1

HOUSING AND SPATIAL SEGREGATION

‘Race’, Difference, and the Inclusive Society

TERM 1

2

HOUSING AND SPATIAL SEGREGATION

Last week - Forms of exclusion at the nation’s

borders

This week – Exclusion within these borders. Need to understand and theorise these processes

Key issues - housing and spatial patterns – why important?

• Housing – poor quality, overcrowding, health issues

• Spatial patterns – poor environment, lack of access to good schools, health services, etc.

3

Forms of Spatial Exclusion

External structural forces, or sources of regulation, which impose constraints from without. Nature and severity can vary enormously: from the genocidal to comparatively modest constraints on social agency. Starting with the most extreme -

(1) ‘Ethnic Cleansing’. Euphemism normally referring to genocide, extermination, forced removal: e.g. colonialism, nationalist movements.

4

Forms of Spatial Exclusion (2)

(2) National Legal Measures that marginalise and isolate whole communities with a view to their expulsion. [The cases of Kenya and Uganda.]

In the case of what might be called (3) Managed, or Institutionalised, ‘Ghettos’ those of a particular religious, ethnic or national group are effectively imprisoned in a clearly defined spatial area.

[e.g. the Nazi oppression of the Jewish population of Warsaw and elsewhere in the 30s/40s.]

5

Forms of Spatial Exclusion (3)

Some ‘ghettos’ are a direct result of internal legal measures. This form of (4) De Iure Segregation was most clearly seen in apartheid South Africa and ‘Jim Crow’ America.

Following the ultimate repeal of Jim Crow laws, segregation levels did not fall, and indeed have not fallen, significantly. What we have now is widespread (5) De Facto Segregation. Poor Blacks in many parts of urban America are as segregated today as they were under Jim Crow. UK case?

6

Forms of Spatial Exclusion (4)

(6) ‘Racial steering’. Role of housing market institutions (e.g. in UK and US):

• Limit housing choice• Steer towards areas of minority concentration• Discrimination in loan finance (e.g. ‘red lining’).

(7) State-sponsored dispersal strategies

Exclusionary, but forces of regulation are often met by social agency [E.g. Asylum seekers in the UK (cf. last week’s lecture)]

BUT – Don’t confuse the ‘self-segregation’ involved in migrant response to state policy with pathological dimension of this concept – often a response to racist violence (actual and/or feared)

7

Post-war migration to Britain: the early years of settlement

Many post-war New Commonwealth migrants (and the Irish and European Voluntary Workers before them) faced massive discrimination when they sought work, and, housing. [The two spheres are not unrelated of course – it’s more difficult to find housing if you’re not in work and more difficult to get work if you have no fixed abode].

We’ll be returning to the more general dimensions of exclusion via discriminatory policies and practices. First, however, we take a brief look at the two main post-war migrant groups:

• African-Caribbean migrants

• Migrants from the Indian sub-continent

8

Sociological accounts of ‘race’ and housing

The dominant paradigm: ‘choice-constraints’

- Linked to Rational Choice Theory

1. ‘Choice’. Here, proponents argue that the housing position of minorities is largely a function of social agency. Essentially, the territory of social anthropologists such as Badr Dahya and Roger Ballard. Downplays external structural forces.

9

Sociological accounts of ‘race’ and housing (2)

2. The Constraints School argued that the dominant feature of any explanation of migrants’ housing position had to lie in external factors such as racism and ‘racial’ discrimination. These were seen as affecting every aspect of their housing search, irrespective of sector:

• Owner occupation• Private rental sector• Social rented housing• Housing Associations (now called Registered

Social Landlords – RSLs)

10

Sociological accounts of ‘race’ and housing (3)

A classic approachJohn Rex, in his seminal work with Robert Moore Race,

Community and Conflict, proposed the adoption of an explanatory model based on ‘Housing Classes’.

Notable in attempting to relate theoretical ideas to empirical findings (from Sparkbrook, Birmingham. [Based on the ecological model of the city (Chicago School of the 1920s) – zones of transition].

• Neo-Weberian interpretation of ‘class’.• ‘Housing classes’ were in fact types of tenure modified

so as to form a status/quality ranking.• Analysis focused on competitive forces (and power) in

the housing market - migrants seen to lack power in relative terms.

• Some migrants ‘forced to buy’

11

Critique of the housing class idea • Is access to housing really the same thing as housing

tenure position? • Does it confuse the question of access with life-style and

type of house occupied? • Can one belong to two separate classes simultaneously,

one in relation to the labour market and one concerned with housing position?

• Isn’t it more about ‘status’ than ‘class’? • Doesn’t housing market position, in any case, flow from

labour market position? • Is the model more descriptive than analytical/explanatory?• Does the revised schema in model II (Rex & Tomlinson,

1979, Ratcliffe, 1981), rectify the problems inherent in model I (Rex and Moore, 1967)?

• Can it explain the different experiences of different migrant groups (in other words does it downplay the role of ethnicity/culture)?

12

Exclusionary Processes and the Law

The first RRA [Race Relations Act] (1965) simply targeted direct discrimination in places of public resort, such as pub, clubs, restaurants and cinemas.

The RRA 1968 constituted some improvement on the overall situation, but in many ways it did little more than drive discriminatory policies and practices underground.

The RRA 1976 (the current legislation) improved matters again, in targeting indirect as well as direct discrimination but the legal sanctions remained minimal.

13

Shifting housing position of Britain’s

minorities Even from the early phases of post-war migration the housing

outcomes of the different groups were radically at variance. It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that some overarching exclusionary force such as racism can explain the situation.

Taking major groups in turn:

• South Asian groups

• African-Caribbeans

• Chinese

The point is that the discriminatory policies/practices did act universally, but impacted differentially on minority communities because of the latter’s varying housing search strategies.

14

The shifting housing position of Britain’s minorities (2)

A number of interesting trends are apparent:

• The extremely high level of owner occupation amongst South Asian groups (with the exception of the Bangladeshis)

• The rate for Pakistani households is even higher than that for the Indians

• The heavy reliance on social housing on the part of the ‘African-Caribbeans’

• The distinctive pattern of the Chinese in terms of the level of renting from the private sector.

15

Accessing Preferred Tenure Forms and Housing Quality: ongoing exclusions

• The RRA 1976 has proved less than effective in removing sources of discrimination. In many ways, the latter have simply become more subtle and institutionalised.

• Getting decent owner occupied housing is still not easy for minorities, as steering remains common. The threat of violence, abuse and harassment is if anything even more marked now than a few decades ago, so not surprisingly some ‘White highlands’ remain ‘White’.

But there are more subtle ways in which the aspirations of minorities can be, and are, thwarted. For example, my Bradford research on housing associations showed:

• Image as White institutions serving White people • Failure to communicate effectively with minorities/being

aloof • Failing to employ minority staff (either in their offices and

front line roles or on planning/development contracts). This, of course, reinforces their image as White institutions.

16

Choice-constraints Revisited: Towards

a New Form of Theorisation Despite its surface appeal, the ‘choice-constraints

paradigm’ has been subjected to various critiques:

• Overly static• Reveals flaws in Rational Choice Theory

So, researchers have attempted to develop new models……

Philip Sarre and his colleagues adapted Giddens’ structuration model in their study of Bedford. This was seen to permit a dialectical and fluid account of change processes.

17

Choice-constraints Revisited: Towards a New Form of Theorisation (2)

Examples of change processes captured by the model:

• Experience of dealing with minorities undermine stereotypes - leading to shifts in policies/practices

• The growth of minority run estate agencies, banks and finance houses, a market niche. With the success of these new competitors the the market structure has changed.

• Disillusionment with mainstream housing market institutions led to many households finding alternative, and often much more informal, ways of approaching the search process

• ‘Cultural norms’ are constantly evolving: a mistake to operate a modern-traditional dualism

Moreover, choice, as in rational choice theory, is assumed as being made by the sovereign individual. But, this is a highly Eurocentric notion, the case of housing (and household) decisions) are typically part of a collective decision-making process. [Plus, no perfect knowledge of the market.]

18

Concluding thoughts: is ethnic segregation

incompatible with social inclusivity?

In Britain:

• Highest levels of spatial separation between ‘minority ethnic groups’ tend to be between working class Muslim communities and Whites (excluding Traveller communities).

• Levels also tend to be moderately high between the former and other South Asian groups.

• Black groups of African and African-Caribbean origin tend to exhibit rather lower levels with respect to all other minority communities.

• The Chinese tend to be fairly dispersed in spatial terms but with highly localised clusters.

But, is segregation per se a problem and, if so, in what sense(s) and for whom?

19

Concluding thoughts: is ethnic segregation incompatible with social inclusivity? (2)

• Minorities may cluster for reasons of security and/or commonality of culture/faith.

• Rich upper middle class Whites (and the elderly) have increasingly resorted to self-segregation.

Unquestionably this presents a problem for the ‘inclusive society’. But, if people genuinely want to segregate for whatever reason, are they not entitled to do so?

But, it can be argued that segregation (say) along cultural/faith

lines affects all members of society. Among numerous reasons:

• Multiculturalism We have much to gain from sharing aspects of our ‘identities’

• Social cohesion More ‘positive’ aspects of segregation (say) in other areas of life (for example, in worship) are not threatened by a reduction in residential segregation. Spatial assimilation does not imply cultural assimilation and certainly not acculturation.

20

Concluding thoughts: is ethnic segregation incompatible with social inclusivity? (3)

It is important to recognise that segregation levels are already falling. A further reduction in segregation can be expected over the coming years, but only under certain conditions:

• Robust measures to undermine the operation of

extreme-Right wing groups, and local racist activity • More effective measures to ensure equal access to a

decent education, job opportunities and housing. • Real efforts to make multiethnic or polyethnic

neighbourhoods ‘work’. Minorities have not only to feel safe when moving into White areas: they need to be made welcome.