Essay segregation

Dutch society has always assumed multiculturalism, with respect for each other’s differences. The Netherlands has now moved away from this and wants immigrants to integrate. Integration tests are made, which natives sometimes cannot even answer themselves. Moreover, it has become more difficult to enter the Netherlands as a (non-Western) immigrant.

The idea of selective settlement

Clashes between different groups have made it more difficult to live side by side with those differences. The opposite of integration, a multicultural society as Frissen (2002) wants, seems to be increasingly becoming a fairy tale for the Netherlands.

The differences between groups are also expressed spatially. One of these phenomena is segregation. The richer people live in rich neighborhoods, the poorer people live in poor neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods in cities often consist largely of immigrants. Although there are as yet no ghettos in the Netherlands, there are neighborhoods in large cities where there are more problems and where there is a relatively high disadvantage compared to the rest of the Netherlands. This segregation is further reinforced by the flight of predominantly the native population (cbs.nl) (Brouwers et. al., 1987) in combination with suburbanization. The question is what segregation means for society. Is segregation so detrimental?

In Rotterdam, as in other large cities, a number of neighborhoods have emerged that have a high percentage of unemployed people and benefit providers. Moreover, these neighborhoods often have to deal with crime and school disadvantages. The neighborhoods, referred to as deprived or problem neighborhoods, are a problem for every large city, as every large city faces economic competition and wants to maintain a positive image or image. With its policy, Rotterdam aims to reduce the influx of disadvantaged groups. This idea of selective settlement is quite new in the Netherlands. Because fewer underprivileged people enter Rotterdam, the deprived neighborhoods will improve with the help of other city policies. At least, that’s the idea. But is this selective settlement policy necessary? Are there no other solutions?

What’s wrong with segregation?

Segregation is difference. Both culturally and spatially, as well as institutionally (Scheffer, 2005). This has created neighborhoods that are lagging behind and have poorer development in all kinds of areas. The suspicion of many is that if disadvantaged people interact with people who have more opportunities and live in a more advantageous neighborhood, they will also become more advantaged and will have fewer problems in their socio-economic development. One also suspects the opposite: that underprivileged people, because they live in a underprivileged neighborhood and interact with other underprivileged people, become even more underprivileged or remain underprivileged and are more likely to experience problems.
Segregation is also seen as reducing the opportunity to come into contact with other ethnic groups (Scheffer, 2005). This constitutes an obstacle to emancipation and also a risk to conflict resolution. In spatial segregation, Scheffer emphasizes the role of the knowledge economy and the distance that arises between groups that connect and groups that do not.
Many immigrant groups have strong group cohesion. This can be further strengthened by living together in a neighborhood. This strong group cohesion can reduce participation opportunities (Veenman, 1996). This is especially visible among the Turks.

Segregation does no harm, as long as…

Segregation is a way to sort out differences. This can also be approached in a positive way. In this respect, segregation is a way to limit conflicts (Malmberg, 1980). Living separately can then lead to a certain identity. A spatial identity even. People are involved and proud of their neighborhood. This spatial identity is important for human functioning.
There are few research results that show that the underprivileged neighborhood has adverse effects on its residents. Crane (1991) shows that such neighborhood effects only arise in the worst deprived neighborhoods in the United States and that such effects can then spread through the neighborhood like an epidemic. However, such deprived neighborhoods (ghettos) cannot be found in the Netherlands.
There is also no evidence available in the institutional field. There are hardly any results that show that a student’s performance and school career lags behind as a result of a division (Laemers, 2001).
Strong group cohesion, as discussed earlier, can also increase participation opportunities (Veenman, 1996). ). In a close-knit group, people can help each other find jobs.

Where is Rotterdam located?

Rotterdam may be an exception. It is often said that the situation in Amsterdam, for example, is less serious (afwc.nl). Amsterdam is now in better economic shape than Rotterdam, partly thanks to a good economic block of activities (commercial services, culture and other creative sectors). Unemployment in Amsterdam is lower and the education level is higher than in Rotterdam. Much more than Rotterdam, Amsterdam attracts highly educated residents with an urban lifestyle. These are partly immigrants from other Western countries.
Promising people who live in Rotterdam are leaving more and more quickly because it is not an attractive city (utnws.nl). Amsterdam and Utrecht do have the opportunity to attract a cultural elite and there are a number of affluent neighborhoods, which are hardly present in Rotterdam. That could explain the less seriousness of the problems than is currently the case in Rotterdam.
The policy of selective settlement can also perhaps be explained by the political differences between large cities. In Rotterdam there is Leefbaar Rotterdam, which still has a considerable number of seats, despite a setback. Amsterdam and Utrecht, on the other hand, have to deal with a large left-wing bloc.

Dutch roads

In the Netherlands people are looking for a middle ground, which turns out to be very difficult. Everyone is free to set up their own organization, but there are limits that are increasingly being tested. Everyone is allowed to express their own opinion, but some opinions are too extreme. The pursuit of integration and the recognition of the own culture of the new population groups seem to be increasingly incompatible (Mulder, 1993).

I agree with Koeni’s organization of difference. Koenis (200 2) states in his essay The Secularization and Politicization of Culture that one should not strive to strengthen one society, but that politics must organize differences: Politics is not about strengthening social cohesion, but about organizing of difference, to conceive and develop ideas, make provisions and create institutions to meet all those situations in which shared norms and values are lacking, in which people have fundamentally different conceptions of the good life, and in which they nevertheless have to learn to live together. There must be room for activities that differ. This is mainly about preventing situations in which citizens cannot exercise their basic freedoms. This means, among other things, combating discrimination. Furthermore, Koenis rightly notes that putting cultural identity into perspective is important, because this ensures that the exclusionary effect is weakened.
The Netherlands can be seen as having a large number of highways. Different groups drive on different roads. However, it is necessary that all roads go in approximately the same direction and that there are no wrong-way drivers. Governments must regulate this and guide Dutch society in the right direction.

Segregation cannot simply be removed. It is a lifelong process, also because people do not change quickly. Man is enclosed in a familiar network system that is not easily let go: Even though a person is a junction of relationships , he is never completely absorbed in those current social relationships, because he has grown and continues to live in past relationships that are only partially dependent on them. connect (De Swaan, 1982). Moreover, the regions where many immigrants currently live will also experience a relatively high influx of immigrants in the future (Aslund, 2005). And the people who move to another neighborhood often have a good socio-economic position (Anderson and Brama, 2004). The people who enter the neighborhood are often unemployed. This means a process of selective migration, which means that segregation (the structural hierarchy between residential areas) persists for a long time.

What to do and what not

There is no need to switch to a selective settlement policy. This can only be seen as an emergency solution, but not as a solution to the problem of permanent backlog. It is also a difficult legal point. If one wants to combat segregation and poor integration, there must be a diverse housing supply. The housing stock determines the choice of where people will live, says Oskamp (nirov.nl). There is often no housing stock in the city for the middle group and there are only social housing and expensive houses. Segregation is mainly the result of a weak housing market position (Brouwers et. al., 1987). Immigrants were often only able to live in neighborhoods that had become less popular with the Dutch population (Bolt, 2001).
In the case of Rotterdam, selective settlement ensures that the underprivileged move to another city. Probably to neighborhoods with cheap houses, where many underprivileged people already live. The problem will therefore not be solved at a regional level, the Randstad. It might be a good emergency solution for Rotterdam.

Mixing neighborhoods can work out well, but it does not necessarily mean that different people will interact more with each other. It can make the district more economically vital. But social contacts remain limited. People interact with people who are similar to a certain extent and have the same characteristics.
Moreover, there is little empirical evidence to assume that the dispersal policy causes fewer problems, which means that the neighborhood directly influences people positively through the higher socio-economic status (Galster and Zobel, 1998).

In my opinion, it is necessary to maintain identity, but to ensure participation and conflict resolution. Identity should not become an obstacle to dealing with people or, for example, finding work. The neighborhoods in question must be kept alive. By lively I mean, among other things, activity, activity, attractiveness, safety and accessibility. The municipality and other authorities must work together on this, with the organization of difference in mind. Segregation no longer has to be a problem and selective settlement is therefore no longer necessary.

Literature

Andersson, R. and Brama, A. (2004) Selective migration in Swedish distressed neighbourhoods: Can area-based urban policies counteract segregation processes? Housing Studies, 19.4, pp. 517-539
Aslund, Olof (2005) Now and forever? Initial an subsequent location choices of immigrants, Regional sciences and urban economies, 35, pp. 141-165
Bolt, G. (2001) Residential careers of Turks and Moroccans in spatial perspective, Utrecht: KNAG/Faculty of Spatial Sciences Utrecht University, Chapter 4: pp. 54-77
Brouwers, YCJ, Deurloo, MC, De Klerk, L. (1987) Selective relocation movements and segregation. The influence of the ethnic composition of the living environment on moving behavior (Dutch Geographical Studies) Amsterdam: Royal Dutch Geographical Society, pages 64, 82
Crane, J. (1991) The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out and teenage childbearing, The American journal of sociology, 96, 5, pp. 1226-1259
Frissen, PHA (2002) Fragmentation and Multiculturalism (p.152-169) and Praise of Fragmentation (p. 230-251) in PHA Frissen, De Staat. Amsterdam: de Balie
Galster, G. and Zobel, A. (1998) Will dispersed housing programs reduce social problems in the US? Housing Studies, 13, 5, pp. 605-622
Koenis, S. (2002) The Secularization and Politicization of Culture, Pp. 47-84 in: Lucassen, J. and Ruijter, A. (2002) The Netherlands multicultural and pluriform? Some conceptual studies. Amsterdam: Askant
Laemers, M. (2001) Mixed or separate school? Education and Integration: A Complicated Relationship, Pp. 101-121 in Duyvendak, JW and Veldboer, L. (eds.): Meeting point Netherlands, about society building, multiculturalism and social cohesion
Malmberg, T. (1980) Human territoriality : survey of behavioral territories in man with preliminary analysis and discussion of meaning, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 163, 236
Mulder, L. (1993) Minorities as new population groups. The realization of equality and diversity, Nijmegen: Ars Eequi Libri, p. 152
Scheffer, P. (2005) Beyond avoidance. Eight statements about segregation and integration. pp. 51-90 in: On containment and avoidance. Two essays on segregation and integration. Council for Social Development Working document 6. The Hague: RMO
Swaan, A. de (1982) Man is man’s concern. Essays 1971-1981, Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, p. 8
Veenman, J. (ed.) (1996) Are the odds turning? The second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands, Assen: Van Gorcum, pp. 124, 125

Websites

About selective branch in Rotterdam: www.utnws.utwente.nl/utnieuws/data/38/37/rotterda.html
About selective migration: www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/F2547A3B-39EC-4894-B164-24DEE8DAB4DA/0/2006k1b15p037art.pdf (The price of migration, Population trends 1st quarter 2006, Jan Latten, Han Nicolaas and Ben Hamers, Den Hague: CBS)
About living in Amsterdam: www.afwc.nl/wonen_in_amsterdam/gemengd_bouwen.html
About the choice of where people will live: http://www.nirov.nl/nirov/docs/convocaten/versl3479.pdf (City on the move: population dynamics and housing market, Nirov, 2004)

Pillarization and depillarization in the Netherlands