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 15-17 Amsterdam Very preliminary version
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 2 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
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 3 Dutch case interesting because of very large inflow of immigrants Dutch population 2012: 16 730 348 First generation immigrant: 11% Second generation immigrant 10% Immigrant population: Non-western : 55% Western : 45%
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 4 DATA aggregated neighbourhood data 1999-2009 Statistics Netherlands. The Netherlands divided up in about 10 000 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 14.84 million inhabitants (83 percent of total population).
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 5 In these NBH s: Turks 2.2 % Moroccans 1.9 % Surinamese 2.0 % Antilleans 0.8 % Other NW 3.5 % Western 8.7 %
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 6 I. SPATIAL DISPERSION 2005 Table 1. Correlation matrix, proportions of immigrants by origin in a neighbourhood and neighbourhood diversity index, 2005. Western Turkey Morocco Surinam AntilArub OthNW Diversity Turkey 0.043 1 5 Morocco 0.065 0.490 1 Surinam 0.094 0.324 0.391 1 i 1 AntilAruba 0.141 0.297 0.282 0.533 1 OthNW 0.363 0.287 0.269 0.353 0.377 1 Diversity 0.173 0.322 0.366 0.425 0.353 0.151 1 Nwtot 0.224 0.732 0.703 0.670 0.583 0.729 0.412 4 largest cities Turkey -0.451 1 Morocco -0.414 0.717 1 Surinam -0.403 0.527 0.313 1 AntilAruba -0.235 0.273 0.107 0.578 1 OthNW -0.080 0.478 0.384 0.729 0.635 1 Diversity -0.570 0.399 0.360 0.340 0.211 0.203 1 Nwtot -0.447 0.855 0.766 0.789 0.534 0.788 0.416 d P 1 P j i j i j
0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9 1 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 7 Cumulative distribution of migrants by the fraction of Non-Western migrants in the neighbourhood West Antillean Turkish Moroccan Surinamese OthNW 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Non-Western migrants in the neighbourhood
0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9 1 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 8 Cumulative distribution of migrants by Diversity index in the neighbourhood West Antillean Turkish Moroccan Surinamese OthNW 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Diversity in the neighbourhood If composition proportional to Dutch population: d = 0.625 60-80% of NW has lower immigrant diversity
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 9 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.
-20-10 Change in % from 1999 to 2009-10 0 Change in % from 1999 to 2009-5 0 5 10 20 10-100 -10 Change in % from 1999 to 2009-50 0 0 50 Change in % from 1999 to 2009 100 10 20 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 10 II DYNAMICS 1999-2009 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Non-Western in 1999 Change in % non-western within 10 years Lowess 0 10 20 30 40 % Surinamese in 1999 Change in % Surinamese within 10 years Lowess 0 10 20 30 40 50 % Moroccan in 1999 0 20 40 60 % Turkish in 1999 Change in % Moroccan within 10 years Lowess Change in % Turkish within 10 years Lowess
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 11 OLS Change of neighbourhood ethnic composition Moroccan Turkish Surinames non-western % Western in 1999 0.003* 0.003-0.002 0.018* % Moroccan in 1999 0.084*** 0.019-0.031*** 0.112** % Turks in 1999 0.004-0.034-0.004 0.043 % Surinames in 1999 0.090*** 0.112*** -0.098*** 0.303*** % Antilleans in 1999 0.035 0.02 0.099** 0.138 Amsterdam 0.241-0.520* 0.567* 0.014 Utrecht 0.243-0.034 0.096 0.586 Rotterdam 0.483* 0.191 0.721** 2.415** Hague 0.13 0.517 0.557 2.469** % woman 0.002 0.015*** -0.001 0.100*** % age014 in 1999 0.005* 0.004 0.000-0.006 % age1544 in 1999-0.001 0.000 0.001 0.032*** % age4564 in 1999-0.002-0.005* 0.000 0.027* % unmarried in 1999-0.013*** -0.008** -0.011** -0.060*** % married in 1999-0.005* 0.005-0.009* -0.042** % welfare in 1999 0.011 0.019* 0.002 0.057* % disability ben in 1999 0.010** 0.009* 0.006 0.025 % Unemp. Benefit in 1999 0.006 0.058*** 0.003 0.121** Dissimilarity index in 1999-0.136-0.156-0.600*** -1.489* Diversity index in 1999 0.39 1.922 2.818*** 0.209 _cons 0.694* -0.601 1.095* -1.588 N 10312 10312 10312 10312 R-sq 0.157 0.063 0.045 0.127
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 12 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)
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 13 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
0 % ethnic group 20 40 60 80 100 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 14 0 20 40 60 80 100 % 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)
0 % ethnic group 20 40 60 80 100 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 % rental houses % Dutch % Western 95% CI Local polynomial -Dutch Local polynomial -Western
0 % ethnic group 20 40 60 80 100 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 16 0 500 1000 1500 2000 value of houses % Dutch % Non-western 95% CI Local polynomial -Dutch Local polynomial -Non-Western
17 60 40 0 20 % ethnic group 80 100 JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 0 500 1000 value of houses % Dutch 95% CI Local polynomial -Western 1500 2000 % Western Local polynomial -Dutch
% ethnic group JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 18 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 0,00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % rental houses
% ethnic group JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 19 Cumulative distribution of ethnic groups by value of houses 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Dutch Moroccan Turkish Surinamese Western 20 10 0 90 190 290 390 490 590 690 Value of houses in 1000s
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 20 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
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 21 NBH Home values: means and standard deviations Dutch Western Turkish Moroccans Surinamese Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd 2003 141 55 137 65 98 36 103 35 106 43 2004 141 55 137 64 98 37 104 36 107 43 2005 213 83 205 98 152 51 157 49 166 61 2006 213 82 205 97 152 51 157 48 166 61 2007 229 86 219 99 163 54 167 51 176 65 2008 246 93 236 110 175 60 181 57 190 71 2009 254 97 245 115 182 59 190 58 199 76 CV 2009 0.38 0.47 0.32 0.31 0.38 Index 180 176 179 177 186 164 184 166 186 177
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 22 300 Value of houses over time by ethnicity 250 200 150 100 50 Dutch Western Turkish Moroccans Surinamese 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 23 NBH rental share: means and standard deviations Dutch Western Turkish Moroccans Surinamese Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd 2003 43.2 21.5 49.9 23.4 68.9 22.1 72.3 21.0 66.7 24.2 2004 42.8 21.4 49.6 23.4 68.2 22.3 71.8 21.2 65.7 24.5 2005 41.0 20.5 47.5 22.4 65.2 21.8 69.1 20.6 62.4 23.5 2006 39.3 19.3 45.3 20.9 61.5 20.2 65.1 19.0 58.3 21.5 2007 39.1 19.3 45.1 20.9 61.3 20.2 64.7 19.2 57.8 21.6 2008 38.9 19.3 45.0 20.9 61.0 20.3 64.5 19.3 57.5 21.6 2009 38.8 19.2 45.0 20.9 60.8 20.3 64.2 19.4 57.1 21.7 Change -4.4-2.3-4.9-2.5-8.1-1.8-8.1-1.6-9.6-2.5
JHartog & AZorlu, UvA -April 2013 24 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