Lo sobrenatural

How segregated and where people (can) live is considered to be an important marker of ethnic integration and social inequality as “residential location is a powerful indicator of social position because many economic opportunities and social resources, such as affordable housing, quality schools, public safety, transportation and recreational and social amenities are unequally distributed across space”

(Fischer & Tienda, 2006, p. 101). The neighbourhoods people live in could have profound effects on their inhabitants (e.g. Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Sharkey & Faber, 2014) as the characteristics of these neighbourhoods are believed to influence how people think and act (Dear, 1999). Moreover, living in certain neighbourhoods can be used as a form of conspicuous consumption (Dewilde & Lancee, 2013) and to construct social (class and ethnic) identities (Meeus, De Decker, & Claessens, 2013;

Schuermans, Meeus, & De Decker, 2015; Waerniers, 2017).

Indeed, several studies link socio-economic and ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood to various detrimental socio-economic, crime, health and integration outcomes (e.g. Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002;

Sharkey & Faber, 2014). Before I elaborate on these, it is important to note that some studies remark that these neighbourhood effects are small (Dietz, 2002) while other studies associate (ethnic) segregation with beneficial effects. These include (1)

‘ethnic-density effects’ which provide a buffer against harassment and discrimination and, thus, lead to improved health outcomes (Becares, Nazroo, & Stafford, 2009;

Hughes et al., 2006), (2) stronger social cohesion and more social support due to a more thriving community and (3) the critical mass necessary to support an

ethnic-3 enclave economy that can offer specific products and employment opportunities (Portes & Shafer, 2007; Zhou & Logan, 1991).

The detrimental effects of segregation appear more numerous. In terms of socio-economic outcomes, ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood has been linked to lower wages, lower employment rates, lower levels of education for students, lower returns on education, and a lower uptake of (formal) pension protection among elderly migrants (Andersson, 2004; Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand, 1993;

Feng, Vlachantoni, Evandrou, & Falkingham, 2016; Kasinitz & Rosenberg, 1996;

Khattab, Johnston, Sirkeci, & Modood, 2010; Musterd, Andersson, Galster, &

Kauppinen, 2008; Pinkster, 2009). When looking at crime, dwelling related crimes, vandalism and behavioural problems are found to be higher in neighbourhoods housing a concentration of ethnic minorities (Estrada & Nilsson, 2008; Kalff et al., 2001; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000).

The negative health outcomes of living in ethnic-minority dominated or deprived neighbourhoods relate to lower self-esteem in poor neighbourhoods, increased teen pregnancies and infant mortality, higher (all-cause) mortality and higher levels of emotional distress and depression (Haney, 2007; Kramer & Hogue, 2009; LaVeist, 1989; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Pickett & Pearl, 2001; Sucoff

& Upchurch, 1998). The concentration of ethnic minorities is also linked to lower interethnic friendships and fewer interethnic marriages, less ethnic bridges in a social network and worse host language proficiency and usage. Moreover, more segregation has been linked to worse outgroup sentiments among the ethnic majority towards ethnic minorities (Feng, Boyle, van Ham, & Raab, 2013; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007;

Peach, 1980; Schlueter, 2012; Small, 2007; van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2007a;

Vervoort, 2012; Vervoort, Dagevos, & Flap, 2012). Finally, neighbourhood effects can also relate to social capital, with lower volunteering rates and worse social

4

cohesion in neighbourhoods housing a concentration of ethnic minorities (Cattell, 2001; McCulloch, Mohan, & Smith, 2012; Neutens, Vyncke, De Winter, & Willems, 2013).

Many scholars link these (detrimental) neighbourhood effects to the absence of higher socio-economic status or ethnic-majority neighbours (Jencks & Mayer, 1990;

Small & Newman, 2001). This absence can lead to the divergent socialization of children and adolescents growing up in such neighbourhoods. This divergent socialization leads to anomy (Durkheim & Simpson, 1960) or the rejection of mainstream norms and values in favour of oppositional ones. This absence can also lead to social network deprivation, the lack of both institutional and social amenities in the neighbourhood and a lack of political power to raise awareness and advocate for social change. On the contrary, both the relative deprivation theory (Stouffer, Lumsdaine, & Lumsdaine, 1949) and the ‘competition for scarce resources’ models (Dietz, 2002; Jencks & Mayer, 1990) consider the presence of neighbours with a higher socio-economic status as a disadvantage (Dietz, 2002; Small & Newman, 2001). The former assumes that the presence of these better-off neighbours leads to resentment or insecurity (Dietz, 2002). The latter assumes that the presence of these more advantaged neighbours, who can more easily claim resources, limits the resources worse-off neighbourhood inhabitants can enjoy (Dietz, 2002; Jencks &

Mayer, 1990).

Other scholars argue that neighbourhood effects are not explained by the socio-demographic composition of the neighbourhood, but by physical and environmental neighbourhood characteristics such as air pollution, noise levels or the exposure to certain chemicals. Sharkey and Faber (2014), for example, cite several studies linking higher levels of noise, air or water pollution to lower levels of school attendance and worse school results. Detrimental health outcomes, moreover, are often linked to poor

5 building quality as well (Gee & Payne-Sturges, 2004; LaVeist, 1989; Lopez, 2002).

Evans (2006), finally, states that neighbourhood pollution can also hinder the (biological or chemical) development of children.

However, it must be remarked that the existence of neighbourhood effects is contested in the literature. A first critique relates to the correct operationalization of neighbourhoods and the difference between on the one hand, neighbourhoods which are geographical locations, and on the other hand, communities which are localized social networks (Friedrichs, Galster, & Musterd, 2003). A second and very important argument against neighbourhood effects relates to selection bias (Dietz, 2002;

Sampson & Sharkey, 2008; Slater, 2013). Scholars warning against this bias argue that, in order to exist, neighbourhood effects should impact inhabitants over and above the detrimental effects already caused by the individual characteristics of these inhabitants. However, people do not randomly live where they do but rather end up in certain types of neighbourhoods based on their individual (socio-economic) characteristics. A selection bias would arise when the same characteristics that push households towards deprived neighbourhoods also explain the neighbourhood effects discussed above. Neighbourhood effects, then, are no more than the aggregate outcome of the detrimental effects of already present individual or household characteristics (Jencks & Mayer, 1990). This selection bias is difficult to avoid.

Consequently, it is hard to determine whether neighbourhoods cause certain detrimental outcomes or only correlate with these outcomes (Sampson et al., 2002).

However, the Thomas theorem (Merton, 1995) teaches us that even if neighbourhood effects are driven by selection effects alone, they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This theorem states that "if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas & Thomas, 1928, p. 572). When considering residential segregation, this Thomas theorem resonates in place identity (Meeus et al.,

6

2013) and neighbourhood stigmatization (Wacquant, 2007). Place identity is an identity constructed through the place where people live and the personal, social and cultural connotations attached to this place (Hernández, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, &

Hess, 2007). It is used to construct, maintain and transform specific personal and social identities (Cuba & Hummon, 1993). People use this identity to distinguish themselves from others (Meeus et al., 2013). As such, place identity becomes a social categorization mechanism (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996) and the place of residence a way to communicate and presume social identity and a households’ norms and values (Cuba & Hummon, 1993).

Neighbourhood stigmatization, then, occurs when people ascribe negative characteristics to others based on where they live (Wacquant, 2007). This stigmatization is often based on the ethnic and class composition of a neighbourhood (Meeus et al., 2013; Robertson, McIntosh, & Smyth, 2010; Schuermans et al., 2015;

Wacquant, 2007). In Belgium, for example, Meeus and colleagues (2013) found that many ethnic-majority members consider inner-city neighbourhoods as neighbourhoods to be avoided as these are bad and hostile, characteristics that are linked to their “ethnic” and “poor” composition. As a consequence of this stigmatization, people can be discriminated (Kasinitz & Rosenberg, 1996), which further deprives these inhabitants of social opportunities. Additionally, neighbourhood problems are left unattended to (Reardon & Bischoff, 2011;

Wacquant, 2007), which further decreases the living quality in these neighbourhoods.

Moreover, inhabitants can also internalize this stigmatization (Wacquant, 2007;

Waerniers, 2017), which leads to withdrawal from the neighbourhood (Permentier, van Ham, & Bolt, 2007; Pinkster, 2014), shame about the place of residence (Wacquant, 2007), and anti-neighbourhood sentiments (Waerniers, 2017).

7 As such, even when it is impossible to determine whether living in certain neighbourhoods has profound effects over and above the already deprived conditions of their inhabitants, the place where people live shapes everyday life and interaction.

Moreover, as residential segregation remains widespread and as socio-economic residential segregation is even increasing (Marcinczak et al., 2016; Musterd, 2005;

Timberlake & Iceland, 2007), investigating how segregation arises remains an important task for the social sciences.

Theory

Residential segregation and neighbourhood composition changes are the aggregate result of the individual residential decisions people make (W. A. V. Clark

& Dieleman, 1996c; P. Li & Tu, 2011). As such, it is unsurprising that researchers have borrowed heavily from residential mobility theory to explain residential segregation. Concepts like residential preferences (for white flight and self-segregation), constrained housing opportunities (for place stratification) or inequality in financial resources (for spatial assimilation) are often used to explain why ethnic and socio-economic groups live concentrated in separate neighbourhoods. The explanations segregation theories offer for these preferences and constraints, however, remain limited to factors like racism (Becker, 1957; Crowder, 2000) or the capitalist housing market (Tammaru et al., 2016). However, the residential mobility literature focusses on more general explanations for preferences and constraints, like life cycle mobility (Rossi, 1955) and the amenities offered by the house and the neighbourhood (Speare, 1974). As residential mobility is the main driver of residential segregation, considering these more general explanations of mobility could lead to a further refinement of the segregation literature.

This will require the thorough integration of both residential mobility and residential segregation theories. This integration is currently lacking in the literature.

8

To achieve this integration here, attention is first given to the housing choice model used in the residential mobility literature. This makes it possible to point out precisely how the different segregation theories are based on residential mobility.