Thomas Maloutas and Kuniko Fujita (eds.) (2012)
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 329 p.
Reviewed by Rodrigo Rodrigues-Silveira
desiguALdades.net, Freie Universität Berlin
The book edited by Maloutas and Fujita represents a collection of
texts on urban segregation in metropolitan areas in three
different continents and eleven different cities (six in Europe,
four in Asia, and São Paulo in South America). The volume is
structured upon a simple, but inspiring idea: segregation in urban
settlements is highly influenced by contextual effects. These
effects range from particular institutional trajectories and
legacies to economic profiles and also to cultural settings that
foster or reduce the probability of spatial segregation of social
groups inside big cities.
Another strong argument, observed by the reading of the entire
volume, is that there is no theoretically general and causal
pattern capable of explaining segregation. This phenomenon is
characterized by a multidimensionality that makes some aspects of
social life more salient to explain segregation than others. The
Chicago School paradigm (valid for most of the U.S. metropolises)
of “segregated and unequal” can be observed solely in some of the
cases, such as Beijing, Istanbul and São Paulo, but not in the
remaining ones.
On the contrary, the articles reveal that inequality is neither a
necessary nor sufficient condition to promote urban segregation.
The articles emphasize configurations that include segregated
cities with low levels of inequality (Copenhagen), unequal
settlements without segregation (such as the case of Madrid,
Athens or Hong Kong) and cases where low levels of inequality are
combined with almost no segregation (Taipei and Tokyo).
The explanations are univocal in assigning particular causes
related to history, political decisions in terms of public policy,
previous levels of inequality and social stratification, as well
as institutional legacies. As a whole, these factors combined are,
as the editors designate, “contextual” causes influencing
segregation in each country.
Most of the authors recognize that public housing policies,
universalistic welfare states, and low levels of inequality tend
to avoid or reduce the levels of segregation in metropolitan
areas. The role of the state in this respect is undeniable and
goes beyond social policy, including interventions in economic
development and labor market initiatives. These initiatives are
responsible for reducing the pay-offs (or incentives) for social
segregation in cities, observed more clearly when state policy is
absent or residual.
In methodological terms, the work is characterized by an
astonishing uniformity in terms of measures employed, combined
with different analytical methods. Firstly, most of the texts make
use of the Dissimilarity Index (DI) to represent the degree of
spatial segregation of urban residents. Secondly, almost all use
some combination of income, education, immigration, and occupation
as base for mapping segregation. Finally, the wide range of
methods – from frequency tables to multivariate regression
analysis – enables the use of different approaches to the same
problem. In addition to this, some of the authors are some of the
most recognized experts on the subject (such as in the
contributions on Beijing, Paris, and São Paulo).
Despite the undeniable value of the volume, it has some
significant limitations that cannot be overlooked. The first is
that the term “comparative”, included in the title, is not at all
applicable to the chapters it contains. Every single essay is a
case study, with the conclusion being the only attempt to
systematize and compare the results using the previous texts as an
empirical source. In this sense, there is no real comparison
beyond the reader’s interpretation. A comparative analysis,
properly speaking, would require more refined controls and
appropriate techniques to evaluate each case in relation to the
others.
The second major limitation of the volume, on the whole, can be
observed in the selection of cases. The book excludes most of the
Americas (especially works on the U.S. since they are particularly
criticized in the book), and the entire regions of Africa and
Oceania. There is a particular focus on two regions: Europe, with
six metropolises (Athens, Budapest, Copenhagen, Istanbul, Madrid,
and Paris), and East Asia, with four cases (Beijing, Hong Kong,
Taipei, and Tokyo). Nonetheless, although the book just covers São
Paulo, the Latin American audience would be most benefited by the
experience observed in cities belonging to other developing
countries.
Despite the severe critique of the uncritical adoption of general
and US-generated theories on urban segregation, all texts seem to
be too attached to the same American theories they criticize since
they limit their analyses to big cities (generally capitals or
economic hubs), and employ the categories of occupation, income,
and ethnicity to assess segregation.
The work would have benefited from the inclusion of some
particularly interesting cases that do not conform to this pattern
or seem to explain urban segregation by really different contexts
such as religion, international conflict, or border and
immigration issues. Some clear examples could be obtained in
Jerusalem, the Tijuana
– San Diego or Ciudad Juarez – El Paso dyads, among other
potentially interesting cases. Aside from these cases, there is no
analytical thinking on the role of scale and scalar change in the
results. Some authors use different scales interchangeably without
accounting for the potential aggregate problems resulting from
scalar change itself. Others try to use loosely-related
information (usually census tracts) also without any analytical
guidance on what kind of spatial units would be most appropriate
to measure and analyze segregation.
In this sense, while some causes (in particular inequality) were
severely questioned as factors responsible for generating spatial
clustering of groups, the scale at which the empirical evidence is
organized and assessed received no attention at all. Despite the
existence of a large amount of literature on geography concerning
the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP) and other aggregation
problems, none of the chapters gave more in-depth consideration of
how changing from one scale to another would affect the results.
Additionally, there was no discussion at all on the theoretical
consequences of scalar change on segregation studies.
This leads to several questions, such as: What is the impact upon
the results if data is aggregated in a larger area rather in
census tracts? What would be the role of neighborhoods? What are
the possible structural variations to the areas usually defined as
neighborhoods? What is the basic unit of real symbolic and
cultural significance for residents in each country? Not only were
such questions not answered in the book, they were not even posed.
On top of that, just some of the texts explicitly use spatial
techniques to measure segregation in terms of spatial clustering
of residents. This is surprising, because there is a great deal of
literature on geography and urban studies that points out the
limits to segregation measures that do not account for spatial
contiguity or proximity. Most of the essays are limited to
visualization techniques (mapping) of different socioeconomic
indicators.
Finally, although the multidimensionality of segregation was
covered in most studies, none of them were able to address the
problem analytically. What would be the consequences of the
difference between a segregated and unequal city from another city
which is segregated but equal? What can be said when more than one
dimension is combined (immigrants, poor, and ethnic groups)
instead of just one dimension in order to generate segregation?
These questions emerge while reading the text, but they require a
truly comparative perspective in order to be properly addressed.
In conclusion, the reading of the text provides the reader with
new and interesting insights on the question of residential
segregation and elicits new questions and research problems that
still require more attention before a clear perspective on the
matter can be reached.