METROPOLIS INTER CONFERENCE -
International Conference on Divided Cities and Strategies for Undivided Cities,
Göteborg, Sweden, May 25 - 26, 1998

Divided Cities in the Netherlands:
Ethnic Segregation, Urban Problems and the Policy Agenda

Dr. Ronald van Kempen
Urban Research Centre Utrecht
Faculty of Geographical Sciences
P.O.Box 80.115
3508 TC Utrecht
the Netherlands
Email: R.vanKempen@frw.ruu.nl

Paper for the International Conference on "Divided Cities and Strategies for Undivided Cities", Göteborg, 25-26 May, 1998

Abstract -- In various countries we observe governments aiming at mixed ethnic areas to reduce or prevent ethnic spatial segregation, because segregation and concentration are considered undesirable or even dangerous. The disadvantages are rooted in the idea of the dual or divided city, a city consisting of two or more parts with strong social and geographical dividing lines between low and high income groups and ethnic categories. In the Netherlands, several policies have been used, and are still being used, to prevent either ethnic concentrations or to counteract the negative effects of living in poor living environments. Recently, the Dutch government advocated a housing policy promoting a restructuring of urban neighbourhoods by building more expensive dwellings in traditionally low-income areas in order to influence the population mix in these neighbourhoods, thereby implying that this is a positive and feasible development. In this paper, we will focus on the goals of the Dutch government, the arguments underlying the several policies, and the effects of these policies on different population groups, as well as on the city as a whole. Preceding this analysis we will give a brief overview of patterns of segregation and concentration of minority ethnic groups, in order to describe the context of these policies.

Introduction

A divided city is generally not seen as a desirable situation. It is often associated with income polarisation, spatial segregation and spatial concentrations of low-income households in low-quality urban areas. These spatial concentrations are generally automatically linked to disadvantages for the people who live in those concentrations, and sometimes even for the city or the urban economy as a whole. Especially when income segregation is linked with ethnic segregation, the problematic aspects of such concentrations come to light and are sometimes followed by plans to reduce the degree of segregation and concentration.

Polarisation, segregation and concentration are not the only factors that are supposed to be problematic aspects in urban areas. A changing economic base, a declining quality of dwellings and neighbourhood, congestion, selective migration processes, underclass formation, are just a few other problems in cities. These processes can occur at the same time and in the same place. Moreover, they can reinforce each other. Which problems are attacked is often not a question of how big the problem is, but more a result of ideas of a certain time period and political decisions. It is a matter of political discourse, some would say (Beauregard 1993).

In this paper, we will critically review the major old and new plans of the Dutch government and the local politicians in large cities to reduce urban problems that have to do with housing and related questions. The Netherlands are an interesting case for policy review, because Dutch cities are, in some respects, unlike many other Western European cities. A housing policy focussed on building relatively high quality social housing and making this housing sector accessible for low-income groups, but also for others, makes Dutch cities into places where a population mix in housing segments and neighbourhoods is more common than spatial concentrations of specific groups. To make this clear, I will give, after having said some general things on the divided cities debate, a brief overview of patterns of spatial segregation and concentration in Dutch cities. I will say a few words on Dutch post-W.W.II housing policy in general, before I start with the review of several policy alternatives that have been put into practice in Dutch cities in the past few decades. Most attention will be given to the new policy of urban restructuring. I will end the paper with some urgent needs for further research.

The debate on Divided Cities: A Brief Overview

The present discourse on social change revolves around the concepts of divided, polarised, dual, and fragmented societies (see, e.g., Pahl 1984, Walker and Walker 1987, Dale and Bamford 1989, Mollenkopf and Castells 1991, Hamnett 1994). This discourse views income inequality as inherent to social positions, and the changes of patterns as the outcome of the emergence of a new mode of regulation. The origin of this perspective is clearly linked to the analysis of structural economic change. In Europe, it has also emerged in studies of the retreating welfare state.

The concepts of divided, polarised, dual, and fragmented societies have also been applied to cities (see, e.g., Marcuse 1989, Fainstein et al. 1992, Kloosterman 1996, Van Kempen & Marcuse 1997). Often, the dividing lines in cities seem to be sharper than elsewhere, if only because the people in the extreme positions of the income distribution live in close proximity to each other. But, for several reasons, the effects of a retreating welfare state on urban populations are more than mere appearances. Cities account for a disproportionate number of welfare recipients and contain concentrations of social housing. The demise of the welfare state turns social housing increasingly into a preserve of low-income households, underlining the segmentation of society (Van Kempen, Schutjens and Van Weesep 1998).

Polarisation and fragmentation are frequently linked to the global-cities or world-cities thesis (Hamnett 1994, Sassen 1986, 1987, 1991). Its basic premise is that the developments of the economy that determine the city's global role also change the social structure of the urban population. The decline of the manufacturing sector forced many unskilled and low-skilled workers into unemployment. At the same time, the economic transformation accounts for the growing number of high-income professionals, as well as the increase in low-level functions in the service sector (catering, cleaning, surveillance, etc.). People in these jobs largely serve the needs of the expanding professional class (Friedmann and Wolff 1982, Sassen 1991). Many publications specifically mention immigrants and/or ethnic minorities as victims of the vanishing industrial sector (e.g., Dieleman 1993, Özüekren and Van Kempen 1997), or as members of the new low-level service class (Sassen 1991). However, the global-cities thesis and especially its concomitant notion of social polarisation have drawn serious criticism.

The concept of the dual city has been criticised for various reasons. It is a muddy concept; it is either incorrect or woefully incomplete and its use does more political harm than good (Marcuse 1989). According to Marcuse there are at least seven things wrong with it. Eva van Kempen (1994) expands this list. She notes that there is a problem of scale (Do we need to look at the central city or at the level of the conurbation?); a question of dynamics (Is it a static or dynamic concept?); and there is the problem of several presuppositions. One of the basic presuppositions is the direct relation between the income one earns and the place where one lives. This relation is clearer in some countries than in others. In the Netherlands, this relation is rather weak, as will be indicated below.

The Randstad Area and Its Cities

Let us now focus on the Dutch cities. Within the Netherlands, a differentiation is usually made between the urbanised western part of the country and the less urbanised eastern and southern parts. Within the western part, the Randstad area has long received attention from a policy point of view, as well as from social and geographical sciences. This horse-shoe shaped, poly-nuclear, urban region covers an area of roughly 80 by 80 kilometres and houses about 6.5 million people (Dieleman 1995).

After World War II, the Randstad area has often been seen as a problematic area, with too much congestion, attracting too many companies and too many people, sometimes at the expense of other parts of the country and threatening the ‘Green Heart’ area in the middle of the Randstad. Several measures have been taken in order to spread economic growth and population over a larger part of the country. These measures include a growth centre policy from the 1960s and early 1970s, according to which population over-spill from the major cities was accommodated in some new towns, while at the same time restricting the growth of other towns and villages through physical planning legislation (Dieleman 1995).

Since the 1980s, the Randstad is not only seen as a problematic area, but also as the engine of the Dutch economy. Within the area, Schiphol airport near Amsterdam and the Rotterdam port were indicated as the economic ‘mainports’ of the country, contributing a lot of economic growth to the country in terms of output, as well as labour. Within the Randstad (and the Netherlands), Amsterdam (the capital) is the largest city (currently 720,000 inhabitants) followed by Rotterdam (595,800 inhabitants), The Hague (the government seat, 444,300 inhabitants) and Utrecht (234,300 inhabitants).

Spatial Differentiation

Moroccans and Turks are the two major ethnic groups in the big Dutch cities. Like in many Western European countries, many households in each of these two populations have low incomes, either because of unemployment or because they work in poorly paid jobs (Van Kempen 1997).

What can be said about their patterns of segregation and concentration? Table 1 depicts the segregation of the two population groups within the cities by means of the segregation index (SI). This statistic indicates the percentage of the respective groups that should move to another neighbourhood to yield an even distribution. On the one hand, a value of 100 indicates complete segregation. That is, all the members of the group in question live in areas without any members of other groups. On the other hand, full integration would result in the value SI=0.

Table 1 Spatial Segregation by Ethnicity (for Turks and Moroccans) in the Four Largest Cities of the Netherlands, 1983-1993*

* Data for The Hague per January 1, 1992. Data obtained from municipal statistical offices.

In the decade 1983-1993, the segregation of these two numerically important groups in the four largest Dutch cities has increased slightly. The data also show that the degree of segregation has been somewhat higher in Rotterdam and The Hague than in the other two cities. This means that in Amsterdam and Utrecht, Moroccans and Turks are dispersed over more neighbourhoods. The segregation of ethnic minorities in the four largest Dutch cities has increased slightly in the period 1983-1993 (Table 2; more recent data are not available). Elsewhere, we have called this development of increasing segregation "worrisome" (Van Kempen and Van Weesep 1997). Because many of the Turks and Moroccans have been in the Netherlands for quite a few years, an increase in segregation should not be expected. But is it a real problem? What do the figures really tell us? Before we can answer these questions we will have to say a few words about spatial concentrations.

Table 2 lists the most important concentration areas in the four big cities at present. The period during which the neighbourhoods were developed is also specified. A first glance at the data suffices to note that minority concentrations are conspicuously absent among the post-1945 areas in Rotterdam and The Hague, while they are among the most important concentration areas in Amsterdam and Utrecht. The areas from the early post-1945 years contain a large share of inexpensive rental dwellings in blocks of walk-up apartments (up to four floors). The current pattern offers a stark contrast to that of barely ten years ago when these two groups were hardly found in the early post-1945 neighbourhoods. They are the real growth areas for minorities, especially in Amsterdam and Utrecht. At least in Amsterdam, the urban renewal process in the 1970s and early 1980s have made the older, pre-W.W.II areas inaccessible for large families: many new and renovated dwellings have not been suited for (big) families, because they have only had two or three rooms. Turks and Moroccans with large families have had to look in other areas to find a suitable dwelling.

Table 2 The Neighbourhoods of the Four Big Cities with the Highest Shares of Moroccans and Turks in 1993 (predominant building period between parentheses)

* Data for The Hague refer to January 1, 1992 Source: Municipal Statistical Offices

The reason for the occurrence of concentrations in areas originally developed in the late-19th century in Rotterdam is related to their renewal. Rotterdam's urban renewal policy has emphasised the need to retain and to develop relatively large dwellings. This made it possible to offer adequate housing to the --generally large-- Turkish and Moroccan families in these areas (Van Kempen 1992). This opportunity averted the build-up of pressure on the post-1945 areas, which remain quite popular among the indigenous population.

With respect to its pattern of concentration areas of ethnic minorities, the similarity between The Hague and Rotterdam is remarkable. This results in very similar segregation scores. Again, the emergence of this pattern is clearly related to choices about the redevelopment of the areas in the early 1980s. At the time, the prevailing model emphasised reconstruction with a preponderance of social rented dwellings. A large share of the new dwellings were big enough for (large) families. The urban renewal regime gave priority of allocation to the local population. As Turks and Moroccans had already moved into these areas before urban renewal began, the retention of ethnic concentrations became almost unavoidable.

The descriptions also reveal where the minorities do not live. The neighbourhoods that have been developed since the 1960s, with their characteristically higher rent levels, are still largely shunned. These areas include the high-rise complexes of the late 1960s and row-house developments of more recent vintage. Minority households are also largely absent from areas where home ownership is prevalent. Few Moroccans and Turks are homeowners. This reduces the overall quality of their housing conditions, and it also has socio-economic implications. Like all renters, they cannot profit from the capital gains that befall homeowners in the currently inflating market (Van Kempen and Van Weesep 1998).

It is important to note that data on spatial concentration in the four largest Dutch cities show that there are no neighbourhoods that are inhabited exclusively by one minority ethnic group. Neighbourhoods with the highest shares of Turks and Moroccans in the four largest cities show no more than a quarter of the neighbourhood population consisting of Turks or Moroccans.

If all ethnic groups are added together, and if we adopt a broad definition, there are some neighbourhoods in the four largest cities that show relatively high percentages. In Utrecht, for example, the neighbourhood of Kanaleneiland-Noord, built in the late1950s and early 1960s, has about 70 percent of the population consisting of non-natives. Some other areas in the same city have a non-native population of around 50 percent (Bestuursinformatie 1997). In Amsterdam, in parts of the infamous Bijlmermeer area, the total is also far above 50 percent. In The Hague (Schildersbuurt, Transvaal) and Rotterdam (Afrikaanderwijk, Feijenoord), some neighbourhoods can be found with at least 50 percent non-native inhabitants. However, in all cities, only a few neighbourhoods have such high proportions. Moreover, it should be noted that the broad definition covers many kinds of households. We should be aware of the fact that, although many minority ethnic households do have low incomes, this is not true of every household that is covered by the broad definition.

A final point should be made here and this takes into consideration the size of the neighbourhoods. These are in no way comparable to American ghettos. If we talk about concentration areas we talk about a total of a few thousand people in the area.

What about spatial segregation by income? Priemus (1997) has found that in the period 1991-1994, spatial segregation by income did not increase in the four largest Dutch cities (Table 3). Although the low-income households are spatially more concentrated in some cities (The Hague) than in others (notably Utrecht), all four cities show a decline in income segregation between 1991 and 1994. There seems to be no trend towards increasing concentrations of low-income households in certain neighbourhoods (see also: Ministerie VROM 1996).

Table 3: Spatial Segregation by Income within the Four Largest Cities of the Netherlands, 1991-1994

Source: Residential Environmental Database, AB onderzoek 1996, quoted in Priemus (1997)

SI = segregation index for low income households

The SI for the lowest incomes is 100 when the entire concentration of households with the lowest incomes is found in one or more postal code districts. The index is 0 when there is a perfectly even distribution of the lowest income category over all postal code districts in the city.

So what should be the important conclusions here? A few points can be made:

1. Ethnic segregation is not high in Dutch cities;

2. Although ethnic segregation is increasing, it does not do so in high percentages

3. Concentration of the ethnic population is high only in some urban neighbourhoods

4. Areas with an overwhelming majority of minority ethnic groups are not very normal in Dutch cities

5. Income segregation is relatively low and decreasing

All in all we must conclude that Dutch cities are not the prototype of a divided, let alone dual, city. Most neighbourhoods are mixed, with respect to income and with respect to ethnicity. This at least holds true for areas with a concentration of social housing: because all kinds of people are allowed to live in social housing, social housing neighbourhoods are mixed. The Dutch post-W.W.II housing policy can be seen as the main cause here.

Dutch Housing: A Summarised Overview

All Western European countries have intervened in their housing markets after the Second World War. They have taken a wide range of measures, including rent control and a variety of subsidies (see: Lundqvist 1992). Almost all countries have created or expanded their social rented sector, as well. By Western European standards, the Netherlands has gone the farthest in this respect. Property subsidies after World War II have primarily been used to expand the social rented sector.

The social rented stock is considered to be attractive. It is relatively new, it contains a large share of single-family housing, and its quality has been boosted by sustained government efforts to renovate and replace ageing units. The Dutch government has actively promoted the function of the social rented sector for a wide range of income groups. It has never been intended to be dedicated to housing for the poor. Therefore, the social rented sector has not been stigmatised as a housing segment for the have-nots (see also Dieleman and Van Kempen 1994). Diverse household types from different income categories have found dwellings in that sector. Many households with moderate and above-average incomes remain living in social rented housing (Van Kempen and Van Weesep 1991; Van Kempen et al. 1998). Of the total inexpensive rented stock in the Netherlands, about one fifth is inhabited by households with a relatively high income (Directoraat-Generaal 1997). Especially also in the large cities, where owner-occupied dwellings are particularly scarce, many middle-income households are counted among the tenants in the large social rented sector (Dieleman and Van Kempen 1994). Spatially, this means that neighbourhoods in Dutch cities never entirely consist of low-income households, even if these areas have only inexpensive social rented dwellings. This is the main reason why the concept of the dual and even the divided city is so difficult to apply to the Dutch situation.

But this does not end the story.

Policies to Solve Urban Problems: An Evaluation

A large effort to build large quantities of high quality social rented housing in the Netherlands, and specifically in Dutch cities, has not prevented all kinds of problems that are related to housing and living in the cities. Therefore, all kinds of measures have been considered to be necessary. In this section, I want to give a brief critical review of some of the most important policies with respect to urban housing and its population. Maybe it will give some politicians in other countries and cities some ideas of how to proceed with their policies.

Urban Renewal Policy (1970-1985):The Fight against Physical Decline

In the early 1970s, the enormous post-W.W.II housing shortages finally began to decline. In the new areas, the building of large housing estates diminished. The main problem became the declining physical quality of the dwellings in the pre-W.W.II urban neighbourhoods. Therefore, the Dutch government started an urban renewal process aimed at improving the housing quality in these areas. Neither social problems, nor problems of concentration and segregation were mentioned during this period, the problem was purely physical.

In the first stage of this process, during the 1970s, demolition of derelict houses was an important strategy. Most of the demolished dwellings were in the private and social rented sector. They were part of the affordable housing stock. The basic philosophy in the 1970s was described as ‘Building for the Neighbourhood’. This meant principally that inhabitants of demolished houses were to be re-housed in the same neighbourhood. Much later this policy was criticised because of its stabilisation of the social structure in the neighbourhoods: because new houses were also inexpensive, many low-income households stayed in these areas, while the better-off left when possible. Another criticism was that hardly any attention was paid to the environment.

Later on, during the 1980s, processes of demolition and building new dwellings became less frequent, while attention to renovation grew, often at high costs and with high subsidies. At the moment, the urban renewal process in the pre-war areas is still in progress but it is now defined by Dutch government as a finite process. As soon as the present plans have been implemented, the arrears will be made up and the government task will be regarded as finished.

Social Renewal Policy (1985-1990): Improving the Social Aspects of City Life

While urban renewal has resulted in relatively attractive accommodations at inexpensive rent in urban areas (a physical improvement), the second half of the 1980s was a period of increasing concern for the more social aspects of urban living.

Social renewal became the new catchword. Measures were not only aimed at the physical improvement of the housing stock, but were more broadly formulated as improving living conditions. Local initiatives were stimulated to improve the quality of life. The framework for the programme was provided by the government, but the programme details were the responsibility of local authorities and (groups of) inhabitants. Moreover, social renewal was aimed at the generation of work, good education facilities and income, while at the same time relations between population groups was to be improved. The results of this programme are difficult to evaluate, because it is not always clear which positive aspects are the results of the policy and which came more or less automatically.

From State to Market: Housing in the 1990s (1990 - ): Towards a More Market-oriented Housing Policy

After decades of specific attention to social housing, in the 1980s the perception of how the social rented sector should function changed drastically. This shift occurred in response to the need to cut back on government expenditure, which also put pressure on the field of housing. Especially since 1989, when the Secretary of State for Housing published his white paper "Housing in the Nineties" (Ministerie VROM 1989), the Dutch started to pursue a market-oriented housing policy. For the social rented sector, this meant that it should now basically provide shelter for households with a low to modal income, a function that is maybe quite normal in many other Western European countries. For the production of housing it meant that new construction was to take place in the more expensive parts of the housing market. The supply of inexpensive dwellings were to increasingly be made available by vacancy chains, resulting from moves of higher-income households from inexpensive to more expensive dwellings (see also Priemus 1997).

One of the intended effects of the new policy was to limit the "mismatch on the housing market". This concept was introduced in the white paper of 1989. The concept of mismatch means that (a) inexpensive (social) rental dwellings are occupied by households with a relatively high income; and that (b) expensive rental dwellings are occupied by households with a relatively low income. The first form was considered to be undesirable, because it implies that many (inexpensive) social rented dwellings are built with subsidies for households that do not really need that assistance. The second form was unwanted, because this form of mismatch gives individual households the right to a large housing allowance (Dieleman and Van Kempen 1994). In a policy climate in which, as a consequence of the idea that government should be retreating, cut-backs are considered to be necessary, and the idea of combating both forms of mismatch is very logical.

What are the effects of this new market-oriented policy? A number of researchers have pointed to the fact that a movement from state to market, an increasing privatisation and de-concentration of tasks and declining amount of housing-linked subsidies will automatically result in fewer housing opportunities for low-income households, making "the Iron Law of the housing market" (Priemus 1978) more applicable to the Dutch situation than ever before in the post-war period (see, e.g., Dieleman 1994; Meusen and Van Kempen 1995, Van Kempen and Van Weesep 1996, Priemus 1997): the weaker groups would increasingly be found in the worst housing segments, while the stronger groups would increasingly occupy the best part of the housing stock. Maybe this relation sounds all too logical, but one of the main assets of the Dutch welfare state has been that this Iron Law was, only to a very limited extent, valid in the Netherlands. The picture for the social rented sector is very clear: During the first four years of the 1990s, the proportion of the renters from the lowest four income deciles increased, while the proportion of renters from the highest five deciles declined. Clearly, the social rented stock in the Netherlands is becoming more and more the place for the low-income groups (Van Kempen, Schutjens, and Van Weesep 1998).

Moreover, several authors have warned against the spatial effects of these policy decisions (Van Kempen and Van Weesep 1996; Teule 1996). An increasing concentration of low-income households in urban neighbourhoods with large numbers of social rented dwellings could easily occur when people with above-median incomes move out.

VINEX-policy (1990-2015): The New Spatial Structure of Cities

A few years after "Housing in the Nineties", the "Fourth Report on Spatial Planning Extra" (VINEX) was published by the same Ministry. This document was aimed at defining the new principles for spatial planning in the Netherlands. One of the main items in this report was the assignment of building sites in or adjacent to the cities, in order to enhance proximity and to decrease car traffic between suburban living areas and cities, where much employment is still concentrated (and of course, all kinds of leisure opportunities attract numerous people). The basic ideas of the document on ‘Housing in the Nineties’ were not abandoned. On the contrary: Housing production was not to be targeted primarily at the low-income groups. Filtering in the stock was to be a main strategy in order to provide vacancies for them.

Therefore, one of the main decisions for these new locations was that at least 70 percent of the housing to be built there will consist of rather expensive dwellings in the rented or owner-occupied sector and only 30 percent will be social housing, of which only a fraction will be accessible for real low-income households (the other dwellings are too expensive). One of the main aims of this policy is to promote filtering: those with above-median incomes who now live in the inexpensive social rented stock are well able to live in more expensive dwellings. By offering them an attractive dwelling elsewhere, they are expected to vacate a unit in the social rented sector and make it available for a low-income household. In this way -- or so goes the reasoning of the Ministry -- the production of low-rent housing will not be necessary.

It will be clear that this policy almost automatically creates an increasing spatial concentration between middle- and high income households who will increasingly live in the newly planned VINEX-locations, leaving the poor who cannot afford to pay for a new dwelling there in the existing city. Offering real opportunities in the new locations for low income households would be the only measure to counteract this tendency, but this does not fit into the modern market-oriented housing policy.

Big Cities Policy (1994 - ): Improving the Social Environment

A new liberal/social democratic government was installed in 1994. With it, a new focus on the largest cities in the Netherlands was introduced. The idea grew that the cities are the motors of society but that these motors are stagnating. The de-concentration of employment to suburbs or even further away has caused unemployment to rise in the inner cities. More jobs in the Netherlands in general, and in the big cities in particular, was introduced as one of the main aims. The new Big Cities Policy offered employers cheap employees by subsidising newly created jobs for the unemployed. These subsidies created jobs for caretakers, town guards and cleaning personnel. The Policy is also aimed at improving the living environment, aspects of education, social security, and care. Contracts were signed between 25 cities and the government. These contracts contain very specific tasks, such as the reduction of crime rates by X percent in one year.

Clearly, the Big Cities Policy was - and still is - aimed at social solutions. The Big Cities Policy can be regarded as a continuation of the Social Renewal Programme, with the addition of two different aspects. First, the new policy is aimed at the vitality of whole cities (although some neighbourhoods are paid special attention). The emphasis is on social and economic aspects. Second, the Central Government assumes the role of stimulator, but not of implementers.

This policy is generally acknowledged as an improvement compared with the Social Policy Programme, because of the use of contracts. Moreover, it is generally acknowledged (at least by the big cities) as a positive aspect that money is reserved for the big cities.

Urban Restructuring Policy (1997 - ): re-differentiation of the Urban Housing Stock

It has taken some time, but now the Ministry also seems to be convinced that the new market-oriented policies might lead to spatial concentrations of low-income households in general, and poor ethnic minority households in particular. Therefore, a new policy of urban restructuring has recently been implemented. There is only one way to prevent low-rent housing districts from becoming low-income areas in a situation where the occupancy of these dwellings by higher incomes is considered undesirable: by restructuring the housing stock of these areas. Adding more expensive dwellings in order to attract higher-income households would seem to be the best measure. However, because these areas do not have many vacant spots left, adding more expensive alternatives almost automatically implies removing inexpensive (rented) dwellings. This could involve demolition, upgrading, or selling off rented dwellings. The restructuring of the housing stock has become a hot topic since 1996, (Ministerie VROM 1996), and was recently discussed in a new white paper on urban renewal (Ministerie VROM 1997). Because this is the most recent policy, we will pay attention to it below in a rather elaborate way. The evaluation is based on five propositions that can be seen as important background assumptions regarding the battle against segregation and the ways the battle is being made operational.

1. Segregation and concentration are (or will become) too high in Dutch cities.

An effort to reduce concentration and segregation implies that segregation and concentration are (or will be) too high in the Netherlands, especially in the cities. Earlier in this paper, we mentioned that this development is at least open to discussion. The degree of income segregation within the cities is not very high and -- even more importantly -- does not seem to be rising. And, there are no areas in the Netherlands that consist exclusively of a poor ethnic population. We do not deny that problems exist in some neighbourhoods: increasing vandalism and crime rates and a concomitant rise in fear of crime, neighbourhoods falling prey to dirt, traffic congestion, drug-related nuisance, etc. definitely do exist. In some neighbourhoods, social relations between the old and the new residents, between the young and the old, between natives and immigrants are not all good. The abrasive relations are translated into intolerance and even racism. But is this a problem of segregation and concentration?

2. From the literature it becomes clear that segregation and concentration are bad.

The effort to combat spatial segregation and the concentration of low-income groups is grounded in the literature that emphasises the negative effects of segregation and concentration. Generally speaking, diverse authors suggest that segregation and concentration curtail the opportunities for people to participate in civil society. This restriction comes from a lack of contacts with relevant individuals and institutions (Bolt, Burgers and Van Kempen 1998). Participation can be discerned in at least seven fields:

(1) Labour -- Spatial concentrations of unemployed people may hamper contacts with those who do have a job. In this way, no information is exchanged on jobs openings (see Morris 1987; Hughes and Madden 1991).

(2) Education -- Segregation in the school system has been mentioned repeatedly in the literature as a disadvantage of the spatial concentration of population groups. It has been shown that children with a foreign background have less chance of receiving a good education if they live in a concentration area (see, e.g., Ballard 1990).

(3) Politics -- In areas with an ethnically homogeneous composition, political mobilisation is often concentrated on racial issues (cf. Massey and Denton 1993). In districts where the population is mixed, many more groups might have an interest in expanding certain facilities.

(4) The disappearance of commercial facilities -- A growing concentration of poverty may lead to closure of shops, because the incomes of the inhabitants of the area are too low to keep the shops alive (Sarkissian 1976; Massey and Denton 1993).

(5) The disappearance of non-commercial facilities -- This is especially likely when the residents of the area in question are not very capable of standing up for themselves and demanding facilities. For instance, they do not know how to get the healthcare they need, the necessary police surveillance, or adequate schools. Wacquant (1998) refers to this situation as "organisational de-certification".

(6) The quality of the neighbourhood -- The concentration of poverty in a neighbourhood can set the stage for a decline in its quality. Homeowners may have no money to invest in their dwelling, landlords may not keep up their properties. This could set off a self-reinforcing cycle of decline. Fewer and fewer people would find it necessary -- or lucrative -- to invest in their dwellings. A process of rapid deterioration may be set in motion (Massey and Denton 1993),

(7) Prejudices and stereotypes of outsiders -- The residents of concentration districts may have a negative image among the urban populace. That could lead to all kinds of self-fulfilling prophesies. Thus, concentration neighbourhoods can turn into breeding grounds for misery because they are so perceived.

The main point that comes to the fore in these seven caveats is that it is assumed that the spatial concentration of a certain category of people (be they income groups, ethnic groups or the unemployed, etc.) has its own effect, which should be seen as separate from the characteristics of the individual. In other words: location matters. The Dutch government seems to be convinced of the fact that at least some of these disadvantages are real. To our opinion, we should at least be careful to accept this all too automatically for the following reasons:

I. Not every study in which these disadvantages are mentioned is based on empirical research.

II. Most of the results are obtained in very specific situations and neighbourhoods, namely urban ghettos in the United States. It is still important to investigate whether these effects are also to be found in neighbourhoods in other countries.

III. It must not be forgotten that patterns of segregation and concentration could have their advantages. The existence, development, and nurturing of social contacts, which are made possible by the physical proximity of like-minded people, for example, can be seen as an extremely useful aspect of spatial segregation and concentration. The effort to maintain a minority culture can manifest itself in the persistence of shops, clubs, and religious institutions, (Peach and Smith 1981). Through their networks, people are able to derive benefit from each other and offer one another support, (see also Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). The interaction can take many forms, ranging from a pleasant conversation over a cup of coffee to using a neighbour's washing machine or freezer all the way to borrowing money at low (or no) interest. Moreover, the literature on ethnic entrepreneurship has made it clear that a concentration of ethnic groups can raise the economic base for specific types of business. Spatial proximity allows ethnic entrepreneurs to find loyal and flexible employees quickly within their own group, (Wilson and Portes 1981).

3. To fight segregation and concentration, the policy should focus directly on segregation and concentration.

The concentration of low-income households in certain neighbourhoods is at least partly a consequence of the growing spatial mismatch on the labour market. New jobs in the city often require a high level of education or very specific training, while the unemployed part of the urban populace is mostly low-educated. New jobs are, therefore, filled by people from suburbia, who travel back and forth between their green suburbs and the centres or rims of the cities where employment is located. Predictions for the (urban) labour market generally point to an increasing mismatch, to less need for low-educated persons, and a growing need for specialists. While the Dutch government has made the creation of "work, work and even more work" the main plank in its programme, the big problem seems to be the creation of jobs at the lower end of the labour market. This may be a much bigger problem in the cities than the processes of concentration and segregation. Moreover, segregation and concentration, to a great extent, find their origin in the existence of a large part of the population with no or very few opportunities on the housing market, as a result of their low incomes. A focus on raising incomes by helping people find a job may be a more effective way to counter segregation than diversifying the housing stock.

4. Segregation and concentration can be combated by restructuring the housing stock.

The spatial segregation within cities seems to be a less threatening development than the growing concentration of low-income groups, unemployed people and ethnic minorities in central cities compared with the surrounding regions. The vitality and sustainability of cities is at stake. Especially on this scale, segregation and concentration should be combated. The question remains whether the restructuring of the housing stock, as defined by the Dutch government, is the best way forward. Because, the neighbourhoods with a large concentration of low-income households are generally characterised by an over-representation of relatively inexpensive (social and sometimes private) rented dwellings, the restructuring of the housing stock could indeed be seen as a promising way to diversify the stock and, thereby, attract other types of households. Of course the "mismatch" in the rented sector already has the effect of a population mix in these areas, but the main aim of restructuring is to provide those kinds of dwellings that will tie the households with middle- or higher incomes to the neighbourhood, not only in the beginning of their housing careers, but also for a longer time. Some caveats should be mentioned, however.

I. By focussing on those areas with the biggest problems (i.e., areas with the largest concentration of low-income groups, where people feel unsafe and plan to move out, places with a high share of multi-family dwellings), the question is whether these areas will ever be attractive, in the long run, as a place to live for higher-income households.

II. The focus on areas with the biggest problems could be called a curative approach. But in our opinion, it makes more sense to prevent areas from becoming bad places to live, and that calls for a preventive approach. Careful monitoring of demographic, economic, and social processes might suggest a need to focus on neighbourhoods that change very quickly in an undesirable direction, to keep them from declining to a point where a return to normal is hardly possible. From a political point of view, it might be difficult to accomplish this. How can politicians defend putting money into areas that are clearly not the worst ones in the city, while areas with the biggest problems have to make do with less money or even none at all?

III. By focussing on restructuring, it is financially often necessary to build in high densities. This means that many apartments will be built on small plots or that the apartments themselves will be relatively small (or both). Especially for family households, the presence of green space and playgrounds for their children is essential to their housing satisfaction. Keeping them from moving to suburban environments will be a dead end. Offering good alternatives to suburban living within the areas that fall under the restructuring regime will be impossible.

IV. Maybe the restructuring process in the cities should aim at attracting specific types of households, like the younger and older singles and two-person households with an urban lifestyle. They might be interested in these areas. The problem with these urbanites -- especially the younger ones -- is that they have a high propensity to move, even when they have bought an apartment, (Mulder 1997; Smets 1997). If the aim is to reduce overall mobility, targeting these households may not be the right way to proceed.

V. Especially when a whole area within a neighbourhood is demolished and rebuilt, or if an area that did not have a residential function is developed into an area with dwellings, it remains to be seen if there are any contacts between the inhabitants of the new area and the old neighbourhood. New inhabitants of the area may not be interested at all in the inhabitants of the already existing area, and vice versa. Then, the idea that the proximity of people leads to (positive) contacts is severely undermined. In this way, the backbone of restructuring, (the idea that people might influence each other positively), disappears.

VI. The sixth and last point we will make here ties in with the three preceding ones. Restructuring the housing stock is probably only part of the process. Restructuring the environment could be equally important. This not only means making the living environment greener. It also means making room for commercial and non-commercial business, either to allow the residents to do their shopping and other kinds of activities locally or to provide employment in the area (or both).

So, all in all, in my opinion it is difficult to be quite happy with this new urban policy. Although some aspects that are not covered by this policy are still part of other policies, (like the Big Cities Policy), the main problem is that the Urban Restructuring Policy is based on under-researched ideas. Moreover, it is highly doubtful if the policy in itself will be successful. One of the main ideas is that higher-income households are interested in living in the worst neighbourhoods of the city. This might be the case in situations with an insufficient supply, but as soon as they have a choice, they will probably not want an owner-occupied dwelling in such an area as their top priority.

Conclusions

If we look at Dutch society in general and Dutch cities in particular it is clear that we are addressing a very specific situation, quite unlike many other Western European countries and the United States. In the Netherlands, long-standing state policies in the field of welfare, social security and housing have led to a result in which the relation between a household's income and the place where one lives is blurred. Especially in the large cities socially homogeneous areas are, therefore, non-existent, certainly at the lower end of the scale. Moreover, ethnically homogeneous neighbourhoods do not exist, nor neighbourhoods without a substantial number of Dutch natives. This, in combination with the existence of the ‘inexpensive’ and the ‘expensive’ mismatch of housing costs and income, leads to the conclusion that the concept of the dual city, but also that of the ‘quartered city’, are inapplicable to the Dutch situation today. The existence of all kinds of welfare state benefits in general, and the large social rented sector and the availability of housing allowances in particular, can be seen as the main causes. We have to agree with Murie (1994) who states that Winchester and White's (1988) contention that any group characterised by economic marginality will be constrained in their residential location and will occupy the poorest sections of the housing stock is a simplification based on American and Australian cities, and certainly does not apply to the situation in the Netherlands.

Despite this conclusion, the Dutch government seems to be convinced of the idea that many neighbourhoods in the cities have a monotonous housing stock and that for reasons of viability this stock should be changed. The battle against segregation and concentration seems to be more important than providing low-income households with affordable dwellings. Hope for vacancy chains is the most positive aspect for low-income starters. It is debatable if this policy is on the right track. First and foremost, we should point to the danger that low-income households will end up with very few alternatives on the housing market. Second, the whole battle against segregation and concentration is fought on the basis of ideas that are questionable in the Dutch context.

More and new research is needed. The relation between spatial segregation, concentration, and the advantages and drawbacks for individuals is still an uncultivated field, at least in Europe. Although in the United States some answers have been formulated with respect to this relation, we are still waiting for good answers to some fundamental questions. Does a concentration of the unemployed influence the labour market chances of individuals living in these concentrations? Does a concentration of specific groups hinder political mobilisation? Do shops close down when the buying power of local residents declines? Is the decline of the retail sector a logical consequence of a growing income mix or an increasing ethnic diversity? Is the lack of non-commercial facilities in concentration areas a point in European cities? Is there a relation between the concentration of poverty and the decline in housing quality? Only when these questions have been answered adequately and in the affirmative, can a policy that combats segregation and concentration have a solid basis.

Literature

AB Onderzoek (1996), Ruimtelijke concentratie van kansarmoede, een eerste verkenning [Spatial concentration of disadvantage, a preliminary exploration]. Delft: AB Onderzoek.

Ballard (1990), Migration and Kinship: The Differential Effect of Marriage Rules on the Process of Punjabi Migration to Britain. In: C. Clark, C. Peach and S. Vertovec (eds.) South Asians Overseas - Migration and Ethnicity, pp. 219-249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beauregard, R.A. (1993), Voices of Decline; The Post-war Fate of US Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bestuursinformatie (1997), Bevolking van Utrecht per 1 januari 1997 [The population of Utrecht on 1 \January 1997]. Utrecht: Bestuursinformatie.

Bolt, G.S., R. Van Kempen and J. Burgers (1998), On the Social Significance of Space. In: Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (forthcoming).

Dale, A. and C. Bamford (1989), Social Polarization in Britain 1973-82 - Evidence from the General Household Survey: A Comment on Pahl's Hypothesis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13, pp. 481-500.

Dieleman, F.M. (1993) Multicultural Holland: Myth or Reality? in: R. King (Ed.) Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future, pp. 118-135. London: Belhaven Press.

Dieleman, F.M. (1994), Social Rented Housing: Valuable Asset or Unsustainable Burden? In: Urban Studies 31, pp. 447-463.

Dieleman, F.M. (1995), Compact Urban Development: Experiences in Randstad Holland. In: J. Kjellberg Bell and S. Webber (eds.), Urban Regions in a Global Context: Directions for the Greater Toronto Area. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies (forthcoming).

Dieleman, F.M. & R. van Kempen (1994), The Mismatch of Housing Costs and Income in Dutch Housing. In: Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 9, pp. 159-172.

Directoraat-Generaal van de Volkshuisvesting (1997), Volkshuisvesting in cijfers 1997 [Housing in figures, 1997]. Den Haag: Ministerie VROM.

Fainstein, S.S., I. Gordon and M. Harloe, (eds.) (1992), Divided Cities; New York & London in the Contemporary World. Oxford: Blackwell.

Friedmann, J. and G. Wolff (1982), World City Formation: An Agenda for Research and Action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6, pp. 309-343.

Hamnett, C. (1994), Social Polarisation in Global Cities: Theory and Evidence. Urban Studies 31, pp. 401-424.

Hughes, M.A. & J.F. Madden (1991) Residential Segregation and the Economic Status of Black Workers: New Evidence for an Old Debate. In: Journal of Urban Economics 29.

Kloosterman, R. (1996), Double Dutch: An Enquiry into Trends of Polarization in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Regional Studies 30, pp. 467-476.

Lundqvist, L.J. (1992), Dislodging the Welfare State? Housing and Privatization in Four European Nations. Delft: Delft University Press.

Marcuse, P. (1989), Dual City: A Muddy Metaphor for a Quartered City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13, pp. 697-708.

Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton (1993), American Apartheid and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Meusen, H. and R. van Kempen (1995) Towards Residual Housing? A Comparison of Britain and the Netherlands, Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 10, pp. 239-258.

Ministerie VROM [Housing Ministry] (1989), Volkshuisvesting in de jaren negentig [Housing in the nineties]. The Hague: Sdu.

Ministerie VROM [Housing Ministry] (1996), De gedifferentieerde stad [The differentiated city]. The Hague: Ministerie VROM

Ministerie VROM [Housing Ministry] (1997), Nota Stedelijke Vernieuwing [Memorandum on urban renewal]. The Hague: Ministerie VROM.

Mollenkopf, J.H. and M. Castells (1991), Dual City: Restructuring New York. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Morris, L.D. (1987), Local Social Polarization: A Case Study of Hartlepool. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 11, pp. 331-350.

Mulder, C.H. (1997), Wie een flat koopt heeft geen kinderwens [Apartment buyers do not want children]. In: Tijdschrift voor de Volkshuisvesting 3, 2, pp. 28-31.

Murie, A. (1994), Cities and Housing after the Welfare State. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Study Centre for the Metropolitan Environment.

Özüekren, Ô. and R. van Kempen, eds (1997), Turks in European Cities: Housing and Urban Segregation. Utrecht: Ercomer (European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations).

Pahl, R.E. (1984), Divisions of Labour. Oxford: Blackwell.

Peach, C. and S. Smith (1981), Introduction. In: C. Peach, V. Robinson and S. Smith (Eds.) Ethnic Segregation in Cities, pp. 9-22. London: Croom Helm Ltd.

Portes, A. and J. Sensenbrenner (1993), Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action. In: American Journal of Sociology, 98, pp. 1320-1350.

Priemus, H. (1978), Volkshuisvesting - begrippen, problemen, beleid [Housing - concepts, problems, policy]. Alphen a/d Rijn: Samsom.

Priemus, H. (1995), How to abolish social housing? The Dutch Case. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 19, pp. 145-155.

Priemus, H. (1997), Redifferentiation of the Urban Housing Stock: A Strategy to Prevent Spatial Segregation in the Netherlands. Paper for the ENHR-conference on "Housing in Transition", Piran, Slovenia, 3-5 September 1997.

Sarkissian, W. (1976) The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning. In: Urban Studies 13, pp.231-246.

Sassen, S. (1986), New York City: Economic Restructuring and Immigration. Development and Change 17, pp. 85-119.

Sassen, S. (1987), Growth and Informalization at the Core: A Preliminary Report on New York City. In: J.R. Feagin and M.P. Smith, eds, The Capitalist City. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sassen, S. (1991), The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Smets, A. (1997), Dutch Housing from State to Market: Redevelopment Projects Evaluated. Paper for the ENHR-conference on "Housing in Transition", Piran, Slovenia, 3-5 September 1997.

Teule, R. (1996), Inkomen, doorstromen en uitsorteren: arm en rijk op de Nederlandse grootstedelijke woningmarkt [Income, filtering and sorting: poor en rich in the housing market of the Dutch large cities]. Delft: Delft University Press.

Van Kempen, E. (1994), The Dual City and the Poor; Social Polarisation, Social Segregation and Life Chances. In: Urban Studies 31, pp. 995-1015.

Van Kempen, R. (1992), In de klem op de stedelijke woningmarkt? Huishoudens met een laag inkomen in vroeg-naoorlogse en vroeg-20ste-eeuwse wijken in Amsterdam en Rotterdam. Utrecht: Stedelijke Netwerken.

Van Kempen, R. (1997), Turks in the Netherlands: Housing Conditions and Segregation in a Developed Welfare State. In: A.Ô. Özüekren and R. van Kempen (eds.) Turks in European Cities: Housing and Urban Segregation, pp. 158-190. Utrecht: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations.

Van Kempen, R. & P. Marcuse (eds.) (1997), The Changing Spatial Order in Cities. Special Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 283-439.

Van Kempen, R. & H. Priemus (1997), Undivided Cities in the Netherlands: Present Situation, Political Rhetoric, and the Research Agenda. Paper for the NETHUR Seminar on "Undivided Cities", The Hague, 11 October 1997.

Van Kempen, R., V.A.J.M. Schutjens and J. van Weesep (1998), The Changing Tenant Mix in Dutch Social Rented Housing. Paper for the conference on "Social Housing Management in the European Union", Nunspeet, 26-27 February 1998.

Van Kempen, R. and F. Wassenberg (1998), Strategies for Improving Large Housing Estates in the Netherlands. In: T. Knorr-Siedow & B. Kosiol (eds.), A Future for Large Housing Estates, pp. 141-148. Berlin: European Academy of the Urban Environment.

Van Kempen, R. and J. van Weesep (1991), Housing Low-income Households in Dutch Cities. In: G. Saglamer and A. Özüekren, eds, Housing for the urban poor, pp. b009-b021. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University.

Van Kempen, R. and J. van Weesep (1996), Segregatie: een probleem? Perspectieven op bewoningspatronen en sociale segmentatie [Segregation: a problem? Perspectives on settlement patterns and social segmentation]. In: H.B.G. Ganzeboom & W.C. Ultee (eds.), De sociale segmentatie van Nederland in 2015 [Social segmentation in the Netherlands in 2015], pp. 85-125. Den Haag: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.

Van Kempen, R. and J. van Weesep (1997), Segregation, Housing and Ethnicity in Dutch Cities. In: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 88, pp. 188-195.

Van Kempen, R. and J. Van Weesep (1998), Ethnic Residential Patterns in Dutch Cities: Backgrounds, Shifts and Consequences. In: Urban Studies (forthcoming).

Van Weesep, J. and R. van Kempen (1993), Low Income and Housing in the Dutch Welfare State. In: G. Hallet, ed., The New Housing Shortage: Housing Affordability in Europe and the USA, pp. 179-206. London: Routledge.

Wacquant, L.J.D. (1998), Negative Social Capital: State Breakdown and Social Destitution in America's Urban Core. In: Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (forthcoming).

Walker, A. and C. Walker (eds.)(1987), Divided Britain. London: Child Poverty Action Group.

Wilson, K. and A. Portes (1980), Immigrant Enclaves: An Analysis of the Labour Market Experiences of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology 86, pp. 295-319.

Winchester, H.P.M. and P.E. White (1988), The Location of Marginalised Groups in the Inner City. Environment and Planning D 6, pp. 37-54.

Footnotes

7 May 1998

1.Ronald van Kempen is with the Urban Research Centre Utrecht at the Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands, tel. +31 30 253 2243, fax +31 30 254 0604, email R.vanKempen@frw.ruu.nl. 
^2.(1) it is a vague and shapeless metaphor; (2) it suggests a continuum along a single axis (consumption) and does not indicate structural dividing lines; (3) it is ahistorical; (4) it ignores that most of the inhabitants in developed economies are neither very rich nor very poor; (5) it is based on the division of society in an ‘underclass’ and an ‘overclass’; (6) it supports the idea that redistribution is the solution, rather than changes in the causes of the distribution; (7) it may lead to wrong kinds of policies.
^3.Data in this section are mainly from a paper by Van Kempen and Van Weesep (1998) that will be published in Urban Studies in September this year.
^4.In the broad definition, people belonging to a non-native category are those who were born in another country or have at least one parent who was born in another country.
^5.See Van Weesep and Van Kempen (1993), Meusen and Van Kempen (1995) and Priemus (1995) for more elaborate overviews.
^6.Here, the inexpensive rented stock comprises all dwellings with a rent up to Dfl 590 (which is about 31 percent of the total Dutch housing stock in 1994). High-income households are here defined as singles with a taxable yearly income above Dfl 35,000 or more-person households with a taxable yearly income above Dfl. 46,000. For those with the age over 65, these amounts are slightly different (Directoraat-Generaal 1997). 
^7.Earlier descriptions can be found in Van Kempen and Priemus (1997) and Van Kempen and Wassenberg (1998).  ^8.Many other measures resulted from the document on ‘Housing in the Nineties’. They are described elsewhere (Priemus 1995; Van Kempen and Priemus 1997). These measures generally influence the housing market opportunities of low-income households negatively. For instance: under the Dwelling-linked Subsidies Order (BWS), generic operating subsidies for the social rented sector have disappeared, resulting in a situation in which "... newly built dwellings will be beyond the means of occupants with a modal income, let alone lower income" (Priemus 1995, p. 149). 
^9.Of course this does not automatically mean that the new market oriented policy is the main cause of this increasing concentration of low-income groups in the social rented sector. In fact, this concentration process already started