Home > Mixed neighborhoods, parallel lives

Mixed neighborhoods, parallel lives


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


October 11, 2006 
Mixed neighborhoods, parallel lives?  Residential proximity and inter-ethnic group contact in German neighborhoods. 


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.  

      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. 

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 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 post-civil 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).  

      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 barrack-style housing.  However as temporary workers became permanent and immigrant families were reunified in Germany, migrants moved into the private housing market.  City 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 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 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 ----- 


      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 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 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 caf� 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.

----- 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 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 Gro�wohnsiedlungen 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 post-1991 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 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 ----- 


      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 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 caf�s 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 f�r 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 German natives, if those Germans who have most in common with them isolate themselves spatially these measures may do little good. 



    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 f�r Entwicklungsforschung. Saarbr�cken, Wirtschafts- und Sozialplanung GmbH: ch.2.  

    Calmore, J. O. (1996). Spatial Equality and the Kerner Commission Report: a Back-to-the-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. 

    Elwert, G. (1982). "Probleme der Ausl�nderintegration. Gesellschaftliche Integration durch Binnenintegration?" K�lner Zeitschrift f�r 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: 33-53. 

    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, Klett-Cotta. 

    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. M�nster, 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. 

    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 sozial�kologischen Kontexteffekten auf schwere Jugenddelinquenz. Soziologie der Kriminalit�t, Sonderheft 43 der K�lner Zeitschrift f�r 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 f�r die Soziale Stadt. Erfahrungen und Perspektiven – Umsetzung des Bund-L�nder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt. Berlin, Bundesministeriums f�r 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. 



    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 origin Turkish origin
    Mean age 46.8 (2.003) 40.2 (2.22) 33.0 (3.02)
    Mean household size 2.04 (.09) 2.98 (.16) 3.85 (.19)
    % with children in household 21% (3) 43% (6) 67% (8)

    Source: GSOEP 


    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 1803 1700
    Median income adjusted for household size 1500 950 903
    % unemployment 6.9% 7.3% 7.7%
    % with high school degree 98% 84% 71%
    % with Gymnasium or technical school diploma 37% 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
    Children in household -2.374**  2.161 6.075*
      N 1877


    N 446


    N 125


    Source: GSOEP


    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 



Search more related documents:Mixed neighborhoods, parallel lives

Set Home | Add to Favorites

All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download

Copyright © 2011
This site does not host pdf,doc,ppt,xls,rtf,txt files all document are the property of their respective owners. complaint#downhi.com