Deborah Philips - 2007

Geography Compass 1/5 (2007): 1138–1159, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.
Blackwell
Oxford,
Geography
GECO
©
1749-8198
June
10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.x
051
1
0
Original
1159???
138???
Blackwell
Ethnic2007
UK
Articles
perspective
and Publishing
Compass
Publishing
racial Ltd2007a critical
segregation:
Ethnic and Racial Segregation: A Critical

Perspective
Deborah Phillips*
Geography Department, University of Leeds
Abstract
This review adopts a critical perspective on geographical research on ethnic and
racial segregation. It seeks to address four key questions. First, how can we
conceptualize ethnic and racial segregation and what are the implications for
geographical research? Second, how can we best measure ethnic and racial
segregation? Questions about the politics of data collection, categorization and
representation are addressed. Third, what does ethnic and racial segregation
mean? The article examines the different forces underlying clustering and the
way in which levels of segregation have become an indicator of migrant
integration. Finally, the article reflects on how statistics and visual representations
of minority ethnic segregation might be used in the political and policy sphere.
It concludes that a critical perspective on ethnic and racial segregation requires
us to acknowledge the gaps and silences in the data produced and the complexity,
and often value-laden nature, of our interpretations.
Introduction
The social and spatial segregation of new migrants and established minority
ethnic groups has become a highly politicized and sensitive issue for many
nation-states. The new flows of people, ideas and culture associated with
globalization and growing transnational migration have brought increasing
social and cultural diversity to many cities. This has posed new challenges
with respect to people’s sense of identity, how social groups relate to one
another and how people organize their lives. Political discourses within
many of the European Union states, for example, expose anxieties about
the apparent failure of some minority ethnic groups to follow the usual
pathways towards social and spatial integration, and the potentially divisive
effects of living with ‘too much’ cultural difference, especially in the
context of the ‘war on terror’. As state sponsored multiculturalism falters,
new questions surrounding the meaning and expression of national identity,
citizenship and belonging have all been brought to the fore. Central to
this debate has been a concern with entrenched minority ethnic segregation,
© 2007 The Author
Journal Compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Ethnic and racial segregation: a critical perspective 1139
which all too often is seen as an indicator of a divided society and wider
social malaise.
There is long history of research documenting patterns of immigrant
settlement and the dynamics of minority ethnic concentration and segre-
gation over time (e.g. Huttman 1991; Jackson and Smith 1981; Peach
1975; van Kempen and Ozuekren 1998). Typical models of minority
social and spatial incorporation in North American and European cities
have highlighted a tendency towards ethnic concentration and segregation
in the early stages of settlement, usually in poorer (often inner-city) areas,
followed by a gradual movement outwards into better neighbourhoods
over time. Some groups, for example black minority populations settling
in predominantly white European cities from the 1950s onwards, have not
followed the predicted paths. As we shall see, explanations as to why such
groups continue to cluster in more deprived urban areas are contested.
This article is less concerned with describing the geographies of
ethnic and racial segregation than with taking a critical look at how
geographers and others have conceptualized, measured and interpreted
patterns of segregation. Academics are in a key position to challenge myths
about ethnic clustering and to inform contemporary political and
policy debates about the implications of segregation for social cohesion.
However, as scholars we also have an obligation to think critically about
the knowledge we are producing, how it might be used and whether
we might, unintentionally, be perpetuating some of the prevailing neg-
ative images of ethnic segregation.
In looking at the legacy of geographical research into ethnic segregation,
and at how our understanding of ethnic patterns has developed, several
key questions emerge:
First, how can we conceptualize ethnic and racial segregation? There
has been a reconfiguration of ethnic/race categorizations over time and a
rethinking of salient indicators of social and cultural difference. In recent
years, for example, there has been a resurgence of scholarly interest in
‘ethnicity’, which privileges cultural difference and processes of collective
identity formation, as opposed to ‘race’, which acknowledges how visible,
racially coded difference is bound up with inequalities in power, status
and rights. Some writers have been critical of this development. Alexander
(2002) and Peach (2002), for example, argue that an emphasis on ethnicity
can obscure fault lines in social relations and associated inequalities, and
that ‘race’ remains a meaningful category in people’s everyday lives.
Second, how can we best measure ethnic and racial segregation? This
raises important questions about the politics of data collection, categori-
zation and representation. A range of indicators has been used to
enumerate segregation but there is disagreement over what they signify.
Questions also arise in relation to the appropriate scale of measurement
and whether cross-national comparisons can be meaningful. Furthermore,
given the socially constructed nature of data categories and the invisibility
© 2007 The Author Geography Compass 1/5 (2007): 1138–1159, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.x
1140 Ethnic and racial segregation: a critical perspective
of some groups in aggregated quantitative analyses, segregation indices

may obscure as much as they reveal.
Third, levels of ethnic segregation can be expressed in statistical terms,
but what does ethnic and racial segregation mean? Peach (1996a) has
referred to ‘good’ and ‘bad’ segregation, suggesting that ethnic and racial
clustering may arise through communality or through discrimination,
inequality and exclusion. What are the forces underlying segregation?
Importantly, why is minority ethnic segregation, as opposed to the segre-
gation of white, mainstream groups, constructed as a problem?
Finally, what sort of knowledge is being produced by geographers and
other academics and how might scholarly research on ethnic segregation
feed into a range of social policy debates, for example, on housing oppor-
tunities, the dynamics of neighbourhood change, social cohesion, multi-
culturalism and integration? Questions arise in relation to whose voice is
heard, whose presence is acknowledged and who remains invisible. There
are also questions to be asked about how sensitive data on ethnicity might
be used and by whom.
This review addresses these questions by drawing on the significant
body of literature on urban residential segregation from North America
and Europe. Drawing parallels between countries is not always straightfor-
ward; terminologies, categories and data availability vary between countries
and over time. Changing social and political contexts within countries also
frame new thinking and directions in scholarly inquiry. We can, nevertheless,
observe important continuities over time and between nations, which find
expression in an ongoing scholarly as well as policy concern with minority
ethnic segregation and its implications.
Conceptualizing Ethnic and Racial Segregation

Ways of thinking about ethnic and racial segregation are reflected in, and
shaped by, the way in which we categorize data and how we label the
geographical distributions that we observe. This section explores the social
implications of defining, labelling and relabelling ethnic groups and the
value-laden connotations of some of the terminology both academics and
policy-makers use to describe ethnic and racial clusters.
A critical reading of scholarly and policy research on geographies of
ethnic segregation discloses the politicization of officially encoded data
categories and a reconceptualization of notions of ethnicity over time.
Early empirical work on ethnic segregation treated data on ethnic groups
as relatively unproblematic (Peach 1975). British researchers, for example,
in the 1970s and 1980s commonly used country of birth data, which was
reduced for the purposes of analysis, in many instances, to colour-coded
categories. Ethnicity at this time was usually only ascribed to ‘others’,
particularly people who were ‘not white’, and was thus largely constructed
in racialized terms. The majority population was seen as an ethnicity free,
neutral group (Pulio 2002). Scholars such as Goldberg (1997) in the USA
and Hall (2000) and Alexander (2002) in the UK have traced the transition
from a binary divide between ‘black’ and ‘white’ to the current scholarly
and policy interest in diverse, complex and multiple identities, which may
cross ethnic boundaries. Their accounts reveal how shifts in racial/ethnic
categorizations reflect a particular society’s construction of racial difference,
and how the very process of representation can help to reinforce particular
constructions of ethnic and racial divides. Commentators in the UK (Ratcliffe
2004) and the USA (Goldberg 1997; Lee 1993) have noted an obsession
with ‘race-based’ classifications, which has given rise to a proliferation of
‘nonwhite’ data categories. In Britain, for example, the census ‘ethnic
group’ classification introduced in 1991 has been widely criticized for its
failure to match up to any scholarly understanding of ethnicity (Ahmad
1999; Peach 2000). The broad descriptor, ‘White’, it may be argued, is a
pseudo-racial term, in itself hiding multiple ethnicities (Howard 2006;
Peach 2000).
The easy availability of census data on country of birth and, in some
countries, ethnic origin has contributed to the geographer’s preoccupation
with national heritage as an indicator of ethnic difference. As Kong (1990,
2001) has observed, much less attention has been devoted to thinking
about how other powerful determinants of identity, such as religion,
intersect with race and ethnicity to produce distinctive geographies. There
are some important exceptions. Jewish scholars such as Newman (1985)
and Waterman and Kosmin (1987) have used synagogue records to chart
changing geographies of a racialized Jewish people over a period of more
than a century. Researchers have also used distinctive South Asian names
recorded in electoral registers to trace changing patterns of Sikh, Hindu
and Muslim settlement (e.g. Medway 1998; Phillips et al. 2007). However,
the limited availability of national geographical data on ethno-religious
groups has been a stumbling block to research on religious segregation in
countries like Britain. As Southworth (2005) recounts, the decision over
whether to include a question on religion in the British census remained
highly politicized and contentious for two decades after it was first
mooted. It was finally included in 2001, and there is now a burgeoning
geographical literature (see, e.g. Howard and Hopkins 2005), which has
emphasized the differentiated experience of minority religious groups of
similar ethnic origins. Most strikingly, the disintegration of inner-city
segregation, which now characterizes the British Indian Sikh population,
shows few parallels among Muslims of Indian heritage (Phillips et al.
2007). The pattern of British Muslim settlement is nevertheless changing,
albeit slowly. Following 9/11 and the associated ‘war on terror’, the social
and spatial integration of Muslim minorities in Western societies has
become a particular focus for public debate. The political discourse tends
to be one of Muslim segregationism and isolationism. However, closer
geographical analysis indicates that while established Muslim communities
are still growing, largely because of natural increase and new household
formation among a youthful population, there are also signs of dispersal
into higher status neighbourhoods, particularly by professionals (Phillips
2006; Simpson 2004).
The trend towards the disaggregation of minority ethnic categories and
the enumeration of religious affiliation has provided a framework for a more
sensitive analysis of residential segregation and ethnic difference. Distinctive
geographies of smaller ethnic groups are emerging; take the case, for
example, of people of Bangladeshi origin, whose presence has all too often been
deleted in the production of data on ‘Asians’ or the aggregated category
of ‘Pakistani/Bangladeshi’. However, it is important to acknowledge the ease
with which the identities of smaller religious groupings can become
hidden in the eagerness to map newly available data on religion. As Peach
(2006) has noted, while most of Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims have their
origins in the Indian subcontinent (1.2 million), there are many other
ethnic groups in Britain who share a Muslim religious identity. Yet to
date, we know little about the distinctive geographies of the non-Asian
Muslim groups.
The ‘cultural turn’ in social science inquiry has emphasized the insen-
sitivity of ethnic origin data to people’s lived experiences, to the formation
of a sense of belonging, and to the complexity of their identities (cf.
Holloway 2000). Hybrid identities, mixed-race households and the ‘new
ethnicities’ explored by those such as Back (1996) and Nayak (2003) often
defy easy categorization through standard empirical ‘ethnic’ categories,
which impose rigid boundaries between groups and ‘fix’ these identities
for 10 or more years. Multiple and complex identities nevertheless underpin
everyday expressions and experiences of difference and form the basis for
new intercultural alliances. There are also other complexities that chal-
lenge us to rethink the way in which we conceptualize ethnicity and the way
we might interpret the segregated ethnic geographies that we map. As
Smith and Bailey (2004) highlight, in an increasingly globalized world, we
now have to question the way in which we define the family, the house-
hold and its associations. We can no longer assume that minority ethnic
families are a localized unit, set on a trajectory of assimilation into the
nation-state in which they are living. Rather, families are increasingly
likely to maintain transnational connections, which complicate the link
between place of residence and ideas of local and national belonging.
While the data categories we use to map ethnic and racial segregation
have changed quite considerably over time, the same cannot be said for
the terminology that is widely used to describe the patterns observed.
Varady’s (2005) international collection of articles on urban segregation
illustrates the long-running debate over appropriate descriptors for distinctive
ethnic geographies, citing examples that range from the African-American
‘ghetto’ to Jewish ‘enclaves’ in Toronto and London. While the distinctive
terms are intended to imply different forces at work in sustaining minority
ethnic segregation (ghettos are broadly viewed as a result of ‘forced’ segre-

gation, while enclaves are voluntary), the labels have become so value-laden
that they can obscure as much as they reveal. Rarely is any minority
ethnic concentration a product of one set of forces, as implied in this
distinction. Furthermore, what are the implications of such labelling for
the people living in these areas and how does it affect people’s life
chances, such as access to work? The negative connotations of the black
‘ghetto’ as a place of alienation, disorder, civic disengagement and violent
crime have been explored in the seminal work of David Ley (1974), who
exposed the imagery associated with African-American inner-city as a
frontier outpost, and more recently in the British context by authors such
as Bonnett (2002), who explores representations of the ‘dark’ inner-city.
‘Ghettoized’ inner areas stand, in contrast, in the public imagination, to
the ‘whiteness’ of many other parts of the city, drawing racialized distinctions
between the urban and the rural, and the inner-city and the suburbs.
Nevertheless, as Gilroy (2000) reminds us, the meanings we usually associate
with particular spaces labelled as ‘ghettos’ can be inverted to create a
positive image out of a stigmatized one; one that shows the positive
attributes of feelings of community and belonging in these areas and the
‘ghetto’ as a place for possible popular resistance rather than feelings of
victimization and exclusion.
Given the political sensitivity of debates about levels of minority ethnic
segregation, particularly as they relate to groups labelled as ‘outsiders’
(such as British Muslims), we would do well to exercise caution in the
terms that we use to enumerate ethnic groups and to describe their
geographies. As Phillips (2006) has explored, in the current climate of concern
associated with racialized urban disturbances in some northern British
cities in 2001 and the global ‘war on terror’, even terms such as ‘segre-
gation’ and ‘self-segregation’ have become loaded with meaning, readily
conjuring up images of the unassimilable ‘enemy within’. Cantle’s report
into the northern disturbances gave rise to a political discourse on the
so-called ‘parallel lives’ led by Britain’s segregated Asian and white
populations (Community Cohesion Review Team 2001). Images of a
divided nation were sharpened by several high profile security alerts,
which brought public expressions of doubt as to the loyalties of British
Muslims in particular. This reawakened claims about the ‘dangers’ of mino-
rity ethnic segregation, which was read as a sign of nonbelonging, and
brought government calls for desegregation as part of a move towards
greater national unity, common values and understanding (Community
Cohesion Panel 2004).
The idea of ‘segregation’ is widely discussed but it is often left undefined.
As this article explores, the term has multiple meanings, in a scholarly and
in a political sense. Geographical research into ethnic group segregation
commonly focuses on residential clustering, and may use statistical indicators
of this, which, as the next section explores, are often disputed. There are
also some studies exploring minority ethnic segregation in relation to

schooling (e.g. Johnston Wilson and Burgess 2004). However, a sense of
the complexity of experiences embedded within the term ‘segregation’ is
often missing. As Massey and Denton (1988) in the US context and Simpson
(2007) in the British context have signalled, segregation is a multidimen-
sional construct. It incorporates ideas relating to the unevenness of a
group’s distribution, the exposure of one group to another (and thus the
potential for contact), ethnic group concentration in particular areas and
ethnic diversity. As Massey and Denton (1988, 312) suggest, segregation
is ‘an ambiguous idea’.
Political and policy discourses readily equate evidence of spatial
segregation with social segregation, particularly the deep ethnic divisions
so often captured in contentious discussions about ‘ghettoization’ (Phillips
2005). A focus on the ‘problems’ associated with black minority ethnic
segregation, as opposed to white, serves to illustrate the racialized tone of
the debate. As Dorling and Thomas (2004) indicate, levels of residential
segregation for Jewish minorities are in fact higher than for any black
minority ethnic group in the UK, yet Jewish communities are frequently
referred to as successful models of integration (Phillips 2006). Furthermore,
while the persistence of black minority group segregation is a source of
unease, the observable separation of social classes or housing tenures is not.
Yet according to Dorling and Rees (2003), social clustering on the basis
of employment state is increasing in Britain while ethnic group clustering
is decreasing. Most obviously, references to minority ethnic ‘ghettos’ and
to the process of ‘ghettoization’ can stigmatize already vulnerable and
marginalized populations even further. It is not uncommon for such terms
to be used in sensationalized media representations of ethnic segregation,
but they have also crept into recent scholarly analyses of ethnic geographies
in Britain and elsewhere (e.g. Johnston et al. 2002). It could be argued
that the term is not only emotive, but also alarmist, and is perhaps best avoided.
Measuring Ethnic Segregation

There is a long scholarly tradition of seeking to quantify ethnic diversity
and residential segregation through statistical indicators, such as indices of
segregation, dissimilarity and isolation. Notable recent contributions to this
literature include those by Simpson (2004, 2007) and Johnston et al.
(2002) in the UK, Harsman (2006) in Sweden, van Kempen and van
Weesep (1998) and Musterd (2005) in the Netherlands, and Ihlanfeldt and
Scafidi (2002), Johnston et al. (2004) and Dawkins (2006) in the USA.
Such indicators can provide a basis for temporal analyses of changing
patterns of ethnic segregation within cities and regions and they are
sometime used for cross-national comparisons. The latter often use
levels of segregation (black) in the USA as an implicit or explicit benchmark
of failed minority ethnic social integration (e.g. Fortuijn et al. 1998; Johnston
et al. 2002; Peach 1996b; Walks and Bourne 2006). As Fortuijn et al. (1998,
367) contend ‘the black ghetto in American cities symbolizes the accu-
mulation of the miseries of modern Western societies.’
The critical approach of Massey and Denton (1988) and Simpson
(2007) to the use of segregation indices helpfully illuminates the complex
and multidimensional nature of processes of ethnic segregation, and the
policy debates pertaining to this, in the USA and UK, respectively. Simp-
son’s (2007) conceptualization of segregation builds on Massey and Denton’s
distributional measures of ‘evenness’, ‘exposure’ and locational measures
of ‘concentration’, ‘centralization’ and ‘clustering’, to capture minority
ethnic group mobility as well. In doing so, he sheds light on the dynamic
processes associated with population change (i.e. growth in situ through
natural increase and immigration) as opposed to population movement
towards, or away from, one’s own ethnic group. Political and policy
anxieties about minority ethnic segregation are particularly grounded
in concerns about ‘exposure’ or ‘isolation’ (i.e. as encapsulated by the
‘parallel lives’ debate in the UK) and movement. The latter has implica-
tions for debates about ‘white flight’ and ‘self-segregation’, and the process
of withdrawal from social mixing implicated within it. Simpson (2007)
argues, in the British context, that the statistical evidence for both of these
processes of separation is shaky.
The most commonly used indices of isolation (i.e. the likelihood of
meeting someone from the same ethnic group locally) and dissimilarity
(the proportion of a group that would have to move to mirror the geog-
raphy of the general population) are indicative of geographical distributions,
but not specific locations. Thus, some researchers have used these indices
as a springboard to examine the association between minority ethnic
segregation, poverty and social inequality. Studies by Massey and Denton
(1989) and Friedrichs et al. (2003) in the USA, and Musterd (1998, 2003)
and Kearns and Parkinson (2001) in the Netherlands and UK, respectively,
have made important contributions to our understanding of the ‘neigh-
bourhood effects’ associated with black and minority ethnic segregation
in different national contexts. There is strong evidence to suggest that
living in a highly segregated inner-city neighbourhood can limit residents’
chances of escaping poverty and deprivation due to poor social networks
and limited local resources and job opportunities, although as Musterd
(2003) points out, the potential for social mobility is dependent on levels
of residential segregation, the availability of welfare support and the buoyancy
of the labour market. His work in Amsterdam concludes that ethnic
inhabitants of ‘moderately’ segregated areas fare no worse than other poor
groups and that ‘desegregation’ policies are less important than education
and welfare programmes for lifting deprived ethnic minorities out of poverty.
Nevertheless, the link between long-term residence in areas of deprivation
and social exclusion in other spheres of opportunity is well established.
For example, Johnston et al. (2002), Somerville and Steele (2002) and
Harrison and Phillips (2003) argue that living within deprived inner-city
areas can generate ‘cumulative disadvantage’ for black and minority ethnic
groups living in Britain, while Andersen (2002) explores the mutually
reinforcing association between segregated, disadvantaged ethnic groups
and ‘excluded places’ in Denmark. However, minority ethnic segregation
and deprivation tends to be racially coded. As the affluence of many
Jewish communities in suburban USA and Western Europe testifies,
minority ethnic segregation is less likely to be associated with deprivation
and disadvantage if you are white ( Valins 2003).
Policy-makers clearly have an appetite for ‘scientific’ measures of segregation,
which appear to give clear answers to vexed questions on whether ethnic
segregation levels are increasing over time, or indeed approaching US
ghetto like proportions. However, statistical measures ( like all data) come
with caveats, which politicians and policy-makers are apt to ignore. As we
saw in the previous section, demographic change, along with shifting
conceptualizations of ‘race’, ethnicity, identity and difference, have prompted
frequent reconstructions and relabelling of ethnic categories, rendering
them unstable and transitory. Furthermore, Wright and Ellis (2006) alert
us to the growing challenges posed by ‘mixed-race’ and ‘mixed-nativity’
households when depicting segregation or computing segregation indices
(which rely on counts of individuals as opposed to households). Drawing
on research in the USA, they argue that households characterized by
mixed-race partnerships exhibit quite different geographies from those of
nonmixed households of similar backgrounds, and that this ‘complication’
is only likely to grow.
The limits of describing and interpreting segregation through quan-
titative indicators have also been exposed through ongoing discussions
about the choice of indicators and method of computation. The controversy
over the relative merits of particular indicators is illustrated in the
exchange between Simpson (2004) and Johnston et al. (2005), and in Wong’s
(2004) analysis of the ‘index war’. Some researchers in the USA have
sidestepped this thorny issue and taken a simpler approach, categorizing
groups deemed to be highly segregated on all measures (typically African-
Americans) as ‘hyper-segregated’ (e.g. Massey and Denton 1989; Wilkes
and Iceland 2004). Equally important questions relate to the appropriate
scale of segregation analyses. It has long been recognized that segregation
indices are sensitive to the size of the areal unit used in the calculation;
the smaller the unit, the higher the index and the more segregated the
groups appears. Similarly, computations based on large spatial units, such
as wards or local authority districts, can fail to detect the localized segre-
gation of small ethnic groups. Comparisons between cities can be difficult
because of variations in the size of spatial units and differences in defining
urban areas (Krupka 2007). Meanwhile, temporal analyses are hampered by
geographical boundary changes over time. Some scholars have nevertheless
devoted considerable ingenuity to developing sophisticated standardization
techniques in order to satisfy the demand for data comparability (e.g. Rees
et al. 2004). Cross-national comparisons also bring challenges. Johnston
et al. (2002) have produced criteria for classifying neighbourhoods in
order to facilitate comparative work. However, as Harrison, Law, et al.’s
(2005) review of ethnic minority data in 15 European Union countries
reveals, the accuracy of the data, the descriptors used and the ideological
premises underpinning the construction of data categories varies consid-
erably between countries, making cross-national comparisons dubious.
The questions posed by politicians and policy-makers with regard to
changing levels of minority ethnic segregation are thus often difficult to answer.
As Simpson (2006) has pointed out, statistics can show apparently coun-
tervailing trends (i.e. both increasing minority ethnic concentration in
inner-city areas and dispersal to new areas as the population grows) and
quantitative data are not always easy to interpret. There is no objective
definition of ‘intense’ segregation or ‘acceptable’ segregation, and often
no appreciation of the fact that ethnic clusters can have a transient population;
as some households move out they are replaced by others. A heavy reliance
on census data has also brought a research focus on segregation at the
city-wide scale, or at the level of the neighbourhood (conceptualized in
various ways). However, it may well be that the street, community centre,
work, park and other public spaces are more meaningful sites of ethnic
segregation for people’s everyday lives, especially for women and young
people. Interesting explorations of such spaces for ethnic interaction can
be found in the recent work of Dines et al. (2006) and Amin (2002).
Interpreting Ethnic and Racial Segregation

Statistical indicators can give an impression of certainty about the dynamics
of ethnic segregation. However, as the preceding sections suggests, indicators
can be misleading. This adds to the complexity of the crucial question in
this field of study; what does the ethnic segregation that can be measured
and mapped actually mean? We can think about this question in various
ways. What does ethnic clustering mean for the everyday lives of those
who live in the ‘segregated neighbourhoods’? How do minority ethnic
groups see and use these spaces, and how does this compare with geo-
graphical spaces that lie beyond the ethnic clusters? And how is minority
ethnic segregation read by others?
The meaning of ethnic segregation is undoubtedly contested in both
the academic literature and in the policy domain. There are two key areas of
debate, which are reviewed in this section. First, how have ethnic clusters
been produced and how are they sustained over time, and what does this
say about a minority ethnic group’s status and access to resources such as
housing and jobs? Peach’s (1996a) distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’
segregation suggests that there may be different forces at work in different
contexts. Second, what does persistent minority ethnic segregation signify
in terms of the (expected) social and cultural integration of minority

ethnic groups? In Britain, the recent political discourse on minority ethnic
‘self-segregation’ arising from Ted Cantle’s report into the racialized urban
disturbances in 2001 has implied that British Muslims, in particular, are
not integrating, but are withdrawing from British society to live ‘parallel
lives’ (Community Cohesion Review Team 2001; Phillips 2006). But this
inference rests on an oversimplified view of Muslim identity and behav-
iour, which underestimates differences that arise through generation, gender,
class, lifestyle, localities, etc. There are thus complex questions to be asked
about the extent to which residential segregation can be seen as an indicator
of social integration.
FORCES PRODUCING AND SUSTAINING SEGREGATION
There are a number of overviews of academic research into the forces

underlying minority ethnic segregation in Western European, North
American and Australian cities, most notably by Huttman (1991), van
Kempen and Ozuekren (1998), Phillips (1998), Goldberg (1998) and Johnston
et al. (2002). These studies debate the salience of minority ethnic choice
versus constraint, and the power of individual agency versus institutional
discrimination in shaping the geographies of minority ethnic segregation
and deprivation so commonly observed across a range of national contexts.
The positive attributes of ethnic clustering have been well documented
(e.g. Huttman 1991; Peach 1996a). Extended social and cultural relations,
social support, a sense of belonging and well-developed community infra-
structures may give rise to a sense of well-being for some members of
minority ethnic groups, particularly in the early stages of migration. This
applies especially, but not exclusively, to the older generation, to women and
to those unable to speak the language of their host country. Many families
from minority ethnic backgrounds still prefer to live in neighbourhoods
with some people from similar backgrounds after several generations, both
for cultural reasons and, in the case of racialized minorities, for a sense of
security (Modood et al. 1997; Phillips et al. 2007). However, in the absence
of constraint, it might be expected that groups would gradually follow the
path of Jewish minorities and migrate, along with their institutions, to
establish new community spaces in better residential areas over time.
The continuing association between black and minority ethnic segre-
gation, deprivation and poverty is a clear indication that exclusionary
forces also play a role in shaping the geographies of racialized groups. As
Sibley (1995) has argued, more powerful groups can use a range of strat-
egies to construct physical and symbolic boundaries between themselves
and those depicted (in the media, political discourse and historical repre-
sentations) as threatening ‘others’. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, Sibley
argues that ideas about ‘self ’ (i.e. who you are) tend to prompt exclusionary
practices designed to keep ‘others’ (in this case racialized ‘others’) at a distance.
The resulting ‘purification of space’ can manifest itself in segregated

neighbourhoods, workplaces and social spaces. There is certainly ample
evidence to suggest that socially constructed ideas about ‘race’ and
‘difference’ have produced and sustained segregationist practices in the
housing market and other spheres (see, e.g. Galster and Godfrey 2005;
Harrison, Phillips, et al. 2005; Phillips 1998; Smith 1989; Souza Briggs
2005). These studies indicate that institutionalized discrimination by
housing market agencies (estate agents, financial institutions, landlords
and social housing institutions) and individuals has contributed to the
persistence of black and minority ethnic segregation in the more deprived
(usually) inner-city neighbourhoods. Meanwhile minority ethnic housing
options may also be constrained by racist harassment. As Phillips et al.
(2007) have observed, anxieties about living in the suburbs or other ‘white
areas’ has deterred some British Asian families from moving into better
areas. Studies by Third et al. (1997), Chahal and Julienne (1999) and Bowes
and Sim (2002) have all provided evidence to show that some minority
ethnic households in the UK are prepared to sacrifice better quality housing
in order to achieve greater security from harassment.
Nevertheless, even the geographies of ethnic groups with long histories
of exclusion are beginning to change, and growing numbers of black and
minority ethnic households are moving to higher status areas of American
and British cities (Alba and Nee 2003; Rees and Butt 2004). New oppor-
tunities are opening up and some groups have been successful in circum-
venting discrimination, although there are usually ‘ethnic penalties’ ( like
higher property prices) to be paid (Karn 1997). The continuing racialization
of space continues to circumscribe opportunities and mobility for many,
limiting their rights of access to, and use of, certain areas of the city.
Contests over space manifest themselves in displays of resistance by some
white households when minority ethnic households try to move into ‘their’
neighbourhoods, and in disputes over the siting of community facilities
(Gale and Naylor 2002; Phillips et al. 2007). As Alexander (2002) and Nayak
(2003) have argued, the power to exclude and the advantages accruing to
white people vary by class, age/lifestyle and locality. Nevertheless, whiteness
still tends to be seen as normal and thus brings with it greater ease of access
to white schools, workplaces and suburbs for those who are not marked
out as ‘different’ (Bonnett 2000; Jackson 1998).
While authors such as Sibley tend to place great store on the power of
dominant groups to exclude, thus perhaps underplaying the ability of minority
ethnic groups to create their own spaces, such arguments highlight the
capacity of ‘imaginary geographies’ of difference to produce unequal
social and spatial divisions. It is clear that racialized divisions fracture in
different ways in different countries and that they tend to shift with time.
In Europe and North America, groups perceived to threaten white status
and privilege (i.e. the purity of whiteness) are commonly black minority
ethnic groups, particularly those associated with a country’s colonial past
(Bonnett 2000; Vanderbeck 2006). However, the focus of anxiety, and the
construction of new ‘folk devils’, tends to alter as political contexts
change. As Gainer (1972) has documented, Jewish migrants to Britain
were once constructed as an ‘alien race’ and were socially and spatially
excluded. Public and political attention then turned to migrants from
India, Pakistan and the Caribbean in the 1950s and 1960s, when racialized
difference associated with colonial minorities were seen as a threat. In 21st
century Britain, religion has once again become a powerful social and
spatial divider as Islamophobia marginalizes Muslims, who in Alexander’s
(2002, 564) words are currently represented as the ‘ultimate Other’.
SEGREGATION AS A SIGNIFIER OF INTEGRATION
Levels of minority ethnic segregation are often regarded as a lens through

which to measure a country’s progress towards an integrated and stable
society. Studies of white immigrant groups in the USA, depicting patterns
of ethnic residential succession and dispersal over time, have contributed
to our understanding of the ‘normal’ pathway to integration. Enduring
patterns of minority ethnic segregation, or so-called ‘ghettoization’ in
poorer residential areas, are all too often thought to symbolize a lack of
social integration.
There has been much scholarly and political debate about the association
between spatial segregation and social integration, and about appropriate
indicators for measuring levels of social inclusion. This debate is under-
pinned by differing views on the expected end-point of the process of
minority incorporation into wider society, as is reflected in the terminology
used to describe this process (Favell 2003). The most commonly used
terms, ‘assimilation’ and ‘integration’, may be used interchangeably.
However, as Favell (1998) points out, these terms have become politicized
(and, one might argue, racialized) and are indicative of different policy
approaches to incorporating social and cultural difference. Each is rooted
in a different state vision of the ‘ideal’ nation. While the concept of
assimilation is still widely used within the American academic literature
(e.g. Alba and Nee 1997, 2003), British scholars tend to shy away from
the term because of its association with a process of minority inclusion
founded on cultural intolerance and the loss of minority ethnic social and
spatial identities. In recent years, the concept of integration has been more
widely favoured. This has connotations of a two-way process of adaptation
involving both the receiving and the minority populations, although as
Castles et al. (2002) have explored, policy discourses on integration tend
to be highly politicized and are imbued with shifting, multiple meanings.
A long history of empirical research in the USA and Europe has
attempted to measure minority ethnic incorporation into the receiving
society through a range of variables. Most commonly, socio-economic
variables have been used as indicators of structural integration, while social
interaction indices have been used as a proxy for ethnic difference (e.g.
Bolt et al. 2002; Musterd 2003). While some authors have portrayed
integration as a linear process of transition, others (such as Alba and Nee
2003; Portes and Zhou 1993) have argued that there is a multidimensional
process of ‘segmented assimilation’, whereby migrants assimilate in some
areas of life and not others. A number of factors shaping the path and
speed of integration have been identified. These range from the cultural
to the structural. As explored above, racialized exclusion and disadvantage
may inhibit migrants’ economic progress and opportunities for social and
spatial mixing. However, some migrants may also resist full social and
cultural integration, investing both energy and resources in strategies
designed to preserve their distinctive socio-cultural identities. As Gilroy
(1987) points out, strategies of cultural resistance may develop partly in
response to the experience of exclusion and may be stronger in younger
members of a minority ethnic group than in the migrant generation.
Whatever the group, the patterns and processes of social and spatial
incorporation are likely to be differentiated over time and to vary between
places. Changing economic conditions, for example, may disrupt the
social and spatial trajectories taken by past minority ethnic groups, whatever
their heritage. Borjas (1999), in the US context, and Vertovec (2006) in
Britain have highlighted how the arrival of new streams of migrants may
impact adversely on the economic opportunities open to more established
minorities. Changing political circumstances can also interrupt the process
of social and spatial integration. Boal (1999, 595), for example, recounts
how the residential segregation of Belfast’s Protestants and Catholics
would increase in response to outbreaks of terrorist violence, because of
anxieties about security and ‘micro-scale ethnic cleansing’. Similarly, the
advent of the ‘war on terror’ has contributed to the demonization of
Muslim minorities in the West, creating a climate of suspicion, which has
hindered both Muslim access to resources and their spatial mobility (Amin
2002; Phillips 2006). Research by Hopkins and Smith (2007), for example,
highlights the way in young Muslim men in Glasgow pursue strategies of
‘invisibility’ when negotiating the city and how they opt to live in areas
they perceive to be safe as a means of minimizing feelings of anxiety and
insecurity. Their strategies, the authors suggest, are rooted in a sense that
Muslim ‘belonging’ in 21st century Britain is conditional.
So what does minority ethnic segregation signify? In an era of multi-
culturalism, distinctive ethnic neighbourhoods, such as Chinatown and
Banglatown in London, are often seen as exotic places; as spaces for excursions
and entertainment. However, public and political anxieties about other
spaces of persistent minority ethnic segregation remain. Political discourses
are apt to represent minority ethnic segregation as a sign of failure; the
result of minority ethnic groups’ reluctance to adapt, and/or the outcome
of the misguided precepts of multiculturalism. As Harrison, Law, et al. (2005)
have indicated, the picture is similar across Western Europe. Despite different
histories of immigration and varied approaches to integration, the 15

European Union states reviewed all tended to construct minority ethnic
segregation as a ‘problem’ and to perceive it as a hindrance to the ‘normal’
process of assimilation/integration.
The prevailing view that minority ethnic segregation is a problem
deserves critical comment. First, while minority ethnic (especially black)
segregation tends to be problematized, the segregation of white people in
the suburbs and in the protective, gated communities of our cities draws
little attention. Contrary to popular imaginings, the highest levels of ethnic
segregation in multicultural cities usually occur on the white periphery
(Stillwell and Phillips 2006), but this is simply viewed as normal. Second,
minority ethnic segregation tends to be pathologized. While it is important
recognize the inequalities and structural disadvantage associated with
persistent segregation in deprived inner-urban areas, a number of authors
have called for a more balanced perspective that acknowledges the positive
and negative attributes of ethnic clustering (e.g. Marcuse 2005; Phillips
2006; Qadeer 2005). These may include a sense of security and wellbeing
and good networks of support, as well as potential economic advantages
derived from the marketing of ethnic goods and spaces (Peleman 2002;
Qadeer 2005; Walton-Roberts 2002).
Finally, the association between residential segregation, the experience
of social integration and feelings of belonging are uncertain. It is not easy
to ‘read off ’ integration from residential segregation. The strength of local
bonds to, and within, a neighbourhood is likely to vary between different
groups of people (Ellen and Turner 1997). Young children, older people
and women with childcare responsibilities may, for example, have more
spatially bounded sets of connections and networks than men in paid
work or young adults, although this may itself be complicated by class,
income and life-style. The everyday experience of segregation and integration
can also be quite different in different places. As Keith (2005) elaborates
for London housing estates, Simpson et al. (2007) reveal for the northern
English textile towns of Oldham and Rochdale, and Phillips et al. (2007)
recount for Leeds and Bradford, the experience and perception of vulner-
ability (e.g. to attack or exclusion) and isolation by minority ethnic
groups, and the depth of racialized divisions and tensions, varies according
to local histories, housing conditions, job opportunities and local politics.
All contribute to what Amin and Thrift (2002, 291) have called the ‘local
microcultures of inclusion and exclusion’, although perhaps one of the
most pervasive differences emerges between areas affected by the activities
of far-right groups such as the British National Party (which serve to
create a climate of suspicion and resentment) and more inclusive cosmo-
politan spaces (Keith 2005).
The role of locality as an indicator of national identity and ethnic
integration is also changing. While on the one hand the research of those
such as Nayak (2003) and Back (1996) has shown the importance of local
places in shaping ethnic identity, other authors have argued that national
and transnational connections and postnational forms of citizenship may
render the neighbourhood relatively insignificant for some (e.g. Kaplan
and Holloway 2001; Kennett and Forrest 2006; Soysal 1994; Vertovec
2001). The time may be coming for research into ethnic segregation to
shift its gaze to incorporate spheres of interaction (e.g. work, virtual spaces
and social networks) that transcend residential spaces.
Producing Geographical Knowledge: Some Concluding Thoughts on Segregation

As new streams of labour migrants and people seeking asylum join estab-
lished minority ethnic groups, old models and modes of understanding of
minority ethnic segregation and incorporation are being challenged. As
Vertovec (2006) has argued, this new ‘super-diversity’ has implications for
public discourse, policy debate and academic inquiry. Within the public
domain, questions about how to accommodate distinctive ethnic and religious
identities and what to do about minority ethnic segregation have once
again been brought to the fore. The debates have acquired added poignancy
in the light of the ‘war on terror’. Now, the lack of integration presumed
to be associated with ‘self-segregation’ is cast not only as an issue of national
unity, but security. The tone of much of the debate has been one of
‘desegregation’ (Phillips 2006).
The politicized nature of the discourse on minority ethnic segregation
and integration underlines the sensitivity of the knowledge produced by
academic researchers. At a time when academics are enjoined to participate
in ‘knowledge transfer’ and ‘user engagement’, we have more cause than
ever to pause to reflect on how scholarly argument, statistics and visual
representations of minority ethnic segregation might be used beyond the
academy. As Simpson (2006, 6) points out, academics are ‘not immune to
the accepted ideology of the time.’ Just as 19th and early 20th century
geographers and demographers were steeped in the racist eugenic discourses
of the era, so we see a tendency for recent academic research to construct
minority ethnic segregation as a problem (see Ballard 1997 and Simpson
2006, for a critique). As explored earlier, widely used official ethnic
codings, derived from the census, are far from neutral. Not only do they
reflect societal readings of salient racial and ethnic divisions at a particular
point in time, but they also have the power to re-inscribe ethnic catego-
rization for a decade or more. Officially sanctioned ethnic codes tend to
transform nebulous categories into firmly bounded ones, and erase differences
within them. Some researchers have adopted them uncritically; some face
a dilemma when engaging, for example, in work for policy-makers who
have long relied on such categories.
Maps of ‘segregated’ populations and ‘ethnic group’ statistics not only
help to construct difference, but also they can unintentionally contribute
to it. The ease with which academic research can be drawn into highly
politicized debates on segregation was illustrated in 2005 when an Australian

geographer, Mike Poulsen, presented a statistical analysis of ‘ghetto
formation’ to an academic audience at the Royal Geographical Society.
His conclusions were reported in the British media and were picked up
by the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips,
who incorporated them into an emotive speech, proclaiming that Britain
was ‘sleepwalking its way to US style ghettos’ (Phillips 2005). This
brought a spate of claims and counter-claims from academics and policy-
makers about the level of segregation in the UK and its implications and
fostered a sense of unease among Britain’s minority ethnic communities
(Greater London Authority 2005).
Scholars thus need to reflect on how they present their research, what
findings are emphasized and what silences remain. While some minority
ethic groups have been ‘over-enumerated’, others remain invisible in
ethnic statistics. Gypsies and travelling people in the UK present an inter-
esting example. A statistical count of this population is regularly undertaken
by the government twice a year, yet this ethnic group generally lies
beyond the public gaze (sensationalist and negative tabloid headlines are
an obvious exception). This population is rarely considered in policy
debates on equality and diversity and has received little academic attention
compared with immigrants from the colonies (important exceptions are
Sibley (1987) and Vanderbeck (2005)). This reflects a bias in scholarly
thinking about ethnicity; a marginalization of this group in the academic
geographical imagination as well as in public discourse. The Commission
for Racial Equality recently described the segregation, exclusion and
discrimination affecting gypsies and travelling people as one of the last
bastions of acceptable racism in the UK, but we hear few calls for change.
A critical reading of geographical research on ethnic and racial segre-
gation requires us to acknowledge the gaps and silences in the knowledge
produced and the complexity, and often value-laden nature, of our inter-
pretations. Wright and Ellis (2006, 286) have called for scholars to ‘re-imagine,
literally and otherwise, how we map others’ and Simpson (2006) points
to the long heritage of the Radical Statistics Group in challenging ‘false’
claims about segregation. Dorling and Simpson (1999) remind us that
individual scholars should be sensitive to the potential impact of their data,
which can so easily become politicized. There is an obligation, for example,
to ensure that the knowledge produced does not fuel anxiety on emotive
issues such as immigration, segregation and integration. Academic institutions
also have a part to play. The Royal Geographical Society’s press office
disseminated the controversial story about ghetto formation recounted
above. Past experience also indicates that universities, through their press
offices, are not reticent to engage in ‘spin’ or to pick up on the most
sensational academic stories, which could have damaging repercussions.
Academics are well placed to contribute significantly to important social
debates; there is, for example, a growing body of research that points to the
diversity of identities, experiences and expectations hidden within stand-

ardized ethnic categories. This should help us to move beyond simplistic
interpretations that set racially coded ‘others’ apart.
Short Biography
Deborah Phillips is a Senior Lecturer in Geography and Deputy Director
of the Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies at the University of Leeds.
She has researched widely on aspects of ‘race’ and ethnicity in the fields
of housing, social policy and demography. She has also acted as an advisor
to government bodies and the voluntary sector. Her more recent research
has investigated minority ethnic household preferences and bounded
choices, questions of ethnic segregation, relocation and dispersal and
minority ethnic identities. Her publications include Housing and Black and
Minority Ethnic Communities: Review of the Evidence Base (2003, with M.
Harrison), Parallel Lives? Challenging Discourses of British Muslim Self-Segregation
(2006, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24) and Housing, ‘Race’
and Community Cohesion (2005, with M. Harrison and others).
Note
* Correspondence address: Deborah Phillips, Geography Department, University of Leeds,
Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS2 9JT, UK. E-mail: d.a.phillips@leeds.ac.uk.
References
Ahmad, W. (1999). Ethnic statistics: better than nothing or worse than nothing? In: Dorling,
D. and Simpson, L. (eds) Statistics in society: the arithmetic of politics. London: Arnold, pp.
124 –131.
Alba, R., and Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation: theory for a new era of immigration.
International Migration Review 31 (4), pp. 826 – 874.
——. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: assimilation and contemporary immigration.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Alexander, C. (2002). Beyond black: rethinking the colour/culture divide. Ethnic and Racial
Studies 25 (4), pp. 552 – 571.
Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multi-cultural city: living with diversity. Environment and
Planning A 34, pp. 959 – 980.
Amin, A., and Thrift, N. (2002). Editorial: cities and ethnicities. Ethnicities 2, pp. 291– 301.
Andersen, H. (2002). Excluded places: the interaction between segregation, urban decay and
deprived neighbourhoods. Housing, Theory and Society 19, pp. 153 – 169.
Back, L. (1996). New ethnicities and urban culture. London: UCL Press.
Ballard, R. (1997). The construction of a conceptual vision: ‘ethnic groups’ and the 1991 UK
census. Ethnic and Racial Studies 20 (1), pp. 182 –194.
Boal, F. (1999). From undivided cities to undivided cities: assimilation to ethnic cleansing.
Housing Studies 14 (5), pp. 585– 600.
Bolt, G., Hooimeijer, P., and van Kempen, R. (2002). Ethnic segregation in the Netherlands:
new patterns, new policies? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93, pp. 214 –220.
Bonnett, A. (2000). White identities: historical and international perspectives. Harlow, UK: Prentice
Hall.
——. (2002). The metropolis and white modernity. Ethnicities 2 (3), pp. 349–366.

Borjas, G. (1999). Heaven’s door. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bowes, A., and Sim, D. (2002). Patterns of residential settlement amongst black and minority
ethnic groups. In: Somerville, P. and Steele, A. (eds) Race, housing and social exclusion. London:
Kingsley, pp. 40 – 60.
Castles, S., et al. (2002). Integration mapping the field. London: Home Office.
Chahal, K., and Julienne, L. (1999). ‘We can’t all be white’: racist victimisation in the UK. York,
UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Community Cohesion Panel. (2004). The end of parallel lives? The report of the community cohesion
panel. London: Home Office.
Community Cohesion Review Team. (2001). Community cohesion: a report of the independent
review team by Ted Cantle. London: Home Office.
Dawkins, C. (2006). The spatial pattern of black-white segregation in US metropolitan areas:
an exploratory analysis. Urban Studies 43 (11), pp. 1943 –1969.
de Souza Briggs, X. (2005). The geography of opportunity: race and housing choice in metropolitan
America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Dines, N., et al. (2006). Public spaces, social relations and well-being in East London. London: Policy Press.
Dorling, D., and Rees, P. (2003). A nation still dividing: the British census and social polari-
zation, 1971– 2001. Environment and Planning A 35, pp. 1287–1313.
Dorling, D., and Simpson, L. (1999). Statistics in society: the arithmetic of politics. London: Arnold.
Dorling, D., and Thomas, B. (2004). People and places: a 2001 census atlas of the UK. Bristol,
UK: Policy Press.
Ellen, I., and Turner, M. (1997). Does neighbourhood matter? Assessing recent evidence.
Housing Policy Debate 8 (4), pp. 833– 866.
Favell, A. (1998). Philosophies of integration: immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and
Britain. London: Macmillan.
——. (2003). Integration nations: the nation-state and research on immigrants in Western
Europe. Comparative Social Research 22, pp. 13 – 42.
Fortuijn, J., Musterd, S., and Ostendorf, W. (1998). International migration and ethnic segre-
gation: impacts on urban areas. Urban Studies 35 (3), pp. 367–370.
Friedrichs, J., Galster, G., and Musterd, S. (2003). Neighbourhood effects on social opportu-
nities: the European and American research and policy context. Housing Studies 18 (6), pp.
797– 806.
Gainer, B. (1972). The alien invasion: the origins of the Aliens Act of 1905. London: Heinemann.
Gale, R., and Naylor, S. (2002). Religion, planning and the city: the spatial politics of ethnic
minority expression in British cities and towns. Ethnicities 2, pp. 387– 409.
Galster, G., and Godfrey, E. (2005). By words and deeds: racial steering by real estate agents
in the U.S. in 2000. Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (3), pp. 251–268.
Gilroy, P. (1987). There ain’t no black in the union jack. London: Taylor and Francis.
——. (2000). Between camps: nations, culture and the allure of race. London: Allen Lane.
Greater London Authority. (2005). London’s changing population: diversity of a world city in the 21st
century. London: GLA.
Goldberg, D. T. (1997). Racial subjects. New York, NY: Routledge.
——. (1998). The new segregation. Race and Society 1, pp. 15–32.
Hall, S. (2000). The multicultural question. In: Hesse, B. (ed.) Un/settled multiculturalisms:
diasporas, entanglements, and transruptions. London: Zed Books, pp. 209 –241.
Harrison, M., and Phillips, D. (2003). Housing and black and minority ethnic communities: review of
the evidence base. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Harrison, M., Law, I., and Phillips, D. (2005). Migrants, minorities and housing: exclusion, discrim-
ination and anti-discrimination in 15 member states of the European Union. Vienna, Austria:
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
Harrison, M., et al. (2005). Housing, ‘race’ and community cohesion. London: Chartered Institute
of Housing.
Harsman, B. (2006). Ethnic diversity and spatial segregation in the Stockholm region. Urban
Studies 43 (8), pp. 1341–1364.
Holloway, S. (2000). Identity, contingency, and the urban geography of ‘race’. Social and Cultural
Geography 1 (2), pp. 197– 208.

Hopkins, P., and Smith, S. (2007). Scaling segregation: racialising fear. In: Pain, R. and Smith,
S. (eds) Fear: critical geopolitics and everyday life. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Howard, D., and Hopkins, P. (2005). Editorial introduction: race, religion and the census.
Population, Space and Place 11 (2), pp. 69 –74.
Howard, K. (2006). Constructing the Irish of Britain: ethnic recognition and the 2001 UK
censuses. Ethnic and Racial Studies 29 (1), pp. 103 –23.
Huttman, E. (1991). Urban housing segregation of minorities in Western Europe and the United States.
Duke, NC: Duke University Press.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R., and Scafidi, B. (2002). Black-segregation as a cause of housing segregation:
evidence from the multi-city study of urban inequality. Journal of Urban Economics 51, pp.
366 –390.
Jackson, P. (1998). Constructions of whiteness. Area 30 (2), pp. 99–106.
Jackson, P., and Smith, S. (eds) (1981). Social interaction and ethnic segregation. London: Academic
Press.
Johnston, R., Forrest, J., and Poulsen, M. (2002). Are there ethnic enclaves/ghettos in English
cities? Urban Studies 29 (4), pp. 591– 618.
Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., and Forrest, J. (2004). The comparative study of ethnic residential
segregation: US metropolitan areas, 1980 – 2000. Tidjschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Geographfie 95 (5), pp. 550– 698.
——. (2005). On the measurement and meaning of residential segregation: a response to
Simpson. Urban Studies 42 (7), pp. 1221–1227.
Johnston, R., Wilson, D., and Burgess, S. (2004). School segregation in multi-ethnic England.
Ethnicities 4, pp. 237–265.
Kaplan, D., and Holloway, S. (2001). Scaling ethnic segregation: causal processes and contingent
outcomes in Chinese residential patterns. Geojournal 53 (1), pp. 59–70.
Karn, V. (ed.) (1997). Ethnicity in the 1991 census, volume 4: Employment, education and housing
among the ethnic minority populations of Britain. London: The Stationery Office.
Kearns, A., and Parkinson, M. (2001). The significance of neighbourhood. Urban Studies 38
(12), pp. 2103 –2110.
Keith, M. (2005). After the cosmopolitan? Multicultural cities and the future of racism. London: Routledge.
Kennett, P., and Forrest, R. (2006). The neighbourhood in European context. Urban Studies
43 (4), pp. 713–718.
Kong, L. (1990). Geography and religion: trends and prospects. Progress in Human Geography 14
(3), pp. 355–371.
Kong, L. (2001). Mapping ‘new’ geographies of religion: politics and poetics in modernity.
Progress in Human Geography 25 (2), pp. 211–233.
Krupka, D. (2007). Are big cities more segregated? Neighbourhood scale and the measurement
of segregation. Urban Studies 44 (1), pp. 187 –197.
Lee, S. (1993). Racial classifications in the US census: 1890 – 1990. Ethnic and Racial Studies 16,
pp. 75 –94.
Ley, D. (1974). Black inner city as a frontier outpost. Washington, DC: Association of American
Geographers.
Marcuse, P. (2005). Enclaves yes, ghettos no: segregation and the state. In: Varady, D. (ed.)
Desegregating the city: ghettoes, enclaves and inequality. New York, NY: University of New York
Press, pp. 15 – 30.
Massey, D., and Denton, N. (1988). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces 67,
pp. 281– 315.
——. (1989). Hyper-segregation in US metropolitan areas: black and hispanic segregation along
five dimensions. Demography 26, pp. 373 –393.
Medway, D. (1998). Spatial and temporal change in the caste system: the Punjab to Bradford,
Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Modood, T., et al. (1997). Ethnic minorities in Britain: diversity and disadvantage. London: Policy
Studies Institute.
Musterd, S. (1998). Urban segregation and the welfare state. London: Routledge.
——. (2003). Segregation and integration: a contested relationship. Journal of Ethnic and Migra-
tion Studies 29 (4), pp. 623– 641.

——. (2005). Social and ethnic segregation in Europe; levels, causes and effects. Journal of Urban
Affairs 27 (3), pp. 331–348.
Nayak, A. (2003). Race, place and globalization: youth cultures in a changing world. Oxford, UK:
Berg.
Newman, D. (1985). Integration and ethnic spatial concentration: the changing distribution of
the Anglo-Jewish community. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 10 (3), pp.
360–376.
Peach, C. (1975). Urban social segregation. London: Longman.
——. (1996a). Good segregation, bad segregation. Planning Perspectives 11, pp. 1–20.
——. (1996b). Does Britain have ghettos? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS
21 (1), pp. 216 –235.
——. (2000). Progress reports: discovering white ethnicity and parachuted plurality. Progress in
Human Geography 24 (4), pp. 620 – 626.
——. (2002). Social geography, new religions and ethnoburbs: contrasts with cultural geography.
Progress in Human Geography 26 (2), pp. 252–260.
——. (2006). Islam, ethnicity and South Asian religions in the London 2001 census. Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers NS 31 (3), pp. 353 –370.
Peleman, K. (2002). The impact of residential segregation on participation in associations: the
case of Moroccan women in Belgium. Urban Studies 29, pp. 727–747.
Phillips, D. (1998). Black minority ethnic concentration, segregation and dispersal in Britain.
Urban Studies 35 (10), pp. 1681–1702.
——. (2006). Parallel lives: Challenging discourses of British Muslim self-segregation. Environ-
ment and Planning D: Society and Space 24 (1), pp. 25 – 40.
Phillips, D., Davis, C., and Ratcliffe, P. (2007). British Asian Narratives of Urban Space.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 32 (2), pp. 217– 234.
Phillips, T. (2005). After 7/7: sleepwalking to segregation, speech to the Manchester Council for
Community Relations. [online]. Retrieved on 22 September 2005 from http://
www.cre.gov.uk
Portes, A., and Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: segmented assimilation and its
variants. Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Sciences 530, pp. 74–96.
Pulio, L. (2002). Reflections on a white discipline. Professional Geographer 54 (1), pp. 42 – 49.
Qadeer, M. (2005). Ethnic segregation in a multicultural city. In: Varady, D. (ed.) Desegregating
the city: ghettoes, enclaves and inequality. New York, NY: University of New York Press, pp.
49 – 61.
Ratcliffe, P. (2004). Race, ethnicity and difference: imagining the inclusive society. Maidenhead, UK:
Open University Press.
Rees, P., and Butt, F. (2004). Ethnic change and diversity in England, 1981–2001. Area 36, pp.
174– 86.
Rees, P., Norman, P. and Brown, D. (2004). A framework for progressively improving small
area population estimates. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Statistics in Society 167
(1), pp. 5 –38.
Sibley, D. (1987). Racism and settlement policy: the state’s response to a semi-nomadic minority.
In: Jackson, P. (ed.) Race and racism: essays in social geography. London: Allen & Unwin, pp.
74–91.
——. (1995). Geographies of exclusion. London: Routledge.
Simpson, L. (2004). Statistics of racial segregation: measures, evidence and policy. Urban Studies
41 (3), pp. 661– 681.
——. (2006). The numerical liberation of dark areas. Sage Race Relations Abstracts 31 (2), pp.
5–25.
——. (2007). Ghettos of the mind: the empirical behaviour of indices of segregation and
diversity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 170 (2), pp. 405– 424.
Simpson, L., Phillips, D., and Hussain, S. (2007). Oldham and Rochdale: race, housing and
community cohesion. Oldham, UK: Oldham and Rochdale Housing Market Renewal
Pathfinder.
Smith, D., and Bailey, A. (2004). Special issue: linking transnational migrants and transna-
tionalism. Population, Space and Place 10 (5), pp. 357– 420.

Smith, S. J. (1989). The politics of ‘race’ and residence: citizenship, segregation and white supremacy in
Britain. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Somerville, P., and Steele, A. (eds) (2002). Race, housing and social exclusion. London: Kingsley.
Southworth, J. (2005). ‘Religion’ in the 2001 census for England and Wales population.
Population, Space and Place 11 (2), pp. 75 – 88.
Soysal, Y. (1994). The limits of citizenship: migrants and post-national membership in Europe. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Stillwell, J., and Phillips, D. (2006). Diversity and change: understanding the ethnic geographies
of Leeds. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32 (7), pp. 1131–1152.
Third, H., Wainwright, S., and Pawson, H. (1997). Constraint and choice for minority ethnic home-
owners in Scotland. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Homes.
Valins, O. (2003). Stubborn identities and the construction of socio-spatial boundaries: ultra-
Orthodox Jews living in contemporary Britain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
28 (2), pp. 158–175.
van Kempen, R., and Ozuekren, S. (1998). Ethnic segregation in cities: new forms and
explanations in a dynamic world. Urban Studies 35 (10), pp. 1631–1656.
van Kempen, R., and van Weesep, J. (1998). Ethnic residential patterns in Dutch cities:
backgrounds, shifts and consequences. Urban Studies 35 (10), 1813 – 1833.
Vanderbeck, R. (2005). Anti-nomadism, institutions, and the geographies of childhood.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23 (1), pp. 71– 94.
——. (2006). Vermont and the imaginative geographies of American whiteness. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 96 (3), pp. 641– 659.
Varady, D. (ed.) (2005). Desegregating the city: ghettoes, enclaves and inequality. New York: University
of New York Press.
Vertovec, S. (2001). Transnationalism and identity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27 (4),
pp. 573–582.
——. (2006). The Emergence of super-diversity in Britain, COMPAS Working Paper No. 25.
Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.
Walks, R., and Bourne, L. (2006). Ghettos in Canada’s cities? Racial segregation, ethnic
enclaves and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas. Canadian Geographer 50 (3), pp.
273 –297.
Walton-Roberts, M. (2002). Transnational geographies: Indian immigration to Canada. Cana-
dian Geographer 47 (3), pp. 235 –250.
Waterman, S., and Kosmin, B. (1987). Residential patterns and processes: a study of Jews in
three London boroughs. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 13 (1), pp. 79– 95.
Wilkes, R., and Iceland, J. (2004). Hyper-segregation in the twenty-first century. Demography
41 (1), pp. 23–36.
Wong, D. (2004). Comparing traditional and spatial segregation measures: a spatial scale per-
spective. Urban Geography 25 (1), pp. 66– 82.
Wright, R., and Ellis, M. (2006). Viewpoint: mapping others. Progress in Human Geography 30
(3), pp. 285–288.


Deborah Philips - 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Deborah Philips - 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deborah Philips - 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geography Compass 1/5 (2007): 1138–1159, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.

Ethnic and Racial Segregation: A Critical

of some groups in aggregated quantitative analyses, segregation indices

Conceptualizing Ethnic and Racial Segregation

ethnic segregation (ghettos are broadly viewed as a result of ‘forced’ segre-

also some studies exploring minority ethnic segregation in relation to

Measuring Ethnic Segregation

Interpreting Ethnic and Racial Segregation

in terms of the (expected) social and cultural integration of minority

FORCES PRODUCING AND SUSTAINING SEGREGATION

There are a number of overviews of academic research into the forces

The resulting ‘purification of space’ can manifest itself in segregated

SEGREGATION AS A SIGNIFIER OF INTEGRATION

Levels of minority ethnic segregation are often regarded as a lens through

histories of immigration and varied approaches to integration, the 15

Producing Geographical Knowledge: Some Concluding Thoughts on Segregation

politicized debates on segregation was illustrated in 2005 when an Australian

diversity of identities, experiences and expectations hidden within stand-

© 2007 The Author Geography Compass 1/5 (2007): 1138–1159, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.x

Borjas, G. (1999). Heaven’s door. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

© 2007 The Author Geography Compass 1/5 (2007): 1138–1159, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.x

© 2007 The Author Geography Compass 1/5 (2007): 1138–1159, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.x

© 2007 The Author Geography Compass 1/5 (2007): 1138–1159, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.x

© 2007 The Author Geography Compass 1/5 (2007): 1138–1159, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00051.x

You might also like