Neighbourhood Composition and Quality by Etnicity in The Netherlands

Transcription

1 Neighbourhood Composition and Quality by Etnicity in The Netherlands joop hartog aslan zorlu Universiteit van Amsterdam Presentation prepared for E Pluribus Prosperitas Workshop VU-TI April Amsterdam Very preliminary version

2 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April The problem: Public debate and policy discussions suggest ethnic concentration in The Netherlands International (US) literature often focusses on concentration areas Possibly very different in Europe, with more social interventionist policy tradition Few if any quantitative data on the European situation. Analysis of Dutch data: Regional dispersion of ethnic groups: concentration? Trends in concentration/dispersion? Relation to neighbourhood quality? Preliminary, mostly descriptive analysis

3 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Dutch case interesting because of very large inflow of immigrants Dutch population 2012: First generation immigrant: 11% Second generation immigrant 10% Immigrant population: Non-western : 55% Western : 45%

4 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April DATA aggregated neighbourhood data Statistics Netherlands. The Netherlands divided up in about neighbourhoods (smallest spatial administrative areas) mean population size about 1600 immigrant: born abroad or at least one foreign-born parent from non-dutch origin. If restricted to NBH with at least 50 persons and at least 10 NW immigrants: 5252 neighbourhoods with total of million inhabitants (83 percent of total population).

5 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April In these NBH s: Turks 2.2 % Moroccans 1.9 % Surinamese 2.0 % Antilleans 0.8 % Other NW 3.5 % Western 8.7 %

6 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April I. SPATIAL DISPERSION 2005 Table 1. Correlation matrix, proportions of immigrants by origin in a neighbourhood and neighbourhood diversity index, Western Turkey Morocco Surinam AntilArub OthNW Diversity Turkey Morocco Surinam i 1 AntilAruba OthNW Diversity Nwtot largest cities Turkey Morocco Surinam AntilAruba OthNW Diversity Nwtot d P 1 P j i j i j

7 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Cumulative distribution of migrants by the fraction of Non-Western migrants in the neighbourhood West Antillean Turkish Moroccan Surinamese OthNW Non-Western migrants in the neighbourhood

8 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Cumulative distribution of migrants by Diversity index in the neighbourhood West Antillean Turkish Moroccan Surinamese OthNW Diversity in the neighbourhood If composition proportional to Dutch population: d = % of NW has lower immigrant diversity

9 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Conclusions on segregation: 1. Immigrants are widely dispersed across NBH s all over the Netherlands. 2. The share of non-western immigrant population residing in immigrant NBH s is not high: 75-85% of immigrants live in NBH s with less than 50% NW immigrants Less than 15 % live in NBH s with more than 75% NW 3. Even in 4 large cities very little concentration: 17% of NW immigrants in NBH s > 50% NW 95% of T,M,S,A in NBH s < 1/3 NW 4. No mono-ethnic NBH s. NW concentration areas typically composed by several ethnic groups, which indicates a high degree of population diversity.

10 Change in % from 1999 to Change in % from 1999 to Change in % from 1999 to Change in % from 1999 to JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April II DYNAMICS % Non-Western in 1999 Change in % non-western within 10 years Lowess % Surinamese in 1999 Change in % Surinamese within 10 years Lowess % Moroccan in % Turkish in 1999 Change in % Moroccan within 10 years Lowess Change in % Turkish within 10 years Lowess

11 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April OLS Change of neighbourhood ethnic composition Moroccan Turkish Surinames non-western % Western in * * % Moroccan in *** *** 0.112** % Turks in % Surinames in *** 0.112*** *** 0.303*** % Antilleans in ** Amsterdam * 0.567* Utrecht Rotterdam 0.483* ** 2.415** Hague ** % woman *** *** % age014 in * % age1544 in *** % age4564 in * * % unmarried in *** ** ** *** % married in * * ** % welfare in * * % disability ben in ** 0.009* % Unemp. Benefit in *** ** Dissimilarity index in *** * Diversity index in *** _cons 0.694* * N R-sq

12 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Conclusions changes NBH composition: No really dramatic changes 5. % NW, S, T : slightly degressive % M: clearly progressive 6. Surinamese seems most mobile: move out from S and M NBH s; T and M move into S NBH s 7. Effect of dissimilarity and diversity only for % S: down with former, up with latter 8. % T up in in poor social benefit NBH s; no such effect for % S, somewhat for % M (disability only)

13 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April III. IMMIGRANTS AND NEIGBOURHOOD QUALITY Two indicators: 1. SR: Percentage share of rental houses 2. VH: Average home value ( WOZ waarde, assessment for fiscal purposes) Validity of quality indicators will be investigated

14 0 % ethnic group JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April % rental houses % Dutch % Non-western 95% CI Local polynomial -Dutch Local polynomial -Non-Western Local polynomial: Stata, third degree polynomial, default band width; Stata Journal (2003)

15 0 % ethnic group JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April % rental houses % Dutch % Western 95% CI Local polynomial -Dutch Local polynomial -Western

16 0 % ethnic group JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April value of houses % Dutch % Non-western 95% CI Local polynomial -Dutch Local polynomial -Non-Western

17 % ethnic group JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April value of houses % Dutch 95% CI Local polynomial -Western % Western Local polynomial -Dutch

18 % ethnic group JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Cumulative distribution of ethnic by the proportion of rent houses 100,00 90,00 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00 Surinamese Moroccan Western Dutch Turkish 0, % rental houses

19 % ethnic group JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Cumulative distribution of ethnic groups by value of houses Dutch Moroccan Turkish Surinamese Western Value of houses in 1000s

20 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Conclusions on NBH quality: 1. higher share rented homes: Less Dutch, break at 80% More NW, break at 80% Share W unrelated Ranking by increasing rental share: M> T> S> W>D 2. higher average home value: Slightly lower share Dutch Share NW unaffected Share W up Ranking by increasing average home value: T> M> S>W>D

21 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April NBH Home values: means and standard deviations Dutch Western Turkish Moroccans Surinamese Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd CV Index

22 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April Value of houses over time by ethnicity Dutch Western Turkish Moroccans Surinamese

23 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April NBH rental share: means and standard deviations Dutch Western Turkish Moroccans Surinamese Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Change

24 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April OVERALL CONCLUSION: 1. Immigrants widely dispersed across NBH s, no dominance of ethnic enclaves 2. Almost half the immigrant pop is western 3. Only for Moroccans evidence of progressive dynamics (more concentration) 4. % T up in poor social benefit NBH s To be done: Validate quality indexes (SR,HV) Measure residential mobility flows across NBH s (dynamics of groups and NBH s) Differentiate 1st and 2nd generation