Mixed neighborhoods, parallel lives? Residential proximity and inter-ethnic group

unevenoliveΛογισμικό & κατασκευή λογ/κού

1 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

62 εμφανίσεις


1








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

(
adrever@utk.ed
u,
wclark@geog.ucla.edu)
















October 11, 2006

2

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


Abstract


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 stu
dies
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
sub
stantial 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 re
duces the chances for contact.

3

Introduction



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 con
clusions 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 improvement
s 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 i
n 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 a
nd 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 developmen
t 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.


4


Four research questions guide our analysis:


1. Are Germans living within ethnic neighbor
hoods 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 neighborho
ods 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 tha
n 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 imm
igrants.
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 i
nteraction 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 relationship
s 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 mainstre
am ethnic group. Though this

5

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 20
th

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 struct
ure 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 resi
dential 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).


6


Though these literatures disagree about whether or n
ot 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 settlem
ent 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 poi
nted 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 assimila
tion (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 i
nto the private housing market. City

7

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 hete
rogeneity 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 hav
e 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 fi
nd 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, Friedric
hs 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 person
s 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 soc
ial 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
int
eractions we use data from the German Socio Economic Panel dataset (GSOEP). Data

8

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
analy
sis 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
thi
s 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 w
ith 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 kn
owledge 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 c
oncentration 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 i
nto 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 t
o
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 zi
p
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 whi
le census tracts do not necessarily follow neighborhood boundaries in

9

Germany there

i
s 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 arou
nd 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 n
eighborhoods 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 (
F
igure 1). Because a clear majority
of respondents living in ethnic neighborhood
s 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 gro
ups 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.



-----

f
igure 1 here
-----



Res
ults



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 p
anel
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

10

including their national origin. From this information we created a variable ‘prop
ortion 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 neig
hborhoods 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 he
re
-----




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 frien
dship
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 o
f 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, w
ithin German neighborhoods the housing stock
is
much more varied
(O’Loughlin 1987).
Thus,
to what
extent does this variation augment heterogeneity in the

11

neighborhood population? More specifically, does the German population inhabiting
ethnic neighborhoods differ substantially from their immigrant counterparts?

The second research question asks:

Whi
ch

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, p
ersons of German origin living wi
thin 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 ho
useholds
(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 prov
ide 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 s
wimming 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 a
verage 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 café etc. Unemployment levels in all groups
are similar and below the national average. The education levels between the populations
again differs substan
tially further contributing to different interests in the use of spare
time and augmenting social distance between groups.


12

-----

table 3 here
-----



The previous analysis reveals that there are large differences between the German
and immigrant origin pop
ulations 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 populati
on, 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 neighbor
hoods
?

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
compare
d the coefficients for the
German population
, the immigrant population as a
whole and the population of Turkish origin
(
T
able 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 i
nto 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
test
s 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 im
migrants and Germans sorting into
different types of housing within ethnic neighborhoods? Alt
hough Germany’s
neighborhoods are ethnically integrated, previous research indicates that building to
building segregation levels are high (O’Loughlin 1987). If G
ermans 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

13

is spent in far
-
flung locations. In the absence of
data at this scale,
as a proxy we compare
t
he 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
Großwohnsiedlungen
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 v
ery 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

(
T
able 6). Generally the largest buildings are the least desi
rable
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


14

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 significa
ntly
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 p
ersons 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 ev
idenced but their perception that they are living in buildings in
much greater need of repair.

-----

table 7 here
-----


Conclusion



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, appe
ar 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
t
he 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 neighborh
ood

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
Ge
rmany’s ethnic neighborhoods. Persons of immigrant origin are more likely to be

15

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 cafés and pubs. Housing estates and crumbling inner city buildings
sport rows o
f 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 with
in 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
debate
s

over whether or not ‘parallel societies’
(
Paralle
lgesellschaften)

are developing in Germany

can be parallel with the evidence of
parallel neighborhood societies.

The fears about s
ocial balkanization have resulted in
continued support for
Quartiersmanagement

(neighborhood management) programs.
Quartiersm
anagment

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
disa
dvan
taged

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
Institu
t für 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 im
migrants to interact with

16

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



17


REFERENCES


Alba, R. and V. Nee (2003). Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and
Conte
mporary 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 Governa
nce. 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 für Entwicklungsforschung. Saarbrücken,
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. Philli
ps, 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 Studie
s 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.




18

Elwert, G. (1982). "Probleme der Ausländerintegration. Gesellschaftliche Integration
du
rch Binnenintegration?" Kölner Zeitschrift für 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 U
mland. 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 Segregatio
n 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. (199
3). "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 St
ory." 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. Münster, Waxmann.



Krumma
cher, 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 Resear
ch 39: 315
-
50.



Massey, D. S. and N. Denton (1993). American Apartheid. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard
University Press.


19



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, Freundes
kreise und Delinquenz. Eine
Mehrebenenanalyse zu sozialökologischen Kontexteffekten auf schwere
Jugenddelinquenz. Soziologie der Kriminalität, Sonderheft 43 der Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. D. Oberwittler and S. Karstedt.
Wiesba
den, 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 Econo
my: 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. (197
8). 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. (200
2). "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 für die Soziale Stadt. Erfahrungen und Perspektiven


Umsetzung des Bund
-
Länder
-
Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem

20

Entwicklungsbedarf


die soziale Stadt. Berlin, Bundesministeriums für 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 Populat
ion 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.







21



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

Tu
rkish 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




22

Table 3: Income and educational differences among populations living within in
German neighborhoods that are more than 25% for
eign




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 Gymnasi
um 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

H
ousehold 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

Rsq0.0419

N 446

Rsq0.0706

N 125

Rsq0.145

Source:
GSOEP


23

Table 5: Year housing w
as 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 bo
th 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

T
urkish 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 significan
tly 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 renova
tion

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