Mixed neighborhoods, parallel lives? Residential proximity and inter-ethnic group
contact in German neighborhoods.
Anita I. Drever and William A.V. Clark
University of Tennessee and University of California Los Angeles
(adrever@utk.edu,wclark@geog.ucla.edu)
October 11, 2006
1
Mixed neighborhoods, parallel lives? Residential proximity and inter-ethnic group
contact in German neighborhoods.
Abstract
The paper examines whether or not native born Germans who live in ethnic
neighborhoods are more likely to have immigrants as friends than Germans who live
outside these neighborhoods. In the paper we stress that integration is a two-way street in
which there is accommodation on the part of both “locals” and immigrants. Most studies
have focused on immigrants and this paper examines the other part of the picture, the
native born. The research using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel did not
provide evidence of greater inter-ethnic contact within ethnic neighborhoods. A
substantial part of the explanation is that there are major socio economic and
demographic differences in the native born and immigrant populations even in the same
neighborhoods. In addition, the two groups are often segregated at the building level
which reduces the chances for contact.
2
Introduction
Central to research on immigrant settlement patterns is the assumption that
neighborhoods organize the relationships of the people who live within them. This notion
has been a central premise for drawing conclusions about an ethnic group’s social
integration from the spatial distribution of its residences (Park 1925, Clark 1965, Massey
1985, White 1987, Massey and Denton 1993,). We, along with a growing number of
researchers (see Waldinger 1987, Zelinsky and Lee 1998, Wright and Ellis 2000, Drever
2004) wonder, however, if this assumption regarding the residential neighborhood’s
influential role in organizing social relationships is merited? Does the neighborhood still
play a “socializing role” as improvements in transportation and communication
technology have resulted in growing separation between the home, work, and recreational
spaces where peoples’ social networks form?. As a result, there are new questions about
the singular focus on place and the role of the residential neighborhood in studies of
socio-spatial integration (Buerkner 1987, Ellis et al 2004).
In this paper we explore another set of reasons for caution in assuming that
settlement patterns are indicative of interethnic interactions. While in the U.S., zoning has
produced neighborhoods that are relatively homogenous with respect to housing stock,
household income and stage in the life course this homogeneity is less true of German
neighborhoods. In the US the success of micromarketing firms like Claritas, that have
divided the zip codes of the United States into a few dozen categories based on income
and demographics, given them colorful names such as ‘shotguns and pickups’ or ‘gray
power’ and sold the information to wide array of companies and organizations is
indicative of a certain level of homogeneity (see Curry et al 2004 for a discussion). Yet
even if an overstatement for the US context, it is certainly much less true for German
neighborhoods or zip codes where the housing stock is far less homogeneous. Can one
take for granted that the ethnic groups that share a neighborhood in Germany share
demographic and income profiles –an unspoken assumption in much of the U.S.
research? And if they do not, what might this mean for the development of inter-ethnic
relationships? This paper explores the answers to these questions and in so doing adds to
our understanding of place effects on social relations.
3
Four research questions guide our analysis:
1. Are Germans living within ethnic neighborhoods more likely to count persons of
immigrant origin among their friends than Germans living outside of ethnic
neighborhoods?
2. Which Germans live in ethnic neighborhoods? Are the economic and demographic
characteristics of Germans in ethnic neighborhoods different from those of their
neighbors of immigrant origin?
3. Are immigrants and Germans sorting into different types of housing within ethnic
neighborhoods?
Our research questions are unusual in that we focus our attention on Germans
rather than persons of immigrant origin in Germany’s mixed race neighborhoods. Despite
the fact that the integration of immigrants is a two-way process involving accommodation
on both the part of immigrants and locals, the onus for change is typically placed on the
newcomers. We take a different approach. Inter-ethnic interaction can only take place if
members of both groups engage each other. Logically, studies of integration should
therefore focus as much on the inter-cultural interactions of ‘natives’ as the immigrants.
This is especially true given that majority group avoidance of minorities plays a critical
role in perpetuating residential segregation (Schelling 1971, Clark, 1991, Ellen 2000).
This study therefore attempts to frame the issue of inter-ethnic interaction in such a way
as to balance almost singular focus on the ‘newcomers’ in studies of the social
incorporation of ethnic minorities.
Social and spatial integration in the literature
The assumption that neighborhoods organize social relationships underlies several
bodies of literature on immigrant integration. The first of these, the assimilation model
(Massey, 1985) posits that over time, immigrants lose their cultural distinctiveness and
gain access to the economic opportunities of the mainstream ethnic group. Though this
4
model’s popularity dimmed because it was used to reinforce pejorative views of
immigrants who retained the language and traditions of their place of origin (see Glazer
1993), it has been resuscitated, stripped of its normative overtones, and argued to be a
useful in understanding the experience of some ethnic groups at specific points in time
(Brubaker 2001, Alba and Nee 2003). The model’s roots lie in the early 20th century
writings of Chicago School sociologist Park (1926, p.18) who argued that social relations
are frequently and inevitably correlated with spatial relations and that ‘physical distances,
frequently are, or seem to be, the indexes of social distances. His assumption that
neighborhoods structure social relations and that spatial assimilation reflects social
assimilation has lead to decades of mapping of ethnic group settlement patterns and the
calculation of measures of segregation in order to assess social assimilation.
The assumption that neighborhoods structure social relationships also undergirds
the body of research that explores how residential segregation perpetuates economic and
social disadvantage. This literature, which developed during the early part of the 20th
century, initially focused on how residential segregation limited minority access to decent
housing and services (see Myrdal 1944, Clark 1965). Massey and Denton (1993) and
Kozol (2005) argue that residential segregation remains as much of a problem in the postcivil rights era as the pre, but both explore in greater detail than the earlier literature how
ghettoization results in a lack of contact with whites emaciating the social capital within
minority communities.
In contrast to the ghettoisation literature, ethnic enclave/economy research argues
that ethnic minorities benefit by living in neighborhoods where they are a sizeable
presence. This literature argues persons living near co-ethnics have an easier time
making the transition to a new country (see Heckmann 1981, Elwert 1982, Miyares
1997), and are in a better position to use their networks to find employment and housing
and access a ready supply of labor and a customer base should they decide to start a
business (Wilson and Portes 1980, Kapphan 1999). Others point out that services can
more easily be tailored to an ethnic group if they are clustered in space (Dunn 1998) and
that grass roots mobilization for ethnic-group causes is enabled by residential proximity
(Calmore 1996).
5
Though these literatures disagree about whether or not ethnic neighborhood
effects are positive, none of them disputes the notion that neighborhoods organize the
social relationships of the people who live within them. But now there is research which
questions this foundational assumption in ethnic settlement research. Several have
pointed to the growing separation between work and home and have argued that
segregation should be studied in work, school and recreational spaces as well as
residential spaces (Buerkner 1987, Ellis et al 2004). Others have pointed out that there
are an increasing number of ethnic communities without propinquity –in other words
tightly knit ethnic communities whose members’ residences are scattered throughout the
urban landscape (Zelinksy and Lee 1998, Hardwick and Meacham 2005). Finally, large
numbers of studies, especially within the European context, have failed to find significant
ethnic neighborhood effects on a variety of social outcomes including school and labor
market performance, teen delinquency, and cultural assimilation (see Anderson 2001,
Ostendorf et al 2001, Mustered 2003, Drever 2004, Oberwittler 2006).
In all the above literature on ethnic group settlement, it is largely the behavior of
minority groups that is scrutinized. Yet in most cases the authors are trying to measure
the interaction between natives and newcomers. We therefore focus on Germany’s
mixed neighborhoods as the places where ‘natives’ are most likely to be exposed to
person of immigrant origin if neighborhoods are, in fact, the organizers of human
interaction.
Ethnic neighborhoods in Germany
If neighborhoods do structure social relationships, then one would expect native
born Germans living in Germany’s ethnically mixed neighborhoods to have relationships
with persons of immigrant origin. Mixed neighborhoods are quite common in German
cities as there are in fact relatively few majority minority enclaves in Germany
(Friedrichs 1998). Immigrants are spread throughout German cities for a variety of
reasons. When guest-workers from Southern and Eastern Europe first arrived in Germany
during the late1950s and early 1960s, their employers often provided them with barrackstyle housing. However as temporary workers became permanent and immigrant families
were reunified in Germany, migrants moved into the private housing market. City
6
officials, fearing the development of ‘American-style’ ghettos, instituted settlement bans
for non-EU foreigners in neighborhoods city officials claimed were ‘overburdened’ by
immigrants (Rist 1976). Though these bans had been lifted by 1989, limits remain on the
number of persons of foreign origin allowed into public housing estates.
Immigrant settlement patterns are disbursed in Germany, not only because of
forced desegregation policies, but also because of the heterogeneity in the housing stock
within neighborhoods. Historically labor migrants to the United States were clustered in
inner city neighborhoods near the urban core as this was the locus of affordable housing.
In contrast, affordable housing can be found scattered throughout most German cities.
This is partly because much of Germany’s housing stock is old and the degree to which it
has been modernized varies within neighborhoods and partly because war damage and
large-scale housing renovation projects have resulted in a mixture of building types in
inner cities where migrants tend to settle. The German government’s subsidization of the
housing market in order to ensure that affordable housing is widely available has also
made it possible for migrants to find affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout
urban areas.
This dispersed geography has lead government officials and academics on
numerous occasions to suggest that ‘American-Style’ ghettoisation has not occurred in
Germany (O’Loughlin 1987, Friedrichs 1998, Musterd 2003 ). Yet the spatial
assimilation of immigrants in Germany appears less a reflection of their economic and
social assimilation than a product of the nation’s heterogeneous housing stock and forced
desegregation policies. Though persons of immigrant origin in Germany may not be
spatially segregated, the fact that over 20% of the foreign population is unemployed
points to their economic exclusion (Franz 2004). Concurrently it is unclear that
desegregation policies have decreased the social isolation of persons of immigrant origin.
To this end we explore the role that neighborhood make-up appears to have on ethnic
interactions in Germany.
Data and Variables
In order to explore the role of the neighborhood in organizing inter-ethnic
interactions we use data from the German Socio Economic Panel dataset (GSOEP). Data
7
for the household panel was first collected in 1984 and presently the dataset contains
information gathered from over 20,000 persons. The SOEP is well suited for this
analysis as it includes information on respondents’ socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics and also has detailed housing and neighborhood information. In 2001
panel participants were asked specific questions regarding their social networks and it is
this data that is at the core of our analysis.
Categorizing the population that has immigrated to Germany since 1950 and their
descendents is not straightforward. Because of Germany’s ‘blood-based’ citizenship
laws, until 2000 even persons born in Germany with legally resident parents did not
receive citizenship and were classified as ‘foreigners’. In contrast, persons of German
ancestry from Eastern Europe and the former U.S.S.R. were eligible for German
citizenship upon arrival, despite often having no knowledge of the German language. For
the purposes of this paper, we have chosen to designate persons born outside of Germany
and persons without German citizenship as ‘persons of immigrant origin’.
In this study we look solely at the population living in German cities of more than
300,000. We look just at cities as comparisons between persons living inside and outside
ethnic neighborhoods in Germany as a whole would, in effect, be a comparison of urban
versus rural Germans as the areas of highest ethnic concentration are in Germany’s urban
neighborhoods. The SOEP itself does not contain information on the ethnic make-up of
zip code areas in German cities so this information was collected from statistical offices
in Germany’s largest cities and merged it into the dataset. Our final data set included
information on the non-citizen make-up of each zip code in a city of more than 300,000
inhabited by a household included in the SOEP.
Within Geography considerable attention has been given to the task of how to
optimally define ‘neighborhoods’ so as to best capture neighborhood effects and most of
the discussion has focused on scale and demarcation issues (Sampson et al 2002,
Friedrichs et al 2003) We define neighborhoods at the relatively broad scale of the zip
code, which include approximately 17,700 persons in urban areas and are very similar in
size and population variance to U.S. zip codes, which are commonly used in
neighborhood research (see Osterman 1991, Ross 2000, Wen and Christakis 2005).
However while census tracts do not necessarily follow neighborhood boundaries in
8
Germany there is a strong feeling that zip codes do denote neighborhoods as some
neighborhoods are even referred to by the last two digits of their associated zip code (ie
Kreuzberg 61). Further, though German zip codes contain more people than do
American census tracts, there are more people per urban square mile in Germany than in
the US, and central city zip codes in Germany where ethnic neighborhoods tend to be
located are often around a square kilometer in size.
In order to determine the level of immigrant concentration that constitutes an
ethnic neighborhood we analyzed responses to a question asked of participants in the
1999 Leben in Deuschland (Living in Germany) survey, which is the basis of the SOEP.
The question reads: ‘are there foreign families living in this neighborhood?’ Respondents
were given the option of replying ‘don’t know’, ‘none’ ,‘some’ or ‘many’. We then
examined neighborhoods that were 0-5% ‘foreign’, 5-10% ‘foreign’ etc… as indicated by
the statistical office data, calculated the percentage stating they felt ‘many’ foreigners
lived in their neighborhood and graphed the results (Figure 1). Because a clear majority
of respondents living in ethnic neighborhoods of more than 25% ‘foreign’ felt that
‘many’ foreigners lived in their neighborhoods we chose to define ethnic neighborhoods
as areas that are 25% or more foreign. Germany’s ethnic neighborhoods are diverse and
while there is some tendency for ethnic groups to cluster in one more or more
neighborhoods most ethnic neighborhoods are a home to a mix of national groups
(Freund, 1998). Only six zip codes in all of Germany have populations that are more
than 50% foreign born.
----- figure 1 here -----
Results
The first question posed in the research was : Are Germans living within ethnic
neighborhoods more likely to count persons of immigrant origin among their 3 closest
friends than Germans living outside of ethnic neighborhoods? In the year 2001 a panel
survey question asked respondents to think of 3 people they would count as friends
outside their household and then a series of questions were asked about these persons
9
including their national origin. From this information we created a variable ‘proportion of
3 close friends who are of immigrant origin’. Each respondent in the SOEP was assigned
a number between 0 and 3, 0 for no friends of immigrant origin and 3 for someone who
said that all three of their close friends were of immigrant origin. We then calculated the
averages for Germans in and outside ethnic neighborhoods and tested whether or not the
differences between those averages were statistically significant (Table 1). The results
show that persons of German origin living within ethnic neighborhoods were not more
likely to list persons of immigrant origin among their closest three friends. Similar
results – no difference inside and outside ethnic communities emerged for immigrants
overall and immigrants of Turkish origin.
----- table 1 here -----
Still inter-ethnic relationships are fairly common –both among Germans and
persons of immigrant origin. Just over 5% of all Germans count a person of immigrant
origin among their 3 closest friends. Further, on average, half of the close friendship
circle among persons of immigrant origin was made up of ‘Germans’. Even among
persons of Turkish origin, on average nearly 1 in 3 close relationships with persons
outside the household included persons of German origin. Therefore there appears to be
considerable inter-cultural contact in Germany, yet this is not affected by neighborhood
location. This raises the question; why then are Germany’s mixed neighborhoods not
more likely to be sites of inter-cultural friendship?
We hypothesize that one of the reasons for this is that the German and immigrant
origin populations sorting into ethnic neighborhoods are significantly different from each
other. In the United States zoning ordinances have created relatively homogeneous
neighborhoods of homes by size and tenure. As a result neighborhood populations tend
also to be fairly homogenous with respect to stage in life and income level. As we noted
earlier, within German neighborhoods the housing stock is much more varied
(O’Loughlin 1987). Thus, to what extent does this variation augment heterogeneity in the
10
neighborhood population? More specifically, does the German population inhabiting
ethnic neighborhoods differ substantially from their immigrant counterparts?
The second research question asks: Which Germans live in ethnic neighborhoods
and are the economic and demographic characteristics of Germans in ethnic
neighborhoods different from those of their neighbors of immigrant origin?
Indeed, as Table 2 demonstrates, persons of German origin living within ethnic
neighborhoods are older than their immigrant origin counterparts and they are far less
likely to be living in households with children. Approximately 80% of the German
population living in ethnic neighborhoods is living in one or two person households
(author’s calculations). Because the Turkish population is part of the immigrant origin
population, tests for statistical significance are not appropriate but we provide standard
errors of means to provide a measure of variance.
The findings provide a window on the likelihood of inter-ethnic relationships.
Populations at different life stages tend to use neighborhood spaces differently. Families
with children tend to spend their free time in child friendly places such as parks,
playgrounds and swimming pools. Persons without children are much more likely to
spend their weekend and after work time in bars, cafes and night clubs. Therefore though
Germans and immigrants may live in adjacent buildings, once they leave their doorstep
they likely head in opposite directions.
----- table 2 here ----The analysis shows that there are significant socioeconomic differences between
the populations living within ethnic neighborhoods (Table 3). Though median household
incomes are fairly similar, if the average is adjusted to reflect the financial cost of
additional household members, the differences in income are substantial. This again will
lead to differential use of the neighborhood space as income restricts where and how
often households are able to do things like eat out, attend performances, go to public
swimming pools, spend the afternoon in a café etc. Unemployment levels in all groups
are similar and below the national average. The education levels between the populations
again differs substantially further contributing to different interests in the use of spare
time and augmenting social distance between groups.
11
----- table 3 here ----The previous analysis reveals that there are large differences between the German
and immigrant origin populations living in ethnic neighborhoods. This raises the question
of what role sorting is playing in creating differences in neighborhood interaction. In
other words, are Germans living in ethnic neighborhoods fairly typical of the overall
German population, or is a narrow segment of the German population ‘sorting into ethnic
neighborhoods’? If a narrow segment of the population is indeed sorting into ethnic
neighborhoods, how does it compare to the immigrant origin population sorting into
ethnic neighborhoods? For example, are ethnic neighborhoods attracting both Germans
and persons of immigrant origin that are younger than average? To examine this question
we regressed standard socio-economic predictors on percent foreign in the neighborhood
and compared the coefficients for the German population, the immigrant population as a
whole and the population of Turkish origin (Table 4). Several variables are significant in
the model for Germans- younger Germans, poorer Germans, and Germans without
children are more likely to end up in ethnic neighborhoods. In contrast, among the
immigrant population, only income was a significant predictor of living in an ethnic
neighborhood. Our results indicate that with the exception of economic status,
immigrants sorting into ethnic neighborhoods are fairly representative of the immigrant
population at large. Turkish persons living in ethnic neighborhoods were less likely to be
unemployed, more likely to be poor and living in families with children than the general
Turkish population. The tests were statistically significant. In sum, the three models
indicate that different sub-populations of the ethnic groups are sorting into Germany’s
ethnic neighborhoods.
----- table 4 here ----The final research question asks: are immigrants and Germans sorting into
different types of housing within ethnic neighborhoods? Although Germany’s
neighborhoods are ethnically integrated, previous research indicates that building to
building segregation levels are high (O’Loughlin 1987). If Germans and persons of
immigrant origin are sorting into different buildings, this means there is less day to day
contact in stairwells where neighbors do run into one another, even if the rest of the day
12
is spent in far-flung locations. In the absence of data at this scale, as a proxy we compare
the housing characteristics of the different population groups living within ethnic
neighborhoods.
In different historical eras, markedly different types of housing were constructed
in German cities. Much of the housing built before 1949, in what are today immigrant
areas, consists of five story apartment buildings constructed to house migrants from both
rural areas and neighboring countries who came to work in Germany’s rapidly expanding
industrial sector. Today some of these buildings have been beautifully modernized but
others need substantial renovation and are, for example, still heated by coal. Many of the
housing units built in urban areas between 1949 and 1971 were constructed to replace
buildings that had been damaged during the Second World War. Like their pre-war
counterparts, these housing units were often around five stories tall, but with lower
ceilings, central heating and modern plumbing.
Between 1972 and 1990 there was a boom in the construction of large housing
estates. These towering Großwohnsiedlungen have aged rapidly and though they were
built for Germany’s middle class, they now mainly house the country’s economically
vulnerable, including an increasing number of migrants. There has been very little post1991 housing construction within ethnic neighborhoods, which is not surprising given
immigrants’ historic place on the lower rungs of the housing vacancy chain.
Chi-square tests of independence indicate that persons of German origin live in
different portions of the housing stock from both persons of foreign origin overall, and
from persons of Turkish origin. Persons of Turkish origin are most likely to end up in the
oldest housing and the large housing estates, while persons of immigrant origin overall
mirror this pattern but to a less pronounced degree.
----- table 5 ----An extension of the focus on housing characteristics examine the patterns of
sorting by building size (Table 6). Generally the largest buildings are the least desirable
because they include housing estates and some large, pre-Second World War buildings
that surround small courtyards. . Nearly half of all Germans living in ethnic
neighborhoods inhabited a building with nine or more units and they were not less likely
13
to end up in larger housing units than persons of foreign origin overall. Persons of
Turkish origin, however, were more much likely to end up in the largest buildings,
indicating that their settlement patterns within ethnic neighborhoods differ significantly
from those of Germans.
----- table 6 here ----Finally, the analysis of housing sorting considers how Germans are distributed
between housing units of different states of repair within ethnic neighborhoods and
compare these patterns with those of persons of immigrant origin (Table 7). Germans
and persons of immigrant origin live in buildings that they feel are in about the same state
of repair. Persons of Turkish origin again appear to be ending up in a different portion of
the housing stock as evidenced but their perception that they are living in buildings in
much greater need of repair.
----- table 7 here ----Conclusion
The notion that neighborhoods organize the social relationships of their
inhabitants is an unstated assumption in much of the literature on settlement patterns and
inter-ethnic interactions. This paper explores whether or not Germany’s mixed
neighborhoods, where persons of German origin would presumably be most likely to
encounter first and second generation immigrants, appear to be fostering inter-ethnic
friendships. The evidence did not support this outcome.
The research then explored why there was not greater interaction within ethnic
neighborhoods. Friendships in general form where there is personal contact, either in the
the physical landscape where people live their daily lives or at work. Though modern
communication technologies are making it easier to stay in touch with people further
away, physical encounters remain crucial. Why then does the multiethnic neighborhood
fail to stimulate relationships between Germans and their neighbors of immigrant origin?
The analysis suggests that the answer may lie in the substantial socioeconomic and
demographic differences between the German and immigrant origin population in
Germany’s ethnic neighborhoods. Persons of immigrant origin are more likely to be
14
members of households with children and have fewer economic resources than their
German neighbors. Further, the two groups seldom share buildings. The result of this
division is evident in a stroll through any one of Germany’s ethnic neighborhoods:
immigrant families can be found in parks and playgrounds while persons of German
origin socialize at cafés and pubs. Housing estates and crumbling inner city buildings
sport rows of satellite dishes for accessing foreign programming while freshly renovated
buildings nearby have only German names on their doorbells out front. In sum, though
Germans and persons of immigrant origin share neighborhoods, they don’t share the
spaces within them.
The lack of spatial and socio-demographic overlap between the German and
immigrant origin populations in Germany’s ethnic neighborhoods has important policy
implications. The recent shape debates over whether or not ‘parallel societies’
(Parallelgesellschaften) are developing in Germany can be parallel with the evidence of
parallel neighborhood societies. The fears about social balkanization have resulted in
continued support for Quartiersmanagement (neighborhood management) programs.
Quartiersmanagment programs target low-income and often ethnically diverse urban
neighborhoods in attempt to better socially integrate these communities into the wider
society (see Krummacher et al. 2003). To achieve these ends offices are set up offices in
disadvantaged neighborhoods that sponsor activities such as neighborhood get-togethers,
park improvement projects and so on. However, the Quarteriersmanagement programs
have struggled to get immigrant communities to participate in their projects (Deutsches
Institut für Urbanistik 2003) and it is at least possible that part of the reason
Quariersmanagment programs have had difficulties reaching out to the immigrant
communities within ethnic neighborhoods is reflected in the demographic and
socioeconomic differences of neighborhood populations.
Finally, it is no accident that there are few school-aged German children to be
found in the country’s mixed neighborhoods. Though Germany’s neighborhoods are
integrated, a growing number of schools are becoming segregated (see Kristen 2005).
Increasingly German families with school-aged children feel they need to move out to the
suburbs so that their children can get a quality education. Though free language classes
and citizenship tests may better prepare the Germany’s immigrants to interact with
15
German natives, if those Germans who have most in common with them isolate
themselves spatially these measures may do little good.
16
REFERENCES
Alba, R. and V. Nee (2003). Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and
Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Anderson, R. (2001). Spaces of Socialization and Social Network Competition: a Study
of Neighborhood Effects in Stockholm, Sweden. Governing European Cities:
Social Fragmentation and Urban Governance. H. T. Andersen and R. V. Kempen.
Aldershot, Ashgate: 149-188.
Brubaker, R. (2001). "The return of assimilation? changing perspectives on immigration
and its sequels in France, Germany and the United States." Ethnic and Racial
Studies 24(4): 531-548.
Buerkner , H.-J. (1987) Die soziale and sozialraemliche Situation tuerkischer Migranten
in Goettingen. Schriften des Instituts für Entwicklungsforschung. Saarbrücken,
Wirtschafts- und Sozialplanung GmbH: ch.2.
Calmore, J. O. (1996). Spatial Equality and the Kerner Commission Report: a Back-tothe-Future Essay. Race, Poverty and American Cities. J. C. Boger and J. W.
Wegner. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press: 309-342.
Clark, K. (1965). Dark Ghetto: Dilemmas of Social Power. New York, Harper & Row.
Clark, W. A. V. (2005). "Intervening in the Residential Mobility Process: Neighborhood
Outcomes for Low-Income Populations." Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States 102(43): 15307-15312.
Curry, M., D. Phillips, et al. (2004). "Emergency Response Systems and the Creeping
Legibility of People and Places." The Information Society 20(5): 357-370.
Drever, A. (2004). "Separate spaces, separate outcomes? neighborhood impacts on
minorities in Germany." Urban Studies 41(8): 1423-1439.
Dunn, K. M. (1998). "Rethinking Ethnic Concentration: the Case of Cabramatta Sydney."
Urban Studies 35: 503-527.
Ellen, I. (2000). Sharing America's Neighborhoods. Cambridge, Harvard University
Press.
Ellis, M., R. Wright, et al. (2004). "Work Together, Live Apart? Geographies of Racial
and Ethnic Segregation at Home and at Work." Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 94: 622-637.
17
Elwert, G. (1982). "Probleme der Ausländerintegration. Gesellschaftliche Integration
durch Binnenintegration?" Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpyschologie 34: 717-731.
Franz, V. (2004). Integration in Deutschland, ISOPLAN. 2006.
Freund, B. (1998). Segregation von Nationalitaeten in einem Metropolitanraum:
Frankfurt und sein Umland. Ethnische Minoritaeten in Europa und Amerika Geographische Perspektiven und empirische Fallstudien. F.-J. Kemper and P.
Gans. Berlin, Geographische Institut der Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin. 86: 3353.
Friedrichs, J. (1998). "Ethnic Segregation in Cologne, Germany, 1984-94." Urban Studies
35: 1745-1763.
Friedrichs, J., G. Galster, et al. (2003). "Neighborhood Effects on Social Opportunities:
The European and American Research and Policy Context." Housing Studies 18:
797-806.
Glazer, N. (1993). "Is assimilation dead?" The Annals of the American Academy of
Social and Political Sciences 530: 122-136.
Hardwick, S. and J. E. Meacham (2005). "Heterolocalism, Networks of Ethnicity, and
Refugee Communities in the Pacific Northwest: The Portland Story." The
Professional Geographer 57: 539-558.
Heckmann, F. (1981). Die Bundesrepublik: Ein Einwanderungsland? Stuttgart, KlettCotta.
Kapphan, A. (1999). Berlin: Zuwanderung, Segregation und Arbeitsmarkt. Paris-Berlin:
Formen und Folgen der Migration. A. Kapphan. Berlin, Centre Marc Bloch. 14:
9-32.
Kozol, J. (2005). The Shame of the Nation: the Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in
America. New York, Crown.
Kristen, C. (2005). School Choice and Ethnic School Segregation. Münster, Waxmann.
Krummacher, M., R. Kulbach, et al. (2003). Soziale Stadt - Sozialraumentwicklung Quartiersmanagement. Opladen, Leske + Budrich.
Massey, D. S. (1985). "Ethnic Residential Segregation: a Theoretical Synthesis and
Empiracle Review." Sociology and Social Research 39: 315-50.
Massey, D. S. and N. Denton (1993). American Apartheid. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard
University Press.
18
Miyares, I. M. (1997). "Changing Perceptions of Space and Place as Measures of Hmong
Acculturatioon." The Professional Geographer 49: 214-224.
Musterd, S. (2003). "Segregation and Integratioon: a Contested Relationship." Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies 29: 623-641.
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.
New York, Harper.
O'Loughlin, J. (1987). Chicago an der Ruhr or What? Explaining the location of
Immigrants in European Cities. Foreign Minorities in Continental European
Cities. G. Glebe and J. O'Loughlin. Wiesbaden, Steiner-Verlag: 52-70.
Oberwittler, D. (2006). Stadtstruktur, Freundeskreise und Delinquenz. Eine
Mehrebenenanalyse zu sozialökologischen Kontexteffekten auf schwere
Jugenddelinquenz. Soziologie der Kriminalität, Sonderheft 43 der Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. D. Oberwittler and S. Karstedt.
Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag.
Ostendorf, W., S. Musterd, et al. (2001). "Social Mix and the Neighbourhood Effect.
Policy Ambitions and Empiracle Evidence." Housing Studies 16: 371-380.
Osterman, P. (1991). "Welfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy: The Impact
of Neighborhood." Social Problems 38(4): 475-491.
Park, R. E. (1925). The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior. The
City. E. W. B. a. R. D. M. R. E. PARK. Chicago, The University of Chicago
Press: 1-46.
Rist, R. (1978). Guestworkers in Germany: the Prospects for Pluralism. New York,
Praeger Publishers.
Ross, C. E. (2000). "Neighborhood Disadvantage and Adult Depression." Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 41: 177-187.
Sampson, R. J., J. D. Morenoff, et al. (2002). "Assessing "Neighborhood Effects": Social
Processes and New Directions in Research." Annual Review of Sociology Annual
2002: 443-479.
Schelling, T. (1971). "Dynamic Models of Segregation." Journal of Mathematical
Sociology 1: 143-186.
Urbanistik, D. I. f. (2003). Strategien für die Soziale Stadt. Erfahrungen und Perspektiven
– Umsetzung des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem
19
Entwicklungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt. Berlin, Bundesministeriums für Verkehr,
Bau- und Wohnungswesen.
Wen, M. and N. A. Christakis (2005). "Neighborhood Effects on Posthospitalization
Mortality: a Population-Based Cohort Study of the Elderly in Chicago." Health
Services Research 40: 1108-1128.
White, M. J. (1986). "Segregation and Diversity Measures in Population Distribution."
Population Index 52(2): 198-221.
Wilson, K. and A. Portes (1980). " Immigrant Enclaves: An analysis of the labor market
experiences of Cubans in Miami." American Journal of Sociology 8: 135-169.
Wright, R. and M. Ellis (2000). "Race, Region and the Territorial Politics of Immigration
in the US." International Journal of Population Geography 6: 197-211.
Zelinsky, W. and B. Lee (1998). "Heterolocalism: An Alternative Model of the
Sociospatial Behaviour of Immigrant Ethnic Communities." International Journal
of Population Geography 4: 281-298.
20
Table 1: Proportion of 3 close friends who are of immigrant origin
Neighborhood 25%+
foreign
Neighborhood 25%- foreign
German P>|t| 0.528
.16
.10
Immigrant P>|t| 0.916
1.50
1.49
Turkish P>|t| 0.874
2.14
2.18
Source: GSOEP
Table 2: Demographic differences between populations living within German
neighborhoods that are more than 25% foreign
German origin Immigrant
Turkish origin
origin
Mean age
46.8 (2.003)
Mean household size 2.04 (.09)
% with children in
household
21% (3)
40.2 (2.22)
33.0 (3.02)
2.98 (.16)
3.85 (.19)
43% (6)
67% (8)
Source: GSOEP
21
Table 3: Income and educational differences among populations living within in
German neighborhoods that are more than 25% foreign
German origin Immigrant origin Turkish origin
Median net household
income (Euros/month)
2015
Median income adjusted 1500
for household size
1803
1700
950
903
% unemployment
6.9%
7.3%
7.7%
% with high school
degree
98%
84%
71%
% with Gymnasium or 37%
technical school diploma
16%
11%
Source: GSOEP
Table 4: Socio-demographic predictors of % foreign in neighborhood by ethnic
origin
Coefficients for:
Germans
Immigrant Origin Turkish Origin
Age
-.074**
-.027
.001
Age2
.003**
.002
.003
Household income
-.0006**
-.002**
-.003**
Unemployed
-1.585
-2.019
-8.807*
Education (yrs)
-.027
-.326
.41
2.161
6.075*
N 446
Rsq0.0706
N 125
Rsq0.145
Children in household -2.374**
N 1877
Rsq0.0419
Source: GSOEP
22
Table 5: Year housing was constructed for population groups living in
neighborhoods that are 25% foreign
German origin Immigrant
origin
Turkish origin
Before 1949
51%
53%
61%
1949-1971
33%
26%
12%
1972-1990
12%
18%
25%
1991 or later
4%
3%
3%
Chi square tests show that both persons of Turkish and foreign origin are distributed among housing types significantly differently
from Germans
Source: GSOEP
Table 6: Building size for population groups living in neighborhoods that are 25%
foreign
German origin Immigrant origin Turkish origin
1-2 family house
12%
9%
3%
3-8 Unit building
40%
31%
15%
9+ Unit building
48%
60%
82%
Differences between Germans & persons of immigrant origin not significantly different
Differences between Germans & persons of Turkish origin significantly different
Source: GSOEP
Table 7. Housing condition for population groups living in neighborhoods that are
25% foreign
German origin Immigrant origin Turkish origin
In good condition
59%
54%
42%
Needs some renovation
37%
42%
48%
Needs major renovation
4%
4%
10%
Differences between Germans & persons of immigrant origin not significantly different at the .05 level
Differences between Germans & persons of Turkish origin significantly different at the .05 level
Source: GSOEP
23