Housing markets and ethnic segregation in
the Nordic countries
Hans Skifter Andersen
Affiliated professor
Danish Building Research Institute at Aalborg University
The NODES project about ethnic
segregation
NODES = Nordic welfare states and the dynamics and
effects of ethnic residential segregation
• Research on causes of ethnic segregation in the Nordic
countries and how it is influenced by housing policies
and housing markets
• Financed by the NORFACE research programme on
migration
• Co-operation between 12 researches in four countries
2010-2014
Content of the presentation
• Some conclusions from the research literature on
causes of social and especially ethnic segregation
• Empirical findings on some of the causes from the
Nordic countries
• Discussion in short of the connection between housing
policies, housing markets and ethnic segregation
• A NODES analysis of this connection in the four capital
cities
Aspects of spatial segregation
1. Different social or ethnic groups are separated from
each other in the cities
2. Some neighbourhoods have a high concentration of
certain social or ethnic groups
3. Especially concentrations of low income groups and
ethnic minorities are for different reasons seen as
problematic
Causes of segregation and concentration
1.
Socio-economic inequality and ethnic/cultural differences
• Groups with higher income can choose to live in the most
attractive places and avoid others – low-income groups can not
• Different social and ethnic groups might prefer to live close to
people that are alike themselves, or avoid other specific groups
2.
Inequality among different neighbourhoods in the city (spatial
inequality)
• Differences in housing supply
• Differences in attractiveness of the physical and social
environment, social status, access to services, transportation etc.
3.
Segregation and spatial inequality interacts because
concentrations of low-income groups and ethnic minorities make
these neighbourhoods less attractive
Special causes of ethnic segregation and
concentration
• Ethnic minorities have lower incomes. Social segregation produces also
ethnic segregation, but studies show no straight-forward connection
• Immigrants often prefer to rent because they are uncertain about their
future
limitations on where to live
• Ethnic minorities have often difficulties in getting access to private
renting
they move to social housing (in Norway co-operatives)
• Especially new immigrants prefer to settle nearby an ethnic social
network where they can get support
they often move into ‘multi-ethnic neighbourhoods’
• But preferences change over time and some ethnic minorities move out
again (called spatial assimilation)
• Natives move away or avoid moving to multi-ethnic neighbourhoods
(White flight and avoidance)
Reduced probability among immigrants for
moving into homeownership compared to ‘natives’
0
-0.1
Region of origin
-0.2
Eastern Europe
-0.3
Africa and West Asia
-0.4
Other Asia
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
Copenhagen
Helsinki
Stockholm
Development with years of stay in per cent of NonWestern immigrants living in social housing (DK)
Immigrants who did not come with family reunification
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Immigration period
Before 1987
1988-91
1992-94
1995-96
20%
1997-2000
10%
2001-04
2005-08
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Years of stay in Denmark
Number of multi-ethnic neighbourhoods in Denmark with
different proportions of Non-Western ethnic minorities
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
Prop. of non-W minorities
in neighbourhood (%)
> 20
> 30
> 40
> 50
> 60
200
100
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
Average proportion of Non-Western ethnic minorities = 7.2 % in 2008
The development in ethnic concentration
Per cent of immigrants from Non-Western countries living in multiethnic neighbourhoods
60
50
Prop. of N-W Minorities
in neighbourhood (%)
> 20
> 30
> 40
> 50
> 60
40
30
20
10
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
Development with duration of stay in Denmark for
living in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods for all NW
immigrants since 1984 and for newly moved.
(increased statistical probability compared to situation at arrival)
2.2
2
All
1.8
Moving
families
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years 16-24 years
Four kinds of selective moving behaviour creating
and maintaining spatial concentrations of ethnic
minorities (multi-ethnic neighbourhoods)
• White Flight: Natives tend more often to move away from
multi-ethnic neighbourhoods
• White Avoidance: Natives tend to avoid moving to multiethnic neighbourhoods
• Ethnic Attraction: Ethnic minorities tend more often to
move into multi-ethnic neighbourhood
• Ethnic Retention: Ethnic minorities tend less often to move
away from multi-ethnic neighbourhoods
Size of segregation processes in Denmark
depending on ethnic composition of neighbourhood
(based on statistical estimations of ‘normal ‘moves)
9%
8%
White flight
7%
White avoidance
6%
Ethnic retention
5%
Ethnic attraction
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
0-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50 -59
60-69
70-
Proportion of ethnic minorities in neighbourhood
Reasons for leaving neighbourhood
Percentage of ‘native’ leavers stating ethnic composition
of neighbourhood and schools as important reason
70
60
Too many immigrants
Too many immigrant children in school
50
40
30
20
10
0
Oslo ethnic Oslo other Helsinki
Helsinki Stockholm Stockholm
nbhs
nbhs
ethnic nbhs other nbhs ethnic nbhs other nbhs
Important for choosing neighbourhood
Percentage of native movers stating ethnic and social composition
of neighbourhood and schools as important for choice
45
Similar income and/or occ. status
40
Majority with native background
35
Ethnic composition in school
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Oslo
Helsinki
Stockholm
The effects of housing markets on segregation
• Housing market segmentation: Different social and ethnic
groups are separated in different housing tenures
• Spatial segregation of housing tenures: Tenures are
separated in different neighbourhoods in the city. Large
urban areas with uniform tenures have been created
• Strong housing market segmentation and strong segregation
of tenures results in strong social or ethnic segregation
• But segregation within housing tenures is also important,
especially in homeownership
Main features of Nordic housing systems
• Major social housing sectors in Denmark, Finland and
Sweden, small in Norway
• Social housing in Denmark and Sweden open to all, in
Norway and Finland they are reserved for low-income
groups
• Norway and Sweden have large market based co-operative
sectors.
• Norway based on homeownership and have relatively few
rented dwellings, mostly in private renting.
• Private renting and co-operatives in Denmark are under rent
control,
queues and non-market distribution
Immigrants (foreign born) in the four
Nordic capital regions 2008
The capital regions
Population in regions, 1000 inhabitants
Copenhagen Helsinki
Oslo Stockholm
1.369
1.022
1.079
1.849
11.7
8.8
14.3
21.3
Per cent of population. coming from Eastern Europe
1.9
3.5
3.0
3.5
Per cent of population coming from Non-European countries
6.8
3.6
9.3
11.1
Non-Western immigrants total
8.7
7.1
12.3
14.6
Proportion of population born outside the country. per cent
Housing markets in Nordic capitals
Copenhagen Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Distribution of population on tenure
per cent
42
57
57
Owner-occupied
16
3
22
Co-operatives
16
16
15
Private renting
25
22
3
Social housing
1
2
2
Other
Total
100
100
100
34
29
17
17
4
100
Non-Western immigrants distributed on housing
tenures in the Nordic capital regions
Oslo
Stockholm
Housing tenures
Owner-occupied
Co-operatives
Private renting
Social/public housing
Other
Total
Non-Western immigrants
19
18
27
8
30
14
16
25
13
58
62
1
4
4
100
100
99
14
20
24
41
0
100
Over-representation
Owner-occupied
Co-operatives
Private renting
Social/public housing
Other
-55
-48
-11
131
18
-69
-65
4
182
23
-52
37
66
306
70
-59
-31
41
141
57
33
42
30
32
Distribution %
Index of tenure segmentation
Copenhagen
Helsinki
Measures of uneven spatial distribution of different
housing tenures across neighbourhoods in the
Nordic capitals (Index of segregation).
Copenhagen Helsinki Oslo Stockholm
Owner-occupied single
.56
.62
.32
Owner-occupied flats
.47
.12
.39
Co-operatives
.50
Private renting
.42
Social/public housing
Combined index of
tenure segregation
.55
.43
.36
.27
.21
.45
.56
.33
.35
.52
.51
.23
.33
.46
Illustration of ethnic segregation and concentration:
Proportion of Non-Western immigrants in neighbourhoods
ordered in deciles after increasing proportion
50%
40%
Copenhagen
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Neighbourhood deciles
8
9
10
Ethnic segregation in Nordic capitals
(Index of dissimilarity)
.60
All immigrants
From Eastern Europe
From Non-European countries
.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
.00
Copenhagen
Helsinki
Oslo
Stockholm
Segregation of Non-Western immigrants, and proportion
caused by the housing market (statistical analyses)
Copenhagen
33
Helsinki
42
Segregation of tenures
.51
.23
.33
.46
Segregation:
Index of dissimilarity
.36
.27
.40
.48
- caused by tenure
segmentation and -segregation
48 %
70 %
65 %
61 %
Other causes
52 %
30 %
35 %
39 %
Index of tenure segmentation
StockOslo holm
30
32
Conclusions on the effects of housing
systems for ethnic segregation
• Nordic Welfare States have important differences in housing policies,
which affect the ethnic (and social) segmentation of their housing
markets
• Also the spatial structure of the housing markets differ, to some extent
because of differences in urban policies
• The effect of ethnic segmentation of housing tenures can be overruled
by the way tenure composition varies across neighbourhoods, which
seems to have a stronger effect
• Housing policy and housing market have a major influence on the
spatial distribution of immigrants and on ethnic segregation, but the
effects differ across countries and cities, probably because the extent
of social, ethnic and spatial inequality differs