S.,  (1998).  Ethnic  segregation  in  cities:  New  forms  and  explanations  in  a  dynamic  world,  Urban  Studies,  vol  35,  issue  10,  pg  1636  6  Ibid.  7  Ibid.    
  8. 8.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     8     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    economic   well-­‐being   of   blacks   in   the   United   States.”   He   also   holds   that   as   the  social   disadvantage   that   stems   from   increased   poverty   is   spatially   concentrated,  the  consequently  disadvantaged  environments  become  “…progressively  isolated  –  geographically,  socially  and  economically  –  from  the  rest  of  society.”8  There  does  not  exist  a  significant  body  of  research  investigating  the  spatial  segregation  of  the  foreign-­‐born,   despite   this   group   being   subject   to   similar   social   and   economic  barriers  to  those  facing  blacks  in  the  United  States.    Spatial  segregation  presents  a  risk  through  its  ability  to  render  cities  a  series  of  distinct,  self-­‐contained  but  ultimately  dislocated  communities,  rather  than  unified  spaces   for   cultural   interaction,   exchange   and   adaptation,   where   integrative  outcomes  are  supported.    However,  segregation  also  exists  as  a  positive  phenomenon;  allowing  members  of  the   minority   group   to   fortify   their   cultural   identity   and   gain   the   benefits   that  previously  established  economic  and  social  networks  are  able  to  offer.  The  formation  of  segregation  Segregated  communities  are  formed  by  positive  network  and  community  forces,  but  may  also  be  the  result  of  negative  intercultural  interaction.  Segregation  may  therefore   actually   increase,   rather   than   dissipate   over   time,   an   outcome  corroborated   by   the   research   of   Fairbairn   and   Khatun   who   found   that   the  dispersion   and   the   equal   distribution   of   migrants   over   the   long-­‐run   is   not   an  inevitable  outcome.9  Recent   theories   frame   segregation   in   flexible   contexts,   whereby   cultural,   social  and  physical  barriers  contribute  to  its  formation.                                                                                                                  8    Massey,  D.  and  Denton,  M.,  (1998).  American  Apartheid:  Segregation  and  the  Making  of  the  Underclass,  Harvard  University  Press,  pg  2  9  Fairbairn,  K.,  &  Khatun,  H.,  (1989).  Residential  segregation  and  the  interurban  migration  of  South  Asians  in  Edmonton,  Canadian  Ethnic  Studies,  21,  pp  45-­‐64    
  9. 9.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     9     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Cultural  A   common   explanation   of   migrant   segregation   is   cultural,   whereby   immigrants  choose   to   live   near   people   with   similar   preferences   and   attitudes   and   familiar  behaviours  and,  importantly,  speak  the  same  language.  Bauder   and   Sharpe   attribute   segregation   to   specific   migrant   characteristics,  where  “language,  place  of  origin,  income,  education,  circumstance  of  immigration,  destination   city   and   other   factors”   determine   migrants’   spatial   representation.10  In  the  same  vein,  research  by  Van  Kempen  demonstrated  that  cultural  differences  influence   future   migratory   plans,   which   will   affect   the   extent   to   which   migrants  seek  to  assimilate,  and  determine,  to  some  degree,  their  level  of  segregation.11  The  causes  of  residential  segregation  have  also  been  attributed  to  distinct  ethnic  preferences   of   migrant   groups.12   These   preferences   see   ethnic   group   members  consciously   residing   in   particular   areas   so   as   to   strengthen   cultures   and   avoid  identity  challenges  that  may  be  posed  by  the  presence  of  other  ethnic  groups.  This  conclusion   was   reached   by   Bobo   et   al,   who   conducted   research   into   the   influence  neighbourhood  composition  has  on  spatial  preferences  and  found  that  deliberate  decisions   over   where   to   locate   were   dependent   on   the   existing   neighbourhood  profile.13  Discrimination  Segregation   has   also   been   framed   as   a   consequence   of   a   prejudicial   and  discriminatory   host   society,   whose   behaviour   is   expressed   as   both   a   deliberate  tactic   to   exclude   specific   minorities   and   as   a   subconscious   sentiment   based   on  pre-­‐existing   stereotypes.   Empirical   evidence,   promoted   by   Balakrishnan,   shows  discrimination   of   ethnic   minorities   in   their   entry   and   mobility   within   the   housing  market,   attaining   employment   and   more   broadly   integrating   into   society,   all   of                                                                                                                  10  Bauder,  H.,  and  Sharpe,  B.,  (2002).  Residential  segregation  of  visible  minorities  in  Canadas  gateway  cities,  The  Canadian  Geographer,  46(3):  pg  206  11  Ibid.,  Van  Kempen,  R.,  and  Ozuekren,  A.  S.,  (1998).  pp  1631-­‐1656  12  Zubrinsky-­‐Charles,  C.,  (2001).  Processes  of  Racial  Residential  Segregation  in  Urban  Inequality:  Evidence  from  Four  Cities,  New  York:  Russell  Sage  Foundation,  pg  226  13  Bobo,  L.,  et  al,  (February  2000).  Multi-­city  study  of  Urban  Inequality  (1992-­1994):  Atlanta,  Boston,  Detroit,  Los  Angeles,  Michigan:  Inter-­‐university  Consortium  for  Political  and  Social  Research,  3rd  version,  pp  i-­‐iv    
  10. 10.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     10     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    which   support   the   notion   that   segregation   exists   as   an   externally   imposed  phenomenon.14  Urban  structure  Segregation   has   also   been   considered   to   exist   as   an   outcome   borne   of   the  structural   conditions   that   influence   migrant   settlement   patterns.   The   ability   to  access   housing,   and   then   be   mobile   within   the   market,   remains   the   grounding  factor  that  allows  migrants  to  achieve  subsequent  measures  of  integration.  By   choosing   to   locate   in   segregated   areas,   minority   groups   are   able   to   tap   into  networks,   which   provide   access   to   social   and   economic   opportunities.   This  support  is  said  to  assist  the  process  of  integration,  while  allowing  cultural  identity  to  be  strengthened  and  sustained.15  Tiebout   also   finds   that   spatial   decisions   are   dependent   on   the   type   of   housing  available   and   the   attributes   of   the   neighbourhood,   including   ethnicity,  socioeconomic   status   and   family   composition.   As   neighbourhoods   become  increasingly   heterogeneous,   they   attract   individuals   at   a   similar   stage   of  socioeconomic  development,  which  results  in  the  spatial  configuration  of  the  city  being   split   along   both   geographic   and   socioeconomic   lines.   As   such,   the   housing  profile   and   neighbourhood   configuration   of   particular   areas   develop   unique  characteristics,   representing   both   a   source   of   diversity,   but   also   one   of  segregation.16  Theorising  segregation  Spatial   segregation   is,   according   to   Kaplan   and   Woodhouse,   “…a   process   that  victimises   some   groups   while   liberating   others.”17   It   has   various   causes   and  Massey   concludes   that,   “In   any   single   neighbourhood,   whatever   its   overall                                                                                                                  14  Balakrishnan,  T.R.,  and  Feng  Hou.,  (1999).  Socioeconomic  integration  and  spatial  residential  patterns  of  immigrant  groups  in  Canada,  Netherlands:  Kluwer  Academic  Publishers,  Population  Research  and  Policy  Review  18:  pg  202  15  Ibid.,  Van  Kempen,  R.,  and  Ozuekren,  A.  S.,  (1998),  pg  1635  16  Beall,  J.,  (2000).  The  Culture  of  Poverty  to  Inclusive  Cities:  Reframing  Urban  Policy  and  Politics,  Journal  of  International  Development  ,  12  (6),  pp  843-­‐856  17  Kaplan,  D.,  and  Woodhouse,  K.,  (2004).  Research  in  Ethnic  Segregation  I:  Causal  Factors,  Bellwether  Publishing,  Urban  Geography  25,  pp  579-­‐585    
  11. 11.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     11     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    qualities,   we   might   find   that   some   residents   are   trapped   within   it,   others   use   it   as  a  temporary  base  from  which  to  rise,  and  others  –  those  with  the  most  choice  –  prefer  it  as  a  culturally  agreeable  environment.”18  There  are  severeal  key  theoretical  models  that  apply  in  this  analysis,  and  can  be  used  to  explain  the  causes  of  segregation  and  its  impact  on  social  potential.  These  are  heterolocalism  and  ethnic  enclaves  and  to  a  lesser  degree,  place  stratification  and  spatial  assimilation.  Heterolocalism  Heterolocalism  allows  for  the  consideration  of  wider  global  social  and  economic  factors  to  explain  integration,  rather  than  simply  relying  on  residential  location  as  is   the   case   with   the   theories   of   place   stratification   and   spatial   assimilation,   which  attempts   to   link   social   barriers   on   the   process   of   social   integration   with  residential  location.  In  order  to  establish  concrete  links  between  the  segregation  observed   in   this   analysis   and   heterolocalism,   further   research   is   necessary   to  understand   how   socioeconomic   links   between   different   migrant   groups   are  maintained  post-­‐settlement.  Within   the   globalised   world,   where   transportation   and   communication  technology   allow   stronger   connections   to   be   formed   regardless   of   place,  residential  location  as  an  indicator  of  social  integration  is  perhaps  less  relevant.  The  heterolocalism  construct  allows  for  ethnic  groups  to  “enter  a  given  area  from  distant  sources,  then  promptly  adopt  a  dispersed  pattern  of  residential  location,  all  the  while  maintaining  strong  social  cohesion”.19  There  are  limitations  to  the  theory  of  heterolocalism,  as  its  foundations  are  based  on   the   ability   of   migrants   to   attain   an   economic   and   social   standing   that   allows  them   to   choose   where   they   live   while   maintaining   ethnic   group   connections.  However,  if  this  choice  is  beyond  their  financial  means,  then  choosing  residential                                                                                                                  18  Logan,  J.  R.,  Wenquan,  Z.,  and  Alba,  R.  D.,  (April  2002).  Immigrant  Enclaves  and  Ethnic  Communities  in  New  York  and  Los  Angeles,  American  Sociological  Review,  Vol.  67,  No.  2:  pg  320  19  Zelinsky,  W.  and  Lee,  B.  A.,  (1998).  Heterolocalism:  An  alternative  model  of  the  sociospatial  behaviour  of  immigrant  ethnic  communities,  International  Journal  of  Population  Geography,  4:  pg  293    
  12. 12.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     12     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    locations   in   close   proximity   to   concentrations   of   their   ethnic   group   offers   the  most  realistic  way  of  maintaining  cultural  ties.  This  situation  would  result  in  the  formation   and   maintenance   of   ethnically   concentrated   areas   regardless   of   the  proximising  forces  of  globalisation.20  Ethnic  enclaves  The   outcomes   of   spatial   segregation   depend   to   a   large   degree   on   the  circumstances  of  its  formation.  If  segregation  is  voluntarily  chosen,  it  is  likely  that  positive   outcomes   may   be   witnessed   and   the   area   may   operate   as   an   ethnic  enclave   (successful   examples   include   the   various   Chinatowns   and   Little   Italys  located   throughout   global   cities).   However,   if   spatial   decisions   are   forced   upon  migrants,   due   to   socioeconomic   and   structural   barriers,   then   ghetto-­‐like  characteristics   are   more   likely   to   emerge   (such   as   deepening   poverty,   increased  crime  and  lower  educational  outcomes).21  That   said,   this   simplistic   categorisation   does   not   account   for   similarly   located  individuals  that  sit  along  this  ethnic  enclave-­‐ghetto  gamut,  which  Peach  splits  into  five   types.   The   transitional   Assimilation-­‐Diffusion,   where   migrants   are   transient  and  socially  mobile;  the  Ghetto,  which  is  sustained  due  to  involuntary  forces;  the  Voluntary  Plural-­‐Persistent  Enclave,  where  people  choose  to  live  in  enclaves  that  have   prospered   over   time;   the   Voluntary   Plural-­‐Relocated,   where   transitory,  socially-­‐mobile   movement   takes   place   en   masse;   and   the   Parachuted   Suburb,  where   affluent   or   socially   mobile   ethnic   groups   concentrate   in   particular  neighborhoods.22  In   this   research,   migrants   are   considered   as   a   whole   group,   as   opposed   to  splitting   each   group.   Therefore,   there   is   not   a   sufficient   basis   on   which   to  categorise   ethnic   enclaves   in   the   three   cities.   However,   taking   into   account  previous   research   and   considering   the   concentration   maps   introduced   later   in                                                                                                                  20  Zelinsky,  W.  and  Lee,  B.  A.,  (1998).  Heterolocalism:  An  alternative  model  of  the  sociospatial  behaviour  of  immigrant  ethnic  communities,  International  Journal  of  Population  Geography,  4:  pg  293  21  Mayadas,  N.,  and  Segal,  U.,  (2000).  Refugees  in  the  1990s:  A  U.S.  Perspective  in  Social  Work  Practice  with  Immigrants  and  Refugees,  New  York:  Columbia  University  Press  22    Peach,  C.,  (2005).  The  Ghetto  and  the  Ethnic  Enclave  in  Desegregating  the  City:  Ghettos,  Enclaves,  and  Inequality,  Albany:  State  University  of  New  York    
  13. 13.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     13     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    this   paper,   it   can   be   hypothesised   that   there   exist   concrete   ethnic   enclaves,   and  potentially  ghettos,  in  all  three  cities.  Additional  research  is  required  to  confirm  their  existence  and  to  determine  whether  they  exist  as  positive  ethnic  enclaves  or  as  limiting  ghettos.    Place  stratification  Within  place  stratification,  ethnic  segregation  stems  from  the  social  barriers  that  prevent   ethnic   groups   from   freely   locating.   Instead,   “minorities   are   sorted   by  place   according   to   their   group’s   relative   standing   in   society…’   and   therefore,  ‘…members   of   some   ethnic   and   racial   groups   may   not   be   able   to   convert  socioeconomic  and  assimilation  gains  into  advantageous  residential  situations”.23  While  members  of  a  particular  group  may  possess  the  economic  and  social  ability  to   relocate   to   more   desirable   areas,   they   remain   in   the   segregated   area   due   to  externally  imposed  limits  on  their  social  and  economic  mobility,  which  results  in  persisting   areas   of   segregation.   For   place   stratification   to   apply   in   this   study,  deeper  qualitative  research  is  necessary  in  order  to  link  residential  decisions  with  social  expectations,  pressures  and  limitations.  Spatial  assimilation  The  spatial  assimilation  model  sees  ethnic  minorities  “convert  socioeconomic  and  assimilation   progress   into   residential   gains…opening   the   way   for   increased  contact  with  members  of  the  ethnic  majority  and  thus  for  desegregation.”24  The   spatial   assimilation   construct   assumes   that   residential   mobility   is   linked   to  individual   social   mobility   and   that   progressive   residential   mobility   allows   for  ultimate  assimilation.25  In  order  to  link  spatial  assimilation  with  the  segregation  results  observed   in  this  study,  the   socioeconomic   evolution   of   foreigners  must   be  quantified  and  correlated  with  residential  patterns.                                                                                                                  23  Alba,  R.  D.,  and  Logan,  J.  R.,  (1993).  Minority  Proximity  to  Whites  in  Suburbs:  An  individual-­level  Analysis  Of  Segregation,  American  Journal  Of  Sociology,  98  (6),  pg  1391  24  Ibid.,  Alba,  R.  D.,  and  Logan,  J.  R.,  (1993).  pg  1390    25  Logan,  J.  R.,  and  Alba,  R.  D.,  (1999).  Minority  Niches  and  Immigrant  Enclaves  in  New  York  and  Los  Angeles:  Trends  and  Impacts,  pp  173-­‐  293  in  Immigration  and  Opportunity:  Race,  Ethnicity,  and  Employment  in  the  United  States,  edited  by  F.  D.  Bean  and  S.  Bell-­‐Rose.  New  York:  Russell  Sage  Foundation,  pg  447    
  14. 14.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     14     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Networks  Migrant   networks   comprise   interpersonal   ties   between   community   members,  institutions   and   organisations   and   cut   across   professional   and   personal  boundaries.   Spatial   segregation   has   the   ability   to  provide   a  cultural   milieu,   within  which   new   migrants   are   able   to   join   pre-­‐existing   networks   and   achieve  immediate  social  inclusion,  while  enhancing  their  ability  to  become  economically  active  and  socially  mobile.  Therefore,   while   spatial   segregation   may   result   in   ethnic   minorities   drifting  further   away   from   mainstream   society,   they   may   actually   experience   increased  feelings   of   inclusion,   made   possible   by   their   spatial   segregation,   which   “enables  physical   defense   against   racially   motivated   harassment   by   providing  psychological   support…’   and   assists   ‘…the   preservation   of   the   group’s   heritage  and…promotion  of  group  interests”.26  However,  Massey  argues  that  residential  segregation  and  the  resultant  networks  have   been   instrumental   in   creating   a   niche   within   which,   “…a   deleterious   set   of  attitudes  and  behaviours  –  a  culture  of  segregation  has  arisen  and  flourished.”  In  this  context,  segregation  has  created  the  structural  conditions  that  allow  for  the  emergence   of   an   oppositional   culture,   which   devalues   key   indicators   of  socioeconomic  success  in  employment,  education  and  family  formation.27  Therefore,  as  new  members  of  the  minority  group  enter  the  segregated  area,  they  are   subject   to   the   peer   pressure   of   existing   members   to   conform   to   existing  ‘deleterious’   norms   in   relation   to   employment,   education,   fertility   and   language.  They   may   also   be   exposed   to   information   that   is   referential   to   the   segregated  community   (welfare   access)   rather   than   the   information   normally   communicated  to   and   consumed   by   broader   society   (such   as   labour   market   entry   and   further  education).28  This  selectivity  of  informationhas  the  potential  to  ultimately  create                                                                                                                  26    Ibid.,  Bauder,  H.,  and  Sharpe,  B.,  (2002).  pg  206  27    Ibid.,  pg  8  28  Bertrand,  M.,  Luttmer,  E.,  and  Mullainathan,  S.,  (October  1998).  Network  Effects  and  Welfare  Cultures,  Princeton  University,  Working  Paper  405    
  15. 15.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     15     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    an   ‘oppositional   culture,’   which   opposes   the   ideals   and   norms   of   mainstream  society.29  Spatial  segregation  measures  Spatial  segregation  can  be  defined  as  the  extent  to  which,  within  a  particular  area,  individual  members  of  different  groups  are  distributed  in  an  even  fashion  across  physical  spaces.30  The  dissimilarity  index  provides  an  indication  of  whether  the  distribution  of  these  groups   is   relatively   even   or   uneven;   how   many   of   one   group   have   to   exchange  residence   with   the   other   group   on   the   basis   that   a   score   of   1   indicates   even  distribution   (where   all   groups   are   distributed   through   spaces   in   a   completely  uniform   manner   and   no   exchange   of   residence   between   groups   would   be  required).  Insights   from   the   dissimilarity   index   may   be   limited   due   to   the   issue   of  comparability.  In  order  for  valuable  comparisons  to  be  made,  it  is  important  that  geographical   areas   remain   relatively   consistent   over   time.31   By   maintaining  constant   units,   as   is   the   case   in   this   study,   interpretations   about   the   causes   and  outcomes  of  segregation  remain  valid  to  a  greater  degree.  The  ecological  fallacy  must  also  be  considered.  In  order  for  the  dissimilarity  index  to  be  a  reliable  and  comparable  indicator  of  spatial  segregation,  geographic  units  must   be   held   constant   over   multiple   time   periods.32   Steps   to   address   the   fallacy  have  been  taken  by  using  data  relating  to  the  most  detailed  geography  accessible  and   maintaining   this   geography   across   periods   in   the   subsequent   dissimilarity  index  calculation.                                                                                                                  29  Ibid.,  Balakrishnan,  T.R.,  and  Feng  Hou.,  (1999).  pg  203  30  Reardon,  S.  F  and  OSullivan,  D.,  (2004).  Measures  of  spatial  segregation,  Sociological  Methodology  34,  pp  121-­‐162  31  Pisati,  M.,  (Novembe  2009).  Spatial  Indicies  of  Residential  Segregation,  Department  of  Sociology  and  Social  Research  University  of  Milano-­‐Bicocca  (Italy),  6th  Italian  Stata  Users  Group  meeting  32  McGraw,  D  and  Watson,  G.,  (1976).  Political  and  social  inquiry,  Wiley,  pg  134    
  16. 16.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     16     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    The   index   of   dissimilarity   is   just   one   way   to   measure   spatial   segregation   and  when   considered   alone,   may   not   fully   reflect   the   level   of   under/over-­‐representation   across   areas   or   the   extent   of   exposure   and   interaction   between  groups.  Exposure   measures   attempt   to   determine   the   level   of   interaction   and   isolation  between   different   groups   within   a   particular   area,   and   measure   the   extent   to  which  minority  and  majority  members  physically  confront  one  another  by  virtue  of   sharing   a   common   residential   area.33   There   are   two   basic   measures   of  residential   exposure:   the   interaction   index   measures   the   extent   to   which  members  of  the  minority  group  are  exposed  to  the  majority  group.  The  isolation  index   measures   the   extent   to   which   members   of   a   particular   group   are   only  exposed  to  one  another,  rather  than  to  members  of  other  groups.  While   no   global   consensus   has   been   reached   on   the   most   appropriate   measure   of  segregation,   due   to   the   “complexity   and   ambiguity   of   the   concept   of  segregation,”34  a  literature  review  points  to  the  index  of  dissimilarity  as  being  the  most  widely  used  and  relevant  measure.  Dimensions  of  segregation  A  developed  and  useful  understanding  of  segregation  requires  consideration  from  multiple  perspectives,  an  approach  supported  by  Massey  and  Denton  who  assert  that  more  than  one  index  is  required  in  order  to  accurately  measure  segregation.  In   an   analysis   of   twenty   segregation   indices,   they   conclude   that   there   exist   five  dimensions  of  segregation:  evenness,  exposure,  concentration,  centralization  and  clustering.35   In   this   study,   I   consider   evenness   and   exposure   and   also   measure  concentration  using  a  proportional  calculation.      Determining   the   level   of   evenness,   exposure   and   concentration   present   within  cities   provides   a   meaningful   calculation   to   explain   settlement   patterns   of   the                                                                                                                  33  Massey,  D.A.  and  Denton,  N.A.,  (1988).  Residential  Segregation  of  Blacks,  Hispanics,  and  Asians  by  Socioeconomic  Status  and  Generation,  Social  Science  Quarterly,  69,  pg  287  34  James,  D.  and  Taeuber,  K.,  (1985).  Measures  of  Segregation,  Sociological  Methodology  15,  pg  24  35  Massey,  D.  S.  and  Denton,  N.  A.,    (December  1988).  The  Dimensions  of  Residential  Segregation,  Social  Forces  67:2,  pg  283    
  17. 17.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     17     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    foreign-­‐born.   The   consideration   of   these   multiple   dimensions   of   segregation   is  crucial   in   order   for   policy   makers   to   be   in   a   position   to   make   connections  between   economic   and   social   measures   of   integration   and   spatial   segregation  patterns.   Without   considering   segregation   from   multiple   angles,   informed  decisions  aimed  at  facilitating  and  improving  integration  outcomes  are  limited  to  a   reliance   on   one-­‐dimensional   data,   which   indicates   integration   outcomes   but  does   not   offer   a   link   between   these   outcomes   and   the   spatial   representation   of  the  foreign-­‐born.  Evenness  The   dissimilarity   index   in   its   basic   form   measures   the   “differential   distribution   of  two   social   groups   among   defined   areas”   or   the   level   of   evenness.36   Both   Massey  and   Harrison   conclude   that   of   the   most   widely   used   measures   of   segregation,   it   is  the  dissimilarity  index  that  is  the  most  reliable  in  representing  evenness,  due  to  its  simplicity  and  widespread  empirical  use.37  Exposure  Indices  of  exposure  measure,  at  an  individual  level,  the  extent  to  which  groups  are  exposed  to  physical  contact  as  a  result  of  living  in  the  same  neighbourhood.  The  most   common   indices   include   those   relating   to   interaction   and   isolation.   The  importance   of   contact   between   natives   and   foreigners   was   first   noted   by   Bell   as   a  key  factor  in  determining  integration  outcomes.38  Concentration  Concentration   is   determined   by   analysing   how   ethnic   groups   of   the   same   size  occupy   particular   spaces.   By   understanding   levels   of   concentration,   one   can                                                                                                                  36  Ibid.,  Massey,  D.  S.  and  Denton,  N.  A.,    (December  1988).  pg  283  37  Harrison,  R.  and  Weinberg,  D.,  (1992).  Residential  Segregation  –  Measure  Definitions  in  Racial  and  Ethnic  Segregation,  working  paper,  U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Washington,  D.C.,  pg  2  38  Bell,  W.,  (1954).  A  Probability  Model  for  the  Measurement  of  Ecological  Segregation,  Social  Forces  32,  pp  357-­‐64    
  18. 18.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     18     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    conclude   that   certain   groups   may   be   “considered   more   concentrated   and  consequently  more  segregated.”39  The  global  city  The  creation  of  the  global  city  Global   cities   must   constantly   adapt   to   changing   population,   socioeconomic   and  geopolitical   dynamics   and   migration   is   emerging   as   one   of   the   key   factors   that  cuts  across  each  of  each  of  these  forces.  I  consider  the  global  city  in  this  study  and  seek  to  highlight  and  explain  similarities  and  distinctions  in  migrant  integration  –  analysed  through  spatial  segregation  in  this  case  –  within  three  global  cities.  I  also  pose   questions   about   how   the   management   of   migrants’   spatial   integration   might  impact  the  future  success  of  the  migrant  and  the  city.  The  divergent  processes  –  economic,  social,  cultural  and  spatial  –  of  globalisation  can   be   seen   in   cities   around   the   world.   National   borders,   while   still   spatially   firm,  are   losing   ground   as   a   result   of   the   extensive   international   interaction   and  integration   –   made   possible   by   information   technology   and   communication  networks  –  of  economic,  political  and  social  forces.40  These   forces   are   determining   a   new   spatial   order   and   driving   a   new   urban  hierarchy   that   is   founded   not   only   in   national   boundaries,   but   is   also   shaped   by  networks  and  interconnectedness.  The  resultant  global  cities  compete  to  maintain  their   role   in   transnational   human   and   capital   flows,   a   contest   that   shifts   the   focus  between   the   inanimate   features   of   place   to   the   flows   that   contribute   to   its  whole.41  The   strategic   role   cities   play   in   the   urban   hierarchy   is   currently   being   resolved  through  the  interactions  and  conflict  between  state  and  private  institutions.  The  power   of   capitalism   has   the   potential   to   result   in   the   profit-­‐motivated   private  sector   gaining   increasing   scope   and   physical   power   to   commodify   space.   This                                                                                                                  39  Ibid.,  Harrison,  R.  and  Weinberg,  D.,  (1992).  pg  3  40  Friedmann,  J.,  (1995).  The  World  City  Hypothesis.  World  Cities  in  a  World  System,  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press  41  Castells,  M.,  (1996).  The  Rise  of  the  Network  Society,  The  Information  Age:  Economy,  Society  and  Culture  (Vol.  1).  Cambridge,  Oxford:  Blackwell  Publishing  Ltd    
  19. 19.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     19     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    process   of   commodification   can   be   seen   in   the   grouping   of   socioeconomically  alike  individuals  in  order  to  achieve  economies  of  scale  in  service  delivery.  Global   cities   have   also   given   in   to   the   forces   of   gentrification,   where   land   and  public  space  is  recycled  to  the  highest  value.  This  creates  investment  expectations  and   the   pressure   to   self-­‐replicate   intensifies   competition   at   a   national,   city   and  suburban  level.  It  has  also  led  to  a  spatial  restructuring  of  key  infrastructure  and  amenities   within   cities.   This   process   generally   results   in   the   central,   most  connected  areas  of  the  city  being  priced  out  of  reach  of  minority  groups  at  a  lower  socioeconomic  level,  thereby  reinforcing  latent  disadvantages  already  present.42  Within   a   spatial   construct,   higher   economic   classes   confront   those   at   lower   levels  and  displace  them  from  sought-­‐after  inner  city  areas  to  yet-­‐poorer  and  potentially  more   disadvantaged   neighbourhoods.   This   iterating   sequence   of   events   widens  inequalities  and  creates  “divided,  partitioned,  polarised  and  fragmented”  cities.43  Sassen   expresses   concern   that   the   increasing   levels   of   spatial   segregation   raise  the  likelihood  of  increased  polarisation  and  social  exclusion.44  Migration  and  the  global  city  The   migrant   flows   that   are   the   logical   result   of   globalisation   naturally   lead   to   a  state   of   multiculturalism,   defined   by   Rosado   as   “…a   system   of   beliefs   and  behaviours  that  recognises  and  respects  the  presence  of  all  diverse  groups  in  an  organisation  or  society,  acknowledges  and  values  their  socio-­‐cultural  differences  and   encourages   and   enables   their   continued   contribution   within   an   inclusive  cultural  context  which  empowers  all  within  the  organisation  or  society.”45  Cities   are   a   natural   habitat   of   migrants   and   function   as   environments   that   both  provide   for   and   rely   upon   the   positive   replication   of   the   migratory   process   for  their   longevity.   They   are   pluralistic   spaces   where   the   obligation   to   adhere   to                                                                                                                  42  Madanipour,  A.,  (2003).  Social  Exclusion  and  Space,  The  City  Reader,  London  and  New  York:  Routledge,  pp  181-­‐188  43  Massey,  D.  S.  (2009).  Globalization  and  Inequality:  Explaining  American  Exceptionalism,  European  Sociological  Review,  pp  9-­‐23  44  Sassen,  S.,  (2001).  The  Global  City:  New  York,  London,  and  Tokyo  (Second  ed.).  Princeton  University  Press  45  Rosado,  C.,  (1997).    Toward  a  definition  of  multiculturalism.    www.rosado.net    
  20. 20.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     20     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    certain   host   society   cultural   norms   is   diluted   somewhat   by   the   presence   of  multiple   cultures.   This   pluralism   deepens   the   complexity   of   intercultural  interactions   and   the   potential   for   conflict.   Migrants   must   expend   greater   energy  to  maintain  their  identity  and  the  host  society  must  adapt  to  numerous  cultures  competing  for  space.46  This   pluralisation   of   societies   can   represent   a   positive   outcome   for   migrants,  whose   integration   is   eased   by   previously   established   networks,   emotional   and  logistical   support   and   referential   cultural   landmarks.     However,   it   may   also   be  interpreted   as   a   threat   to   the   nation-­‐state.   Migrants,   who   are   one   of   the   driving  forces   behind   increasing   levels   of   multiculturalism,   each   possess   different  ambitions  and  require  distinct  integration  approaches.  This  requires  a  degree  of  cultural  and  structural  flexibility  that  not  all  societies  are  willing  to  accommodate,  often  preferring  that  migrants  operate  under  the  same  paradigm  as  the  majority  endorsed  construct.47  As  cities  evolve  through  the  process  of  urbanisation,  levels  of  ethnic  and  cultural  diversity  increase.  The  establishment  of  self-­‐referential  communities  reduces  the  relevance  of  and  reverence  to  the  culture  and  identity  of  the  state.  While  cultural  identity   and   geographic   boundaries   have   historically   coincided,   technological  developments   in   communication   and   transportation   have   diminished   the  importance   of   geographical   separation   on   cultural   identity.   This   allows   cultural  identity  to  be  maintained  regardless  of  place,  allowing  people  to  be  ‘both  here  and  there’  simultaneously.48    Global  cities  such  as  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne  will  remain  attractive  to  migrants  as  a  result  of  the  economic  and  social  opportunities  that  naturally  exist  within  them.  In  each  of  the  cities  analysed,  the  proportion  of  foreigners  increased,  or   remained   high   over   the   period   analysed   [Barcelona:   1-­‐18%   (1991-­‐2008),  London:  25-­‐32%  (1991-­‐2001),  Melbourne:  33-­‐31%  (1996-­‐2006)].                                                                                                                  46  Ottiaviano,  G.  and  Prarolo  G.,  (November  2008).  Cultural  Identity  and  Knowledge  Creation  in  Cosmopolitan  Cities,  Bocconi  University  of  Bologna,  pp  1-­‐5  47  Koopmans,  R  and  Statham,  P.,  (1999)  Challenging  the  Liberal  Nation-­State?  Postnationalism,  Multiculturalism,  and  the  Collective  Claims  Making  of  Migrants  and  Ethnic  Minorities  in  Britain  and  Germany,  The  University  of  Chicago  48  Beck,  U.,  (2000).  What  is  Globalisation?,  Cambridge,  UK:  Polity  Press      
  21. 21.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     21     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    The  consideration  of  the  spatial  representation  of  migrants  is  therefore  critical  for  cities  aiming  to  ensure  social,  economic  and  cultural  evolution.  By  analysing  the  spatial   preferences   and   behaviour   of   migrants,   specifically   their   spatial  segregation,   cities   are   able   to   obtain   a   deeper   understanding   of   the   forces   driving  this   representation.   Knowledge   of   spatial   segregation   trends   allows   cities   to  hypothesise   policies   and   actions   that   aim   to   ensure   this   segregation   remains   a  positive  phenomenon,  which  supports  migrant  integration  into  society.  City  selection  The  selection  of  cities  for  this  study  was  based  on  several  factors.  Cities  must  be  sufficiently   diverse   with   a   significant   foreign-­‐born   population,   in   order   to   allow  for  observations  to  be  made  regarding  the  integration  and  segregation  of  different  groups.  Cities  must  also  be  globalised  –  in  economic,  social  and  cultural  terms  –  to  ensure   the   consistent   treatment   of   ideologies,   attitudes   and   behaviours   across  cities  and  to  allow  for  comparable  interpretations  of  segregation.  There   is   also   an   important   personal   aspect   to   the   selection   of   these   three   cities.  Residential   experience  within   each   of   the   cities   analysed   and   an   understanding   of  the   hyper-­‐local   economic,   residential   and   cultural   forces,   not   immediately  observable  at  a  macro  level,  has  allowed  for  greater  insight  into  the  implications  of  migrant  segregation.  A   series   of   maps   shows   the   concentration   of   the   foreign-­‐born   population   in   the  three  cities  at  two  time  points  and  highlights  the  contribution  of  each  area  to  total  migrant  growth  over  the  period  considered.  Due  to  data  availability  and  graphic  considerations,   these   maps   were   created   using   different   geographic   units   to   the  ones  used  in  the  calculation  of  the  dissimilarity  index.  An  analysis  of  the  social,  structural  and  spatial  make-­‐up  of  each  city  is  provided  below.    

×