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

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

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

on

  • 1,455 views

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

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,455
Views on SlideShare
1,455
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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

  • 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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.   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.    
  • 22.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     22     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Barcelona  Background  The   City   of   Barcelona   covers   101   km2   with   a   population   of   approximately   1.6  million  people  according  to  the  Ajuntament  de  Barcelona.  Barcelona’s   history   is   rooted   in   Roman   conquest   and,   despite   the   1936-­‐39   civil  war,  the  city  experienced  the  full  force  of  industrialisation,  which  saw  large-­‐scale  regional   and   international   migration   and   led   to   the   rapid   urbanisation   that  continues  today.  While  the  official  population  of  Barcelona  currently  stands  at  1.6  million,  the  city  relies   on   an   economic   population   of   over   5.0   million.49   Population   density   in  Barcelona   of   15,779   persons   per   km2   –   the   highest   within   Spain   –   is   elevated  compared   to   other   European   cities.   The   Council   of   Barcelona   estimates   that   in  2008   some   18   per   cent   of   the   population   originated   outside   of   Spain,   up  significantly  from  the  1  per  cent  recorded  in  1991.  Barcelona  is  a  global  city  in  both  its  size  and  the  size  of  its  foreign  population.50  The  city  has  urbanised  over  the  past  two  decades  and  experiences  high  levels  of  density.  Both  rural-­‐to-­‐urban  and  international  migrants  are  drawn  to  the  city  for  reasons  that  may  be  economic  (employment  opportunities),  social  (to  more  easily  connect  with  family  and  friends)  and  cultural  (to  access  the  activities  and  events  not  available  in  more  rural  settings).  Spain’s   migration   policy   follows   the   traditional   ‘open   borders’   European   model.  However,   with   a   large   number   of   undocumented   migrants,   more   stringent  regulations  have  been  introduced.  The  government  continues  to  focus  on  border  protection  as  a  means  of  slowing  rapidly  expanding  migration  flows  and  has  also  succumbed   to   populist   pressure   to   restrict   migration   flows   originating   in   the                                                                                                                  49  Institut  dEstadística  de  Catalunya,  accessed  May  2011,  http://www.idescat.cat/    50  Beaverstock,  J.,  (July  1998).  Globalization  and  the  World  Cities  Research  Network  (GaWC),  GaWC  Research  Bulletin  5,  GaWC,  Loughborough  University    
  • 23.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     23     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    labour  market.  Nevertheless,  multiculturalism  is  firmly  supported,  in  contrast  to  neighbouring  France’s  promotion  of  assimilation.  Barcelona   is   a   relatively   young   city   of   migration   and   just   1   per   cent   of   the   total  population   was   foreign-­‐born   in   1991.   The   city   experienced   rapid   immigration  from   poorer   countries   in   the   Middle   East,   Africa   and   South   America   during   the  1990s   and   more   recently   from   other   Western   countries   as   Spain’s   economy  expanded.  These  flows  have  contributed  to  the  jump  in  Barcelona’s  foreign-­‐born  population,  which  hit  18  per  cent  of  the  total  in  2008.  In  Barcelona,  there  is  limited  public  ownership  of  land,  which  has  prevented  the  development   of   regulated   social   housing.   The   housing   market   is   by   and   large   a  free   market   with   a   high   percentage   of   private   property   compared   to   other  European   countries.   This   is   the   result   of   the   social   and   economic   changes   that  took   place   during   the   second   half   of   the   twentieth   century,51   whereby   home  ownership  became  the  primary  strategy  individuals  and  families  adopted  in  order  to   maintain   social   and   economic   status.   The   rental   market   has,   until   recently,  been  moribund,  and  was  to  a  large  extent  restricted  to  long-­‐term  tenants  paying  low   rents.   However,   recent   policy   developments   have   led   to   its   liberalization,52  however,   subsidized   housing   is   still   virtually   non-­‐existent,   which   may   influence  migrant  spatial  patterns  and  integration  outcomes.  Official  data  from  the  Ajuntament  de  Barcelona  shows  that  migrants  originating  in  Ecuador,   Peru,   Colombia   and   Argentina   represent   a   large   proportion   of   the  foreign-­‐born  residing  in  Barcelona,  which  may  be  the  result  of  the  linguistic  ties  Spain   shares   with   Latin   America.   In   addition,   Spain’s   proximity   to   Africa   has   seen  a   strong   presence   of   migrants   originating   in   North   Africa   settling   throughout  Spain,  particularly  urban  areas  such  as  Barcelona  and  Madrid.  Figure  1  highlights  Barcelona’s  negligible  foreign  population  (representing  just  1  per  cent)  in  1991  by  barrio,  before  advancing  markedly  over  the  subsequent  17  years  and  reaching  18  per  cent  of  the  total  population  in  2008  as  can  be  seen  in                                                                                                                  51  Cabre,  A.  and  Módenes,  J.  A.,  (2004).  Home  Ownership  and  Social  Inequality  in  Spain,  Centre  d’Estudis  Demogràfics,  Stanford:  Stanford  University  Press  52  Ibid.    
  • 24.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     24     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    figure  2.  Density  in  Barcelona  is  high,  allowing  immigrants  to  realistically  afford  inner-­‐city  living.  This  ensures  migrants  are  in  a  position  to  avoid  segregated  areas  and   locate   in   barrios   more   connected   to   employment   and   education  opportunities.  Figure  3  shows  the  contribution  of  each  barrio  in  Barcelona  to  overall  growth  in  the   foreign-­‐born   population   between   1991   and   2008.   The   areas   where   the  majority  of  growth  in  the  foreign  population  took  place  are  centrally  located  and  include   the   barrios   of   Raval   and   Gotic.   However,   growth   was   also   observed   in   the  proximal   outer-­‐lying   suburbs,   which,   as   is   the   case   in   London   and   Melbourne,   are  areas   that   have   proven   to   attract   migrant   communities   due   to   affordability   and  the  familiarity  that  comes  with  existing  concentrations.  Maps  Figure  1  –  foreigners  as  a  proportion  of  total  population  by  barrio,  1991                      
  • 25.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     25     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Figure  2  –  foreigners  as  a  proportion  of  total  population  by  barrio,  2008                      Figure  3  –  contribution  to  foreign-­population  growth  by  barrio,  1991-­2008                      
  • 26.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     26     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    London  Background  Greater  London  covers  1,572  km2  and  contains  some  7.8  million  people  according  to  the  Office  of  National  Statistics.  The  formation  of  London  has  not  been  clear-­‐cut,  and  the  creation  of  the  current  administrative   area   took   place   in   1965.   In   1934,   Danish   architect   and   urban  planner,   Steen   Eiler   Rasmussen   referred   to   London   as   a   “…greater   and   still  greater  accumulation  of  towns…where  people  still  live  in  their  own  home  in  small  communities  with  local  government  just  as  they  had  done  in  the  Middle  Ages,”53  which  highlights  the  distinct  regional  identities  that  comprise  London.  Through   industrialisation,   Londons   population   expanded   during   the   19th   and  early   20th   centuries,   becoming   the   largest   city   in   the   world   prior   to   being  overtaken   by   New   York   in   1925.   Its   population   peaked   at   8.2   million   in   1939.  Population   density   in   London   stands   at   4,760   people   per   km2,   more   than   ten  times   that   of   any   other   British   region,   and   continues   to   attract   regional   and  international  migrants  drawn  to  the  urban  environment.  London   is   popularly   considered   one   the   original   global   cities   and   along   with   New  York,  ranked  first  in  one  of  the  first  attempts  to  categorise  global  cities.54  A  large  proportion  of  foreign-­‐born  reside  in  London  and  the  city  also  plays  a  key  role  in  international   financial   and   commercial   markets.   London   is   a   preferred  destination   for   migrants   both   within   the   UK   seeking   greater   employment   and  social  opportunities  as  well  as  international  migrants  who  are  drawn  to  the  well-­‐established  ethnic  enclaves  (Indians  in  west  London  and  Jamaicans  in  north  and  north-­‐west  London).55  The   UK   has   an   open   migration   policy   and   until   recently,   multiculturalism   was  enthusiastically  promoted  (debate  is  currently  taking  place  regarding  its  future).                                                                                                                  53  Rasmussen,  S.  E.,  (1982).  London:  The  Unique  City,  The  MIT  Press  54  Beaverstock,  J.,  (July  1998).  Globalization  and  the  World  Cities  Research  Network  (GaWC),  GaWC  Research  Bulletin  5,  GaWC,  Loughborough  University  55  Office  for  National  Statistics,  Official  Labour  Market  Statistics,  accessed  April  2011    
  • 27.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     27     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Britain  allows  refugees  and  family  reunification  but  is  increasingly  placing  greater  emphasis  on  skilled  migrants  who  are  subject  to  a  points  test.  A   survey   of   Londons   ethnic   and   religious   diversity   conducted   in   2005   showed  that  diversity  was  strong  in  London,  with  the  existence  of  over  300  languages  and  more   than   50   non-­‐indigenous   communities   with   a   population   greater   than  10,000.  Figures  from  the  Office  for  National  Statistics  show  that  in  2001,  Londons  foreign-­‐born   population   was   2.4   million   (32   per   cent),   up   from   results   found   in  the  1991  census,  which  showed  a  foreign  population  representing  25  per  cent  of  the  total.  London   has   existed   as   an   immigration   hub   for   centuries,   whether   as   a   place  where  people  were  able  to  find  safety  or  for  socioeconomic  reasons.  Those  fleeing  persecution   such   as   eastern   European   Jews   and   Cypriots   are   examples   of   the  former;  while  the  latter  includes  migrants  originating  in  Ireland,  Bangladesh  and  the  West  Indians  pursuing  improved  standards  of  living.  London   has   a   well-­‐established   private   housing   market,   allowing   entry   by   both  natives   migrating   from   poorer   parts   of   England   and   international   migrants.   The  demand   is   high   to   the   point   where   public   housing   is   oversubscribed   and  subsequent   policy   initiatives,   such   as   private-­‐public   partnerships   have   been  introduced  to  alleviate  demand.  While   the   public   housing   avenue   is   open   to   migrants   and   living   conditions   are  good,   access   may   be   more   difficult,   not   only   because   of   the   strong   demand   but  also  because  of  increased  regulation.  In   London,   an   increase   in   the   concentration   of   migrants   can   be   observed,   rising  from  24  per  cent  of  the  overall  population  in  1991  to  34  per  cent  in  2001.  Figure  5  shows   the   stronger   concentration   of   migrants   particularly   in   the   urban   centre,  which  includes  the  boroughs  of  Ken  and  Chelsea  as  well  as  Westminster  as  well  as  in  the  western  London  boroughs  of  Brent.  These  areas  may  attract  migrants  due  to   their   greater   affordability   and   the   existence   of   social   and   economic   migrant  networks.  London’s  policy  to  combine  affordable  with  standard  housing  appears    
  • 28.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     28     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    to  ensure  an  even  spatial  spread,  with  migrant  concentrations  scattered  through  London’s  wards,  rather  than  concentrated  in  a  particularly  segregated  fashion.  In  figure  6,  the  contribution  of  each  borough  to  overall  growth  in  the  number  of  foreigners   is   illustrated.   In   particular,   it   is   the   north   and   south   of   London   that  provides  the  greatest  contribution  to  overall  growth.  This  north-­‐south  growth  in  the   foreign-­‐born   population   may   be   explained   by   the   spread   of   social   housing  away   from   traditional   migrant   communities   to   open   up   new   areas   to   the  multicultural  profile  that  represents  modern  London.  Maps  Figure  4  –  foreigners  as  a  proportion  of  total  population  by  borough,  1991      
  • 29.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     29     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Figure  5  –  foreigners  as  a  proportion  of  total  population  by  borough,  2001      Figure  6  –  contribution  to  foreign-­population  growth  by  borough,  1991-­2001                    
  • 30.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     30     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Melbourne  Background  The  Melbourne  statistical  division  covers  7,673  km2  with  a  population  of  some  3.3  million  people  in  2006  according  to  the  Australian  Bureau  of  Statistics.  Melbourne   was   formed   through   the   arrival   of   European   settlers;   however,   its  contemporary   growth   was   driven   by   post-­‐World   War   II   migration.   Its   cultural  diversity   and   economic   prosperity   continues   to   attract   regional   and   international  migrants.  Population   growth   in   Melbourne   is   strong   and   the   city   is   expected   to   contain  between  5-­‐7  million  people  by  2030.    Population  density  in  Melbourne  currently  stands  at  1,566  per  km2  but  is  expected  to  rise  in  order  to  accommodate  forecast  population  growth  and  maintain  a  commitment  to  current  zoning  regulations.  Melbourne   joined   the   ranks   of   global   cities   as   the   pace   of   population   growth  accelerated,  driven  primarily  by  flows  of  national  and  international  migrants.  The  proportion   of   foreign-­‐born   in   Melbourne   is   high   compared   to   Barcelona   and  London   and   also   at   a   global   level.56   Population   forecasts   point   to   Melbourne  becoming   Australia’s   largest   city   by   2037,57   which   will   eventuate   in   capital   and  cultural  flows  that  are  expected  to  confirm  its  place  as  a  global  city.  Australia’s  migration  policy  is  liberal  and  the  government  continues  to  pursue  a  policy   of   multiculturalism.   Migrants   enter   Australia   through   refugee   avenues,  family  reunification  or  as  skilled  migrants.  Melbourne’s  demographic  history  is  founded  on  immigration.  Flows  from  the  gold  rush  of  the  1850s  saw  large  numbers  of  migrants  from  Europe  including  Germany  and   Ireland   as   well   as   China   and   the   United   States.   The   next   great   influx   of  immigrants   came   following   World   War   II,   when   refugees   arrived   from   Greece,  Italy,  Bosnia,  Serbia,  Macedonia,  Lebanon,  Cyprus  and  Turkey.  Today,  Melbourne  is   a   destination   city   for   the   world’s   migrants,   and   in   both   1996   and   2006,   over   30                                                                                                                  56  globalstudy.org,  (2005).  A  Global  Perspective  on  the  Connections  between  Immigrants  and  World  Cities,  pg  9  57  Gadiel,  Aaron.,  (April  2010).  Going  Nowhere,  BIS  Shrapnel    
  • 31.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     31     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    per   cent   of   the   total   population   was   born   outside   Australia.   Reflecting  Commonwealth   ties,   migrants   from   the   UK   and   New   Zealand   were   the   largest  group,  however  in  recent  times,  migrants  from  China,  India  and  other  south-­‐east  Asian  countries  represent  the  largest  component  of  migration  flows.  There   is   a   large   proportion   of   public   housing   in   Melbourne,   which   is   regulated   by  private   organisations,   public-­‐private   housing   associations   and   government  bodies.   Living   conditions   in   Melbourne   are   good   and   there   is   easy   access   to   social  housing,   which   like   London   is   also   oversubscribed.   Melbourne   is   beginning   to  experience   affordability   issues   in   the   property   market   due   to   the   city’s  exponential   population   growth.   However,   a   robust   welfare   state,   which   includes  housing   benefit   systems   and   individual   rent   subsidies,   ensures   the   city   remains  an  attractive  prospect  for  migrants.  In   Melbourne,   the   concentration   of   the   foreign   population   was   virtually  unchanged,  dropping  from  33  per  cent  in  1996  to  31  per  cent  in  2006.  Figure  8  shows  that  traditional  areas  of  migration  –  inner-­‐city  (Melbourne  city)  and  on  the  city  fringes  in  the  south-­‐east  growth  area  that  includes  Greater  Dandenong  –  hold  true  for  Melbourne,  which  is  a  well-­‐established  city  of  migration.  These  areas  of  concentration  attract  migrants  and  have  the  potential  to  lead  to  greater  levels  of  segregation,  through  the  maintenance  of  a  single  ethnic  profile.  Figure   9   considers   the   contribution   of   each   local   government   area   (LGA)   to  overall  growth  in  the  foreign-­‐born  population.  While  the  urban  core  contributed  to   growth   in   the   foreign   population,   it   was   in   the   emerging   western   and   south-­‐eastern  suburbs  that  the  majority  of  growth  originated.  This  may  be  attributable  to   greater   affordability   and   also   to   the   existence   of   already-­‐established   migrant  communities.   The   representation   may   also   be   the   result   of   infrastructure  investment   linking   outer-­‐lying   areas   with   the   urban   centre   of   Melbourne,   which  functions  as  the  primary  population  and  job  hub.    
  • 32.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     32     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Maps  Figure  7  –  foreigners  as  a  proportion  of  total  population  by  LGA,  1996    Figure  8  –  foreigners  as  a  proportion  of  total  population  by  LGA,  2006        
  • 33.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     33     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne     Figure  9  –  contribution  to  foreign-­population  growth  by  LGA,  1996-­2006                   Methodology   Measurement   The   primary   measure   of   spatial   segregation   is   the   dissimilarity   index,   which   empirical   analysis   has   shown   to   be   the   most   useful   and   relevant   measure   of   segregation,  a  conclusion  supported  by  Johnston  et  al.58  Nevertheless,  Massey  and   Denton   promote   the   consideration   of   segregation   through   multiple   measures,   arguing   that   segregation   “...does   not   stem   from   a   single   process,   but   from   a   complex  interplay  of  many  different  social  and  economic  processes  that  generate   various  constellations  of  outcomes  interpreted  as  ‘segregation’.”59   In  the  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  of  the  foreign-­‐born  in  Barcelona,  London  and   Melbourne,  segregation  is  considered  through  three  contexts:  1. The  dissimilarity  index  (D)  is  calculated  to  show  the  proportion  of  migrants  that   would  have  to  exchange  places  with  a  native  in  order  to  achieve  even  distribution.                                                                                                                   58  Johnston,  R.,  Poulsen,  M.,  and  Forrest,  J.,  (2007).  Ethnic  and  Racial  Segregation  in  U.S.   Metropolitan  Areas,  1980-­2000:  The  Dimensions  of  Segregation  Revisited,  Urban  Affairs   Review  42,  pp  479-­‐504   59  Ibid.,  Massey,  D.A.   and  Denton,  N.A.,  (1988).  pp  309,  797-­‐818    
  • 34.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     34     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne     E.g.,   a   score   of   0.24   indicates   that   24   per   cent   of   the   foreign   population   would   need  to  relocate  for  even  spatial  distribution  to  occur.  2. The   isolation   index   (P)   shows,   in   this   paper,   the   probability   that   a   randomly   chosen  foreigner  will  meet  with  another  foreigner.  E.g.,  a  score  of  0.31  shows  that   31  per  cent  of  foreigners  are  likely  to  interact  with  another  foreigner.  3. The  concentration  of  migrants  (C)  shows  the  foreign-­‐born  proportion  of  the  total   population  by  area.  This  data  is  represented  in  the  preceding  maps  and  provides  a   visual  support  to  understand  segregation  within  each  city   The  calculation  of  these  segregation  measures  is  set  out  in  Appendix  1.   Tracts   The  tracts  used  for  each  city  and  are  explained  below.   Barcelona   Barcelona   1991   2008   Geography   Zonas  de  estudio   Zonas  de  estudio   Units   248   248   Average  population   6,626   6,565       In   Barcelona,   zonas   de   estudio   were   used,   of   which   there   are   248   in   the   City   of   Barcelona.  In  1991,  each  zona  de  estudio  contained  an  average  6,005  persons  and   in  2008  there  was  an  average  of  6,565  persons.  60   London   London   1991   2001   Geography   1991  ward   2003  ward   Units   782   628   Average  population   8,536         11,786                                                                                                                       60  Ajuntament  de  Barcelona,  Department  of  Statistics,  accessed  April  2011   *   The   difference   in   the   number   of   wards   in   London   between   1991   and   2001   is   due   to   boundary  changes.    
  • 35.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     35     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    In   London,   data   for   wards   was   accessed*.   For   Greater   London,   there   were   782  wards  in  1991,  with  an  average  of  8,536  persons,  while  in  2001  there  were  628  wards  with  an  average  of  11,786  persons.  61  Melbourne  Melbourne   1996   2006  Geography   SLAs   SLAs  Units   79   79  Average  population   39,724       42,006      In  Melbourne,  data  related  to  statistical  local  areas,  of  which  there  are  79  in  the  Melbourne   statistical   region.   There   were   an   average   of   39,724   persons   in   each  SLA  in  1991  and  an  average  of  42,006  persons  in  2006.  62  Results  Barcelona  Table  1  –  Barcelona  statistical  profile  and  segregation  results,  1991  and  2008  Barcelona   1991   2008  Total  population   1,643,388       1,628,120      Foreign  population   23,329       291,379      Proportion  foreign-­born  (C)   1%   18%  Dissimilarity  index  (D)   0.32   0.23  Isolation  index  (P)   0.03   0.24  63  The   dissimilarity   index   for   Barcelona   fell   from   0.32   in   1991   to   0.23   in   2008,  indicating   that   over   this   period   the   even   distribution   of   the   foreign-­‐born  population   throughout   Barcelona   improved.   However,   using   data   for   secciones  censales,   of   which   there   are   1,061   (unavailable   for   1991),   the   level   of   spatial                                                                                                                  61  Office  for  National  Statistics,  Official  Labour  Market  Statistics,  accessed  April  2011  62  Australian  Bureau  of  Statistics,  Census  1996  and  Census  2006,  accessed  April  2011  (SLA:  statistical  local  area)  63  Ibid.,  Ajuntament  de  Barcelona,  April  2011    
  • 36.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     36     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    segregation   as   measured   by   the   dissimilarity   index   was   0.2910   in   2008.   This  difference   highlights   the   importance   of   context   in   calculating   and   interpreting  indices   and   other   measures,   which   government   and   the   private   sector   use   to  influence  policy  formation.  During   the   same   time   period,   the   isolation   index   increased   from   virtually   0   to  0.24,   indicating   that   segregation   on   the   basis   of   exposure   increased.   The  significant  demographic  changes  observed  over  the  17  years  to  2008,  which  saw  foreigners  as  a  proportion  of  the  total  population  in  Barcelona  rise  from  1  to  18  per   cent,   pushed   ethnic   diversity   to   levels   witnessed   in   other   global   cities.  Therefore,  while  the  isolation  index  increased  markedly,  its  rise  may  simply  be  a  statistical   anomaly   of   the   fact   that   the   foreign-­‐born   increased   from   such   a  negligible  proportion  in  1991  and  therefore  distorted  the  base  of  the  calculation.  As  migration  flows  continue  to  transform  Barcelona’s  demographic  profile,  it  can  be   hypothesised   that   the   level   of   segregation   as   measured   by   the   dissimilarity  index   will   continue   to   decline   provided   integration   policies   are   initiated   that  allow  for  the  even  spatial  distribution  of  migrants.  With   the   establishment   of   migrant   networks,   however,   the   isolation   index   may  potentially   increase   as   new   migrants   are   drawn   to   these   already   established  communities   in   order   to   take   advantage   of   network   forces.   Therefore,   migrants  are   likely   to   be   less   segregated   as   measured   by   evenness   while   segregation,   as  measured  by  exposure,  may  actually  worsen.  London  Table  2  –  London  statistical  profile  and  segregation  results,  1991  and  2001  London   1991   2001  Total  population   6,675,152       7,401,608        Foreign  population   1,673,502       2,390,920      C   25%   32%  D   0.27   0.25  P   0.31   0.38    
  • 37.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     37     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    64  The   dissimilarity   index   for   London   was   virtually   unchanged   between   1991   and  2001,   dropping   from   0.27   to   0.25.   This   reflects   a   level   of   stability   in   the   spatial  segregation   of   the   foreign-­‐born   in   London,   perhaps   suggesting   that   the   spatial  structure   at   an   institutional   level   and   the   ethnic   preferences   are   entrenched.  When   the   index   is   calculated   using  the   24,000   output   areas   surveyed   in   2001,   the  index  rises  to  0.28.  This   indicates  that  when  analysed  at  a  finer  level,  segregation  rises,   raising   key   questions   around   data   representation.   This   analysis  acknowledges   the   limits   of   the   units   chosen   and   simply   highlights   the   need   to  keep  in  mind  the  limitations  of  data  interpretation.  Between   1991   and   2001,   the   isolation   index   rose   from   0.31   to   0.38,   which  suggests   that   the   probability   that   migrants   will   encounter   natives   dropped   over  the  10-­‐year  period.  However,  within  the  context  of  London’s  immigration  history,  the  relatively  high  isolation  score  may  indicate  that  the  spatial  representation  of  migrants,  and  their  relative  segregation  functions  as  a  positive  factor.  As  has  been  highlighted  in  the  earlier  theoretical  analysis,  segregation  allows  for  the  creation  of   migrant   networks,   which   empirical   research   has   demonstrated   may   have   a  positive  influence  on  migrant  integration.    The  stability  of  the  dissimilarity  index  between  1991  and  2001,  may  suggest  that  London,  as  one  of  the  most  ethnically  diverse  global  cities,  has  reached  a  natural  rate  of  segregation,  on  which  increasing  migration  flows  and  changing  policy  have  little   impact.   The   level   of   isolation   also   rose   marginally   over   this   period,   which  may   indicate   that   as   the   proportion   of   foreign-­‐born   increases,   networks  strengthen,  which  points  to  segregation  in  London  acting  as  a  supportive,  rather  than  limiting  factor.                                                                                                                  64  Ibid.,  Office  for  National  Statistics,  April  2011    
  • 38.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     38     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Melbourne  Table  3  –  Melbourne  statistical  profile  and  segregation  results,  1996  and  2006  Melbourne   1996   2006  Total  population   3,138,188       3,318,496      Foreign  population   1,032,524       1,036,713      C   33%   31%  D   0.18   0.19  P   0.36   0.35  65  Between   1996   and   2006,   the   dissimilarity   index   for   Melbourne   was   essentially  unchanged,   rising  from  0.18  to  0.19.  In  comparison  to  Barcelona  and  London,  the  results   indicate   that   segregation   in   Melbourne   is   markedly   lower.   As   was  observed  in  Barcelona  and  London,  when  the  dissimilarity  index  is  calculated  at  a  smaller   geography   (census   collection   districts,   of   which   there   are   6,326),   the  index  increases,  to  0.23  in  this  case.  Segregation,   as   represented   through   exposure,   remained   virtually   unchanged  over  the  10  years  to  2006,  with  the  isolation  index  at  0.35.  This  may  indicate,  that  Melbourne,   a   city   founded   on   immigration   and   enjoying   a   relatively   even  distribution  of  the  foreign-­‐born  population,  may  be  functioning  at  a  natural  rate  of  segregation.  In  this  context,  migrant  communities  are  able  to  exist  as  separate  entities,  allowing  for  the  formation  and  maintenance  of  cultural  ties,  without  the  need   to   cut   contact   with   broader   society,   an   action   that   may   be   necessary   for  younger  migrant  communities,  in  order  to  guarantee  cultural  capital.    As  population  growth  in  Melbourne  continues  to  be  driven  primarily  by  foreign-­‐born   migrant   flows,   the   dissimilarity   index   is   expected   to   remain   at   the  comparatively   low   levels   witnessed   in   1996   and   2006.     The   isolation   index   is  similarly   expected   to   remain   stable,   as   migrant   networks   strengthen   and  concentrations   become   positive   sources   of   integration,   ensuring   interaction  continues  to  support  a  socially  and  economically  functioning  society.                                                                                                                  65  Ibid.,  Australian  Bureau  of  Statistics,  April  2011    
  • 39.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     39     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Comparative  analysis  Intercity  In  order  for  the  results  of  individual  cities  to  hold  weight,  intercity  comparisons  are   necessary.   These   comparisons   allow   for   similarities   and   distinctions   to   be  found   and   insights   to   be   made.   The   two   outstanding   results   of   this   analysis   are  the   marked   swing   in   Barcelona’s   foreign   population   and   the   low   D   value   in  Melbourne.  Table  4  –  Summary  of  migrant  segregation  in  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne  Variable   Barcelona   London   Melbourne  C  –  latest  data   18%   32%   31%  C  -­  change   +17  pp   +7  pp   -­‐2  pp  D  –  latest  data   0.27   0.25   0.19  D  -­  change   -­‐0.09   -­‐0.02   +0.01  P  –  latest  data   0.24   0.31   0.35  P  -­  change   -­‐0.21   +0.07   -­‐0.01  Table   4   shows   that   of   the   three   cities,   Barcelona   was   home   to   the   lowest  proportion   of   foreigners,   despite   a   marked   increase   between   time   periods.  Meanwhile,  the  proportion  dropped  marginally  in  Melbourne,  but  remained  high  and   matched   the   level   experienced   in   London.   The   rapid   urbanisation   and  modernisation   that   Barcelona   underwent   between   1991   and   2008   appears   to  indicate   that   migration   is   either   an   influencing   factor   of   this   process   or   an  outcome.  As   the   foreign   proportion   in   Barcelona   increased,   the   dissimilarity   index   declined  to   levels   more   in   line   with   London   and   Melbourne,   where   the   index   remained  virtually   unchanged.   One   reading   of   this   result   may   be   to   attribute   the   greater  concentration   of   foreigners   to   their   more   even   spatial   distribution,   which   could  be   explained   by   the   maturing   of   migrant   networks.   As   these   networks   become  established,  they  may  allow  new  migrants  to  settle  in  disparate  areas  of  the  city  and  maintain  the  necessary  cultural  and  economic  connections,  thereby  removing  the  reliance  on  physical  concentrations  for  the  maintenance  of  these  linkages.    
  • 40.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     40     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Spatial   segregation   eased   in   London   while   the   proportion   of   foreign-­‐born   rose  above   30   per   cent,   possibly   influenced   by   an   easing   of   immigration   controls   in  response   to   labour   demands.   This   new   paradigm   saw   London   emerge   as   a  popular  destination  amongst  Asian  (India,  Pakistan  and  Bangladesh)  and  Middle  Eastern   (Turkey)   migrants   whose   second   language   of   choice   was   English.  Government   policy   in   London   prescribes   certain   levels   of   diversity   in   economic  and  ethnic  terms  and  the  declining  level  of  segregation  may  be  attributable  to  this  approach.   On   the   other   hand,   segregation   may   have   naturally   declined   as   the  proportion   of   foreigners   increased   and   London   became   more   experienced   at  spatially  integrating  migrants  to  achieve  a  more  even  distribution.  The   dissimilarity   index   in   Melbourne   was   clearly   the   lowest   of   the   three   cities  analysed  across  both  periods.  Melbourne  is  still  maturing  as  a  global  city  in  terms  of   economic   and   cultural   influence,   however,   in   terms   of   migratory   history,   it   is  the  city  with  the  most  complete  experience;  having  been  founded  on  immigration.  The   low   D   score   could   be   interpreted   as   an   indication   of   the   interconnected  nature  of  the  relationship  the  city  has  with  migration.  Playing  such  a  crucial  role  in   the   city’s   evolution,   migration   is   likely   to   have   influenced   the   initial   and  subsequent   spatial   patterns   of   migrants,   whose   social   and   economic   integration  was   key   to   Melbourne’s   advancement.   The   internationally   low   score   may  therefore   indicate   that   the   spatial   segregation   of   migrants   can   be   minimised   by  creating  a  city  while  acknowledging  and  embracing  the  presence  of  migrants,  as  was  self-­‐evident  in  Melbourne.  Another   factor   to   consider   in   explaining   spatial   segregation   results   is   the  evolutionary   status   of   a   city,   as   the   distinct   historic   contexts   of   each   city   may  explain   current   patterns   of   segregation.   The   cities   of   Barcelona,   London   and  Melbourne   each   experienced   the   beginning   and   expansion   of   migration   flows   at  different   points   in   their   evolution,   and   the   profile   and   context   of   this   migration  was  also  distinct  for  each  city.  London,   as   one   of   the   original   global   cities,   has   been   a   city   of   migration   for  centuries   and   its   place   in   the   world   as   a   point   of   transience   has   seen   migration  flows   continue   to   increase   over   the   last   decades.   Despite   being   a   well-­‐established    
  • 41.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     41     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    society,   the   declining   spatial   segregation   score   indicates   that   the   city   has   been  able   to   integrate   migrants   through   a   combination   of   policy   (social   diversification)  and  cultural  frameworks  (multiculturalism).  The  diversification  policy  of  London  involves   the   conscious   establishment   of   policy   targets   aimed   at   ensuring   the  socioeconomic   and   ethnic   profile   of   areas   remains   balanced.   An   example   of   this  policy   relates   to   housing,   where   each   borough   of   London   must   contain   a   mix   of  residential,   commercial   affordable   property   stock,   as   well   as   having   access   to  public   space   and   essential   services   such   as   health   care   and   education.  Multiculturalism   is   currently   undergoing   debate   in   the   UK   as   the   city   grapples  with  constantly  changing  dynamics.  The  impact  of  this  historically  rooted  policy  on   migrant   segregation   is   not   clear,   however   its   withdrawal   is   undoubtedly   likely  to  affect  how  migrants  spatially  locate.  As   a   city   founded   on   migration,   the   evolution   of   Melbourne   took   place  simultaneously  to  the  integration  of  migrants.  This  resulted  in  the  formation  of  a  city   whose   structural   and   social   form   was   determined   to   some   degree   by  migrants   themselves.   Their   strong   cultural   presence   –   evident   in   the   well-­‐established   Little   Italys,   Chinatowns   and   Greek   Quarters   scattered   through   the  city   –   along   with   the   virtually   non-­‐existent   levels   of   reported   intercultural  conflict,  may  indicate  that  low  levels  of  migrant  segregation  in  Melbourne’s  may  be   the   reward   of   its   migration   history.   The   stability   observed   in   Melbourne,   in  terms   of   the   foreign-­‐born   population   and   the   dissimilarity   index,   may   indicate  that   the   well-­‐established   culture   of   migration   in   Melbourne   has   resulted   in   the  consistent   spatial   integration   of   migrants.   It   may   also   suggest   that   there   is   a  natural  level  of  both  the  foreign-­‐born  population  and  their  segregation.    Barcelona,   in   contrast   to   Melbourne,   is   a   city   with   a   significant   history   but   has  only   experienced   migrant   inflows   over   the   past   two   decades.   The   influx   of  migrants   was   recorded   alongside   a   significant   decline   in   the   level   of   spatial  segregation   in   Barcelona,   the   outlier   city   in   this   analysis.   This   may   be   explained  by   its   ability   to   apply   integration   lessons   learnt   in   older   countries   of   migration  and   effectively   ‘leapfrog’   the   more   moderate   improvements   in   segregation  reduction   seen   in   London.   An   alternative   interpretation   highlights   the   dramatic  change   in   the   foreign-­‐born   proportion   that   took   place   between   the   periods    
  • 42.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     42     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    analysed.  The  significant  migration  flows  into  Barcelona  took  place  in  a  city  that  was  sufficiently  urbanised  by  the  end  of  the  20th  and  beginning  of  the  21st  century  and   therefore   migrants   integrated   themselves   into   existing   economic,   physical  and  social  structures.  This  context  is  very  different  to  the  one  that  faced  London  and  Melbourne,  where  migrants  were  part  of  the  formation  of  the  city.  One  may  infer   that   Barcelona   was   able   to   drastically   reduce   segregation   despite   an  increasing   foreign-­‐born   proportion   as   a   result   of   pre-­‐existing   social,   economic  and   physical   structures,   a   result   that   follows,   but   to   a   much   greater   degree,   the  changes  observed  in  London.  In   order   to   add   weight   to   the   assertion   that   a   natural   level   of   foreigners   and  segregation  exists  within  global  cities,  consideration  across  an  increased  number  of   cities   and   periods   is   required.   The   following   section   highlights   the   results  across   a   limited   number   of   cities   and   this   study   provides   the   basis   for   further  research  in  this  area.    Global  cities  In   terms   of   providing   an   international   context,   the   proportion   and   spatial  segregation  of  foreigners  in  global  cities  within  10  other  countries  are  considered.  Using  the  results  of  this  analysis,  it  is  possible  to  make  an  observation  that  there  exists  a  particular  ethnic  profile  that  defines  global  cities.  The  foreign  proportion  rose   strongly   in   Barcelona   and   more   moderately   in   London,   but   stabilised   in  Melbourne  at  31  per  cent  of  the  total.  This  may  suggest  that  as  a  proportion  of  the  total  population,  a  30  per  cent  ‘threshold’  applies  to  global  cities.  This  observation  is  confirmed  when  comparing  the  results  with  other  global  cities  (London:  32  per  cent,  New  York:  29  per  cent,  Paris:  31  per  cent,  Zurich:  30  per  cent,  San  Francisco:  30  per  cent,  Toronto:  45  per  cent  and  Frankfurt:  28  per  cent).66  The   journey   towards   current   ethnic   structures   has   differed   for   the   three   cities  analysed.   However,   the   increases   observed   in   Barcelona   and   to   a   lesser   extent  London,  together  with  the  slight  decline  that  took  place  in  Melbourne,  point  to  a                                                                                                                  66  Benton-­‐Short,  L.M.,  M.  Price  and  S.  Friedman.  (2005).  Globalization  from  Below:  Ranking  World  Cities,  International  Journal  of  Urban  and  Regional  Research  29(4):  pp  945-­‐959    
  • 43.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     43     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    dynamic   process   that   continues   alongside   the   similarly   evolving   processes   of  urbanisation.   In   order   to   clarify   whether   greater   foreign   populations   are   a  precursor  of  this  urbanising  trend  or  an  outcome,  as  well  as  proving  the  assertion  that   there   exists   a   natural   ethnic   profile   of   global   cities,   further   research   is  necessary.  Table  5  –  The  spatial  segregation  and  proportion  of  the  foreign-­born  in  global  cities  City  (Country)   Year   D   C  Barcelona  (Spain)67   2008   0.27   18%  London  (United  Kingdom  )68   2001   0.25   32%  Melbourne  (Australia  )69   2006   0.19   31%  Avg  all  cities  (Japan  )70   2006   0.29   2%  Zurich  (Switzerland  )71   2000   0.33   30%  Paris  (France)72   1999   0.23   31%  Athens  (Greece  )73   2001   0.19   24%  Rome  (Italy)74   2001   0.38   17%  Gateway  Cities*  (USA)75   2000   0.48   28%  New  Destinations**  (USA)   2000   0.41   14%  Avg  all  cities  (Mexico)76   2000   0.50   1%  Avg  all  cities  (Germany)75   2000   0.36   28%                                                                                                                  67  Author’s  calculation,  June  2011  68  Ibid.,  June  2011  69  Ibid.,  June  2011  70  Census  Japan  2006,  accessed  May  2011,    71  Swiss  Population  Census  2000,  accessed  May  2011,    72  Sari,  F,  (May  2009).,  Living  in  deprived  neighbourhoods  in  the  Paris  agglomeration:  an  empirical  analysis,  Centre  d’Etudes  de  l’Emploi  et  TEPP,  pg  14  73  National  Centre  for  Social  Research,  (2005).  Panorama  of  Greek  census  data  1991-­2001,  accessed  May  2011,  http://www.grsr.gr/preview.php?c_id=220  74  Bonifazi,  C,  Heins,  F  and  Strozza,  S.,  (2007)  The  settlement  patterns  of  the  foreign  population  in  Italy  at  the  start  of  the  21st  century,  http://209.128.81.248/view/167187-­‐ZmJjY/4th_International_Conference_on_Population_Geographies_The_Chinese_University_of_Hong_Kong_1013_July_flash_ppt_presentation  75  Park,  J  and  Iceland,  J,  (2009).  Immigrant  Residential  Segregation  in  the  U.S.  in  Established  Immigrant  Gateways  and  New  Destinations  1990-­2000,  Princeton  University,  pp  9-­‐10  76-­‐  77    Anderson,  R.M.,  Ellison,  G  and  Fudenberg,  D.,  (2005).  Location  Choice  in  Two-­Sided  Market  with  Invisible  Agents,  Harvard  Institute  of  Economic  Research,  Discussion  Paper  2056,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  http://www.economics.harvard.edu/pub/hier/2005/HIER2071.pdf    
  • 44.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     44     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    Avg  all  cities  (India)76   2000   0.59   0.1%  Avg  all  cities  (China)77   2000   0.62   0.2%  *  Include  cities  such  as  Boston,  Chicago,  Los  Angeles,  New  York  and  San  Francisco.  **Include  cities  such  as  Atlanta,  Dallas,  Orlando,  Phoenix,  Seatle  and  Washington  D.C  Table   5   shows   the   stark   differences   in   residential   segregation   and   the   foreign  profile   in   other   global   cities   (due   to   data   limitations,   the   average   of   all   cities  within  a  particular  country  has  been  used  in  some  cases).  This   international   comparison   allows   for   a   number   of   observations.   In   terms   of  the   proportion   of   foreign-­‐born,   there   is   a   clear   distinction   between   northern  European  and  other  well-­‐developed  cities,  excluding  Japan,  and  those  of  southern  Europe   (Barcelona,   Rome   and   Athens).   In   the   first   group   of   cities,   the   foreign-­‐born   represent   close   to   or   over   30   per   cent   of   the   total   population,   while   in   the  southern   European   group,   the   proportion   is   below   20%.   Time   series   data   and  additional   analysis   is   required   to   draw   firm   conclusions,   however,   results   may  indicate   that   increased   foreigner-­‐presence   is   linked   to   more   developed  economies.   This   foreign   presence   may   be   the   initiating   factor   of   economic  development,   as   foreigners   provide   labour,   contribute   innovation   and   balance  demographic  profiles,  thereby  supporting  an  environment  for  growth  that  relies  on  a  steadily  expanding  tax  base  and  consumption.  Or  their  presence  may  be  the  consequence   of   development.   With   economic   advancement,   countries   have   a  greater  humanitarian  obligation,  which  results  in  increased  migrant  and  refugee  intake.  More  developed  countries  also  have  a  greater  need  for  a  steady  supply  of  foreigners  to  maintain  the  economic  paradigm  labour  markets  and  governments  find  themselves  in.  A   concrete   conclusion   regarding   the   level   of   segregation   in   other   global   cities   is  difficult  to  make  and  the  results  of  the  dissimilarity  index  appear  to  cut  across  a  number  of  different  contexts.  When  considering  the  level  of  development,  we  see  scores   of   0.25   (London),   0.19   (Melbourne),   0.36   (Germany)   and   0.48   (USA)   in  cities   that   could   all   be   classified   as   highly   developed,   while   results   are   similarly  mixed  for  cities  possessing  a  lower  level  of  economic  power  with  scores  of  0.27  (Barcelona),   0.19   (Athens)   and   0.50   (Mexico).   Equally,   levels   of   segregation   are    
  • 45.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     45     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    scattered  when  overarching  migration  policies  are  considered.  In  Paris,  where  the  migration  policy  is  decidedly  assimilationist,  the  dissimilarity  index  is  0.23.    Cities  that   support   the   guest-­‐worker   model   such   as   Germany   and   Switzerland   have  scores   of   0.36   (all   German   cities)   and   0.33   (Zurich)   respectively.   While   in   cities  that   champion   multiculturalism,   scores   of   0.25   (London),   0.19   (Melbourne)   and  0.48   (USA)   are   evident.   Additional   time   series   data   is   necessary   in   order   to  interpret  and  link  economic  and  policy  changes  with  changing  levels  of  foreigners  and  their  segregation  within  cities.  While   a   clear   pattern   in   the   proportion   of   foreign-­‐born   or   the   level   of   segregation  is   difficult   to   observe,   three   key   points   can   be   made.   Firstly,   a   single   value   to  describe   spatial   segregation   does   not   provide   great   insight   without  understanding   the   trend   established   through   multiple   time   points.   Secondly,  while   international   comparisons   are   interesting,   they   do   not   present   significant  value   or   insight   into   the   forces   driving   segregation   or   its   implications.   It   is   only  through  the  contextualisation  of  the  social,  economic  and  physical  structure  of  the  city   that   the   dissimilarity   index   has   a   role   to   play   in   the   consideration   and  recasting   of   government   policy.   Finally,   an   understanding   of   segregation   at   a  global   governmental   level   is   important   in   order   to   acknowledge   similarities   and  differences   between   cities   and   identify   risks   and   opportunities   in   integration  policies  at  a  social,  economic  and  spatial  level.  Conclusions  and  recommendations  Conclusions  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne  are  distinctly  different  cities  in  terms  of  their  structural  and  cultural  evolution,  which  has  influenced  power  relations  between  different   groups,   economic   development   and   demographic   change.   As   global  cities,  inextricably  linked  with  the  process  of  migration,  there  is  an  obligation,  and  opportunity,  to  integrate  migrants  for  mutual  gain.  This   study   seeks   to   analyse   how   segregation   exists   in   three   global   cities   –  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne  –  and  promotes  the  consideration  of  seemingly  disparate,  yet  fundamentally  connected  forces,  including  demographic  evolution,    
  • 46.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     46     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    cultural   trends,   government   policy   and   the   structural   form   in   interpreting  segregation.  Through  a  comparative  global  analysis,  it  specifically  seeks  to  draw  attention   to   the   consideration   of   segregation   at   a   city   level,   which   has   been  empirically  proven  to  play  a  key  role  in  successful  migrant  integration.    Barcelona’s  ethnic  profile  has  undergone  significant  change  over  the  17  years  to  2008,  recording  a  spike  in  the  proportion  of  foreign-­‐born  from  1  per  cent  in  1991  to  18  per  cent.  The  city  has  experienced  declining  levels  of  residential  segregation  of   the   foreign-­‐born   population,   as   measured   by   the   dissimilarity   index,   while  segregation,   as   measured   by   the   isolation   index   has   increased.   This   indicates   that  while   migrant   flows   have   accelerated,   there   has   been   both   the   more   even  distribution  of  migrants  (as  the  dissimilarity  index  drops)  as  well  as  the  creation  of   distinct   self-­‐contained   migrant   communities   (evidenced   by   a   higher   score   on  the  isolation  index).  In   London   the   dissimilarity   index   was   virtually   unchanged,   indicating   that   the  distribution   of   foreign-­‐born   persons   between   1991   and   2001   remained   relatively  constant.   Meanwhile,   the   level   of   isolation   increased,   which   may   indicate   the  increasing  strength  of  networks.  As  the  dissimilarity  index  remains  comparatively  low,   it   is   unlikely   that   the   swing   towards   greater   segregation   represents   a  negative  force.  Melbourne   has   been   a   city   of   migration   for   several   decades   and   no   discernible  change  in  the  proportion  of  foreign-­‐born  persons  was  observed  over  the  10-­‐year  period   considered.   Similarly,   the   level   of   segregation   as   measured   in   terms   of  evenness   and   exposure   did   not   changed   markedly.   However,   the   most   striking  change   can   be   observed   in   the   spatial   profile   of   the   foreign-­‐born   population,   with  a   strong   shift   to   the   inner   and   outer   suburbs,   for   lifestyle   and   affordability  reasons  respectively.  The   formation   of   spatial   segregation   occurs   at   various   levels   and   its   render   is  determined   by   seemingly   disparate   but   fundamentally   interrelated   factors.  Migratory  circumstances,  reception  on  arrival,  integration  policies,  socioeconomic  status,   cultural   norms   and   ingrained   native   attitudes,   reflected   in   the   level   of  discrimination   and   prejudice   latent   in   the   host   society   all   contribute   to   its    
  • 47.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     47     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    formation.   Other   factors   highlighted   in   this   study   include   the   influence   of  networks  and  government  policy  on  how  segregation  is  represented.    Addressing  segregation  requires  a  flexible  approach,  at  a  national  and  city  level,  which   takes   into   account   the   preferences   and   prejudices   of   the   migrant   and   the  host   society.   Linkages   between   segregation   and   factors   indicative   of   integration  have  been  well  established  by  Massey  and  Denton;  therefore  a  commitment  at  a  planning   level   is   crucial   in   order   to   understand   its   representation   and   stand   a  better   chance   of   achieving   the   socioeconomic   equality,   residential   and   personal  mobility  and  freedom  to  which  the  migratory  process  aspires.77  A  number  of  questions  arise  from  this  analysis  demanding  additional  research.  Will  immigrant  segregation  stabilise  as  cities  continue  to  urbanise?  How  will  the  changing  ethnic  profile  of  immigration  flows,  largely  determined  by  geopolitical   fluctuations   and   national   policy,   influence   levels   of   migrant  segregation?  How   is   the   socioeconomic   advancement   and   cultural   assimilation   of   migrants  influenced  by  their  patterns  of  segregation?  How   much   of   a   factor   is   the   city   in   determining   the   render   of   segregation;  whether  it  exists  as  a  positive  force  through  migrant  networks  or  a  limiting  factor  driven  by  attitudinal  and  social  discrimination?  Global  cities  of  the  future  Global   trends   are   leading   to   increasing   urbanism,   driven   by   immigration,   and  reflected  primarily  in  cities,  which  remain  the  ‘bedrock  of  integration.’78  As  hubs  of  diversity  –  of  opinion,  culture  and  ideology  –  cities  provide  the  atmosphere  in  which   this   diversity   can   be   embraced   and   celebrated.   However,   attaining   this  utopia   relies   on   coordinated   action   at   all   levels   of   the   public   and   private   sector.  Not   only   do   central   governments   have   a   part   to   play   in   the   design   of   national                                                                                                                  77    Ibid.,  Massey,  D.  and  Denton,  M.,  (1998)  78  Ray,  B.,  (2002).  Immigrant  Integration:  Building  to  Opportunity,  Migration  Policy  Institute:  http://www.migrationinformation.org/      
  • 48.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     48     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    policy,   in   order   to   facilitate   and   positively   influence   migrant   integration,   but   local  authorities   also   play   a   crucial,   perhaps   more   important   role,   in   influencing  migrant   city-­‐level   integration.   Cities   are   becoming   increasingly   important   in  maintaining   nation-­‐state   political   stability   by   advancing   economic   and   social  development.   The   role   of   the   city   entity,   and   the   governments,   institutions,  organisations   and   individuals   of   which   it   comprises,   will   therefore   become  increasingly   important   in   the   future,   which   reiterates   the   crucial   relationship  cities  have  with  migrants,  a  leading  actors  in  each  other’s  future.  Pennix  questions  at  what  level  policy  decisions  determining  the  profile  and  scale  of   immigration   (traditionally   organised   at   a   national   level)   should   be   made   as  well   as   who   should   manage   the   social   integration   of   migrants   (a   responsibility  that  cities  have  and  must  continue  to  control).79  Without  defined  roles  and  a  clear  understanding  of  the  relationship,  cities  risk  a  fractured  integration  process,  which  has  the  potential  to  lead  to  social  exclusion,  spatial   segregation,   discrimination   and   inevitably   conflict.   This   conflict,   brought  on   by   migrants’   inability   to   access   housing,   the   labour   market   or   enjoy   social  mobility,  impacts  not  only  at  a  city  level,  but  cuts  across  all  levels  of  society,  which  makes   the   coordination   of   policies   even   more   important.   Equipping   cities   with  the  skills  and  authority  to  effect  integrative  policies  is  crucial  in  order  to  ensure  the  negative  outcomes  of  immigration,  experienced  by  both  the  migrant  and  city  are  minimised  and  the  positive  outcomes  amplified.  It   is   in   global   cities   where   cultural   diversity   truly   flourishes.   Barcelona,   London  and   Melbourne   are   most   definitely   global   cities   and   receive   migrants   from   all  corners.   These   cities   define   the   cultural,   social,   and   religious   diversity   that  appears  a  necessary  factor  for  places  to  thrive  –  in  a  social  and  economic  context  –   in   an   era   of   global   interconnectedness.   Managing   this   cultural   diversity   and  ensuring  it  does  not  lead  to  negative  representations  of  segregation  will  be  a  key  challenge   facing   cities   aiming   to   remain   both   socially   inclusive   and   culturally  diverse.                                                                                                                  79  Pennix,  R.,  (2003)  Integration:  The  role  of  Communities,  Institutions  and  the  State,  Migration  Policy  Institute:  http://www.migrationinformation.org/      
  • 49.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     49     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    In   order   to   encourage   integration,   migrant   needs   –   spanning   education,   labour  market   entry,   health   and   housing   –   must   be   addressed.   While   education,  employment   and   health   may   be   more   effectively   addressed   at   a   national   level,  housing  requires  a  coordinated  approach  to  distinguish  between  segregated  and  desegregated  areas  and  to  also  acknowledge  the  various  types  of  segregation  that  may  exist  within  one  distinct  area.  The   evolution   of   urban   areas   into   global   cities   reflects   a   patchwork   history   of  actions   and   decisions   by   social,   economic   and   political   entities   from   diverse  backgrounds.  These  formative  actions  relating  to  construction,  density,  land  use,  infrastructure   economic   priorities   and   social   policies,   were   generally   made   in   the  context   of   homogeneity,   when   migration-­‐driven   diversity   was   not   an   obvious  characteristic,   and   the   results   must   now   be   adapted   to   the   current   pluralistic  environment.   This   is   true   for   the   modern   version   of   the   cities   founded   in   the  1800s,  such  as  the  three  considered,  or  those  of  more  recent  creation,  established  with  a  greater  awareness  of  the  role  of  urban  areas  in  providing  contexts  where  socioeconomic  equality  could  be  pursued.  Recommendations  At  a  national  level  Addressing   segregation   at   a   national   level   is   made   possible   by   the   public   policy  framework   –   where   government   is   both   the   source   of   regulation   and   the  regulative   institution   –   which   interprets   the   roles   of   other   institutions   and   sets  the   tone   for   society’s   involvement   in   the   process.   However,   as   the   forces   of  globalisation   dilute   the   regulative   power   of   the   nation-­‐state,   inter-­‐institutional  interactions  must  be  viewed  in  a  new  light.  No   single   level   of   government   has   the   power   to   determine   the   spatial  representation   and   development   of   places.   Instead,   that   power   is   spread   across  the   entire   institutional   framework,   with   multiple   actors   involved   in   the   policy  making  process.  This   laissez-­‐faire   environment   has   allowed   the   positive   involvement   of   not   for  profit   organisations,   whose   broad   aims   are   to   assist   the   migratory   process   and    
  • 50.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     50     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    minimise  the  causes  of  intercultural  conflict.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  also  seen  the   entry   of   profit-­‐oriented   organisations,   whose   motivations   are   less   clear.   In  exerting  their  influence  over  urban  development,  profit-­‐based  organisations  –  in  response   to   market   forces   –   commodify   people   and   place.   This   market-­‐based  approach  has  the  potential  to  create  rich  enclaves  and  ghettos  for  the  poor,  both  of  which  achieve  economies  of  scale  in  the  provision  of  housing  and  services.80  As  place  becomes  commodified  and  economised,  the  power  to  determine  the  type  and  level  of  service  shifts  away  from  the  public  sector,  which  has  a  more  relaxed  mandate   in   how   efficiently   it   must   provide   services,   towards   the   private   sector,  whose   economic   models,   rather   than   area-­‐specific   needs,   determine   tight,   cost-­‐effective  service  provision.  This  shift  is  evident  in  the  increasing  privatisation  of  key  services  such  as  education,  public  transport,  health  and  housing.  The  commercialistion  of  these  essential  services  pushes  the  costs  beyond  those  at  lower   socioeconomic   levels,   the   groupings   of   which   often   coincide   with   spatial  representation.   The   individuals   living   in   these   areas   are   forced   to   adjust   their  standard  of  living  in  terms  of  consumption  and  more  importantly,  their  place  of  residence.   This   adjustment   commonly   involves   the   choice   to   locate   in   more  affordable   neighbourhoods,   which   are   also   likely   to   be   more   segregated,   further  reinforcing  existing  disadvantages.81  The  shift  in  regulative  control  of  places  towards  private  institutions  has  resulted  in  a  recalibration  of  the  services  profile  of  specific  neighbourhoods.  Tiebout  found  that  the  type  and  cost  of  services  influences  the  profile  of  the  residents  drawn  to  these  areas.  Those  persons  desiring  a  particular  level  of  public  good,  who  possess  the   ability   to   pay   for   that   public   good,   will   live   in   areas   that   match   these   needs.  Therefore,  it  can  be  observed  that  people  at  similar  socioeconomic  levels  live  in  the  same  area  as  each  other  (spatial  segregation  on  the  basis  of  class),  a  pattern  with  the  potential  for  replication  in  the  context  of  ethnicity.  The  declining  role  of  the   state   in   regulating   the   distribution   of   these   essential   services,   together   with                                                                                                                  80  Ibid.,  Madanipour,  A.,  (2003).  pp  181-­‐188  81  Massey,  D.  S.,  (2009).  Globalization  and  Inequality:  Explaining  American  Exceptionalism,  European  Sociological  Review,  pp  9-­‐23    
  • 51.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     51     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    the   entry   of   profit-­‐motivated   organisations,   has   the   potential   to   exacerbate   the  disadvantage  faced  by  individuals  in  their  spatial  outcome.82    At  a  national  level,  policy  dictates  the  level  and  type  of  migrant  that  enters,  which  impacts   their   spatial   representation   and   integration   outcomes.   At   this   national  level   –   where   policy   dictates   assimilation,   multiculturalism   or   a   combination   of  the   two   –   influence   over   the   formation   and   outcomes   of   segregation   is   at   its  strongest.83  At  a  city  level  While  the  number  and  type  of  immigrants  may  be  determined  at  a  national  level  –  sowing   the   seeds   of   segregation   –   it   is   at   a   city   level   that   spatial   segregation   is  represented  and  its  effects  most  sharply  interpreted.  The   spatial   representation   and   subsequent   concentration   of   ethnic   groups   is   a  reality   city   authorities   and   planners   must   accept   as   a   result   of   large   and  increasing   flows   of   migrants   from   diverse   origins.   The   resultant   dispersion   of  these  groups  throughout  the  city  can  add  to  the  cultural  capital  of  the  place  and  support  migrant  integration  through  the  existence  of  networks.  However,  it  may  also   present   a   source   of   conflict,   as   cultures   interact,   and   in   some   cases   clash,  thereby  delaying  integration.  The   ability   to   manage   the   fluidity   of   immigration   flows   and   the   fixedness   of   place  is   a   complex   challenge   that   policymakers   in   global   cities   must   consider   in   the  existing   paradigm   of   increasing   urbanisation,   driven   primarily   by   international  migration   to   cities.   Governments   at   a   national   level   have   the   task   of   building  inclusive  societies  that  foster  integration  and  assist  policy  aims  located  along  the  spectrum  of  assimilation  and  multiculturalism.  At  the  next  level  down,  authorities  are   charged   with   the   challenge   of   creating   and   sustaining   cities   that   allow   for  economic   advancement,   social   mobility   and   equality   of   access   to   housing,   key                                                                                                                  82  Tiebout,  C.  M.,  (1956).  The  pure  theory  of  local  expenditures,  Journal  of  political  economy,  pp  416-­‐424  83  Murdie,  R.  A.  and  Borgegaerd  L.,  (August  1997).  Immigration,  Spatial  Segregation  and  Housing  Segmentation  of  Immigrants  in  Metropolitan  Stockholm,  1960-­1995,  Urban  Studies,  Vol.  35,  No.  10:  pg  1872    
  • 52.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     52     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    services   and   the   labour   market,   all   of   which   combine   to   improve   integration  outcomes  and  reduce  the  potential  for  intercultural  conflict.  However  segregation  is  not  the  sole  cause  of  intercultural  conflict.  Indeed,  there  is  no  direct  correlation  between  spatial  segregation  and  integration.  Segregation  is  a  key   characteristic   of   cities,   evident   since   their   inception   and   is   “…a   universal  phenomenon,  which  is  as  old  as  the  city  itself.  The  socio-­‐spatial  structure  of  the  city  can  be  read  like  a  map  recording  the  structure  of  society.”84  If   segregation   is   an   accepted   phenomenon   based   on   hierarchy   and   incentives,  then   the   focus   of   policy,   at   any   level,   must   be   on   ensuring   this   segregation   does  not   lead   to   exclusion   and   polarisation   and   instead   encourages   integration   and  individual  and  societal  advancement.  While   fundamental   social,   economic,   and   financial   policies   are   developed   at   a  national  level,  it  is  at  the  local,  city  level  where  the  social  and  economic  affairs  of  individual   groups   become   most   visible   and   inequalities   most   easily   rectified.  Cities   are   to   a   large   extent   responsible   for   the   daily   urban   activities   that   are  crucial   to   the   social   and   economic   inclusion   of   residents   and   ensuring   the  opportunity  for  interaction  between  different  groups  remains  a  key  activity.    The  challenge  facing  suburban  municipalities,  where  the  majority  of  segregation  is   observed,   involves   being   able   to   provide   the   necessary   services   to   encourage  social   inclusion   and   integration.   It   is   necessary   for   neighbourhoods   to   promote  cross-­‐cultural  communication  and  encourage  interaction  among  individuals  from  diverse   cultural   backgrounds,   in   spaces   that   are   still   adapting   to   the   context   of  plurality  that  they  now  exist  within.  To  remain  competitive  within  the  globalised  setting  they  exist  within,  cities  must  create   environments   conducive   to   social   inclusion   by   consciously   undertaking  urban   management   initiatives   that   are   positive   in   terms   of   outcomes   for  immigrants,   natives   and   society   as   a   whole,   which   relies   on   the   successful  interaction  between  the  two  for  harmonious  evolution.                                                                                                                  84  Haubermann  &  Siebel,  quoted  in  Aleman,  Alonso.,  (2001).  A  theoretical  framework  of  the  integration  process  of  barrios  in  Caracas,  Venezuela,  pg  1      
  • 53.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     53     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne     Works  cited  • Ajuntament  de  Barcelona,  Department  of  Statistics,  accessed  April  2011  • 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)  • Australian   Bureau   of   Statistics,   Census   1996   and   Census   2006,   accessed   April   2011  (SLA:  statistical  local  area,  CCD:  census  collection  district)  • 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  • Bauder,  H.,  and  Sharpe,  B.,  (2002).   Residential  segregation  of  visible  minorities  in   Canadas  gateway  cities,  The  Canadian  Geographer,  46(3)  • Beaverstock,   J.,   (July   1998).   Globalization   and   the   World   Cities   Research   Network   (GaWC),  GaWC  Research  Bulletin  5,  GaWC,  Loughborough  University  • Beck,  U.,  (2000).  What  is  Globalisation?,  Cambridge,  UK:  Polity  Press  • Bell,   W.,   (1954).   A   Probability   Model   for   the   Measurement   of   Ecological   Segregation,  Social  Forces  32  • Benton-­‐Short,   L.M.,   M.   Price   and   S.   Friedman.   (2005).   Globalization   from   Below:   Ranking  World  Cities,  International  Journal  of  Urban  and  Regional  Research  29(4):   pp  945-­‐959  • Bertrand,   M.,   Luttmer,   E.,   and   Mullainathan,   S.,   (October   1998).   Network   Effects   and  Welfare  Cultures,  Princeton  University,  Working  Paper  405  • 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  • Boozer,   M.   A,.   Krueger,   A.   B.,   and   Wolkin,   S.,   (1992).   Race   and   School   Quality   Since   Brown   v   Board   of   education,   Brookings   Papers   on   Economic   Activity:   Microeconomics  • Cabre,   A.   and   Módenes,   J.   A.,   (2004).   Home   Ownership   and   Social   Inequality   in   Spain,  Centre  d’Estudis  Demogràfics,  Stanford:  Stanford  University  Press  • Castells,   M.,   (1996).   The   Rise   of   the   Network   Society,   The   Information   Age:   Economy,   Society   and   Culture   (Vol.   1).   Cambridge,   Oxford:   Blackwell   Publishing   Ltd    
  • 54.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     54     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    • Cotter,  D.  A.,  JoAnn  DeFiore,  J.,  Hermsen,  J.M.,  Kowalewski,  B.  M.,  and  Vanneman,   R.,  (1997).  All  women  benefit:  the  macro-­level  effect  of  occupational  integration  on   gender  earnings  equality,  American  Sociological  Review  62  • Cutler,  D.,  and  Glaeser,  E,.  (1997).  Are  Ghettos  Good  or  Bad?,  Quarterly  Journal  of   Economics  112  • Fairbairn,   K.,   &   Khatun,   H.,   (1989).   Residential   segregation   and   the   interurban   migration  of  South  Asians  in  Edmonton,  Canadian  Ethnic  Studies,  21  • French,   K.   N.,   (2008).   Patterns   and   Consequences   of   Segregation:   An   analysis   of   Ethnic   residential   patterns   at   two   geographic   scales,   University   of   Nebraska,   Lincoln  • Friedmann,  J.,  (1995).  The  World  City  Hypothesis.  World  Cities  in  a  World  System,   Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press  • 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.  • Haubermann  &  Siebel,  quoted  in  Aleman,  Alonso.,  (2001).  A  theoretical  framework   of  the  integration  process  of  barrios  in  Caracas,  Venezuela  • James,   D.   and   Taeuber,   K.,   (1985).   Measures   of   Segregation,   Sociological   Methodology  15  • Johnston,  R.,  Poulsen,  M.,  and  Forrest,  J.,  (2007).  Ethnic  and  Racial  Segregation  in   U.S.   Metropolitan   Areas,   1980-­2000:   The   Dimensions   of   Segregation   Revisited,   Urban  Affairs  Review  42  • Kaplan,   D.,   and   Woodhouse,   K.,   (2004).   Research   in   Ethnic   Segregation   I:   Causal   Factors,  Bellwether  Publishing,  Urban  Geography  25  • 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  • 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    
  • 55.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     55     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    • 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  • Madanipour,  A.,  (2003).  Social  Exclusion  and  Space,  The  City  Reader,  London  and   New  York:  Routledge  • Massey,   D.   and   Denton,   M.,   (1998).   American   Apartheid:   Segregation   and   the   Making  of  the  Underclass,  Harvard  University  Press  • Massey,  D.  S.  and  Denton,  N.  A.,     (December  1988).  The  Dimensions  of  Residential   Segregation,  Social  Forces  67:2  • Massey,   D.   S.,   (2009).   Globalization   and   Inequality:   Explaining   American   Exceptionalism,  European  Sociological  Review  • Massey,  D.A.  and  Denton,  N.A.,  (1988).  Residential  Segregation  of  Blacks,  Hispanics,   and  Asians  by  Socioeconomic  Status  and  Generation,  Social  Science  Quarterly,  69  • 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  • McGraw,  D  and  Watson,  G.,  (1976).  Political  and  social  inquiry,  Wiley,  pg  134  • Murdie,  R.  A.  and  Borgegaerd  L.,  (August  1997).  Immigration,  Spatial  Segregation   and   Housing   Segmentation   of   Immigrants   in   Metropolitan   Stockholm,   1960-­1995,   Urban  Studies,  Vol.  35,  No.  10:  pg  1872  • Office  for  National  Statistics,  Official  Labour  Market  Statistics,  accessed  April  2011  • Ottiaviano,  G.  and  Prarolo  G.,  (November  2008).  Cultural  Identity  and  Knowledge   Creation  in  Cosmopolitan  Cities,  Bocconi  University  of  Bologna  • Park,  R.  E.,  Burgess,  E.,  McKenzie,  R.,  (1925).  The  City,  University  of  Chicago  Press  • Pennix,   R.,   (2003)   Integration:   The   role   of   Communities,   Institutions   and   the   State,  Migration  Policy  Institute:  http://www.migrationinformation.org/  • Pisati,   M.,   (Novembe   2009).   Spatial   Indices   of   Residential   Segregation,   Department  of  Sociology  and  Social  Research  University  of  Milano-­‐Bicocca  (Italy),   6th  Italian  Stata  Users  Group  meeting  • Rasmussen,  S.  E.,  (1982).  London:  The  Unique  City,  The  MIT  Press  • Ray,   B.,   (2002).   Immigrant   Integration:   Building   to   Opportunity,   Migration   Policy   Institute:  http://www.migrationinformation.org/    
  • 56.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     56     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne    • Reardon,   S.   F   and   OSullivan,   D.,   (2004).   Measures   of   spatial   segregation,   Sociological  Methodology,  pg  34  • Rosado,  C.,  (1997).    Toward  a  definition  of  multiculturalism.    www.rosado.net  • Sassen,   S.,   (2001).   The   Global   City:   New   York,   London,   and   Tokyo   (Second   ed.).   Princeton  University  Press  • Tiebout,   C.   M.,   (1956).   The   pure   theory   of   local   expenditures,   Journal   of   political   economy  • United  Nations,  Department  of  Economic  and  Social  Affairs,  Population  Division,   (2009).  Trends  in  International  Migrant  Stock:  The  2008  Revision,  United  Nations   database  • United  Nations,  Department  of  Economic  and  Social  Affairs,  Population  Division,   (2004).  World  Population  to  2300,  New  York  • 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  • 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  • Zubrinsky-­‐Charles,   C.,   (2001).   Processes   of   Racial   Residential   Segregation   in   Urban   Inequality:  Evidence  from  Four  Cities,  New  York:  Russell  Sage  Foundation    
  • 57.   A  comparative  analysis  of  spatial  segregation  in  three     57     global  cities:  Barcelona,  London  and  Melbourne     Appendix  1    • Index  of  dissimilarity   D  =      • Index  of  isolation:     P  =       Assuming:  • n=the  number  of  areas  (tracts)  in  the  larger  area  • ti=the  total  population  of  area  i  • T=the  sum  of  all  ti  (the  total  population)  • pi=the  ratio  of  xi  to  ti  (proportion  of  area  is  population  that  is  minority)  • P=the  ratio  of  X  to  T  (proportion  of  the  metropolitan  areas  population  that  is  minority)  • xi=the  minority  population  of  area  i  • X=the  sum  of  all  xi  (the  total  minority  population)  • ti=the  total  population  of  area  i