PROGRESS REPORT  RESEARCH IN ETHNIC SEGREGATION III: SEGREGATION OUTCOMES1 David H. Kaplan2 Department of Geography Kent State University Frederick Douzet Institut Français de Géopolitique Université Paris 8 Abstract: This progress report is third in a series that examines the causes of segregation and the meaning and measurement of segregation. In this final report, we begin with the premise that ethnic and racial segregation carries tremendous impacts on the groups involved, altering their daily patterns and their future prospects. Yet the types of consequences that result from segrega- tion depend on group dynamics; the social, political, and economic context; and a variety of contingent circumstances. In this essay, we review the recent literature on the outcomes of urban ethnic segregation and focus on some major themes that emerge from the literature. These themes include health and deprivation effects, how segregation can influence the group’s employment prospects, how the fact of concentration may alter degrees of tolerance and intolerance, how segregation can augment levels of crime and violence, and finally the extent to which segregation influences the political and civic life of minority groups. [Key words: segregation, concentration, race, ethnicity.] Academic researchers and urban policy makers have long suspected that a segregated city operates differently than either a homogeneous city or an integrated city. Unlike a homogeneous city, ethnic segregation highlights the existence of two or more distinct groups. At the same time, segregation divides these groups from one another—often creat- ing dual economies, divided societies, and different cultural norms. Unlike an integrated city, a segregated city confers greater visibility to each group involved. A segregated group stamps its identity on a city in ways that more integrated groups do not. Segregation also has tremendous impacts on the groups involved, altering their daily patterns and their future prospects. These impacts need not be wholly negative, as Peach (1996) reminds us, but they are profound. The study of segregation is cross-disciplinary in nature, with the involvement of several social science disciplines. Most recently, a trio of sociology books has focused on the overall dynamics of segregation (Iceland, 2009), or on the for- mation of distinctly segregated neighborhoods (Charles, 2006), or the development of 1 Dr. James O. Wheeler was the inspiration for the three Progress Reports on segregation, and these would not have appeared without his encouragement. Jim generously helped young (and not-so-young) scholars needing kind advice, and this final progress report on segregation outcomes is dedicated to his memory. 2 Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to David H. Kaplan, Department of Geography, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242; telephone: 330-672-3221; fax: 330-672-4304; email: [email protected] 589 Urban Geography, 2011, 32, 4, pp. 589–605. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.32.4.589 Copyright © 2011 by Bellwether Publishing, Ltd. All rights reserved. 590 KAPLAN AND DOUZET newly integrated neighborhoods (Maly, 2005). These valuable studies, while written by non-­geographers, bring a geographic sensibility into the discussion of this very important topic. The spatiality of segregation and the fact that the ethnicized and racialized division of spaces can have such a broad impact means that geographic insights may be especially relevant. This third progress report follows two previous reports that focused on the causes of segregation (Kaplan and Woodhouse, 2004) and on the ways in which segregation is mea- sured, categorized, and perceived (Kaplan and Woodhouse, 2005). The final question to address is how the incidence of segregation affects those individuals who find themselves within a segregated setting. We begin with a central proposition that groups and those people within the groups who are in concentrated settings will have different experiences than groups and people in non-concentrated settings. For immigrant populations, these dif- ferences will affect their incorporation into the receiving country in measurable ways. For non-immigrant ethnic minorities, this will affect a wide range of political and economic opportunities. How segregation ends up affecting different groups in different contexts, whether it harms or benefits, whether it solidifies or marginalizes, and how geographic concentration figures into a group’s material welfare will be the objective of this essay. EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEGREGATION The consequences of segregation are manifold. Psychologically, segregation and resi- dential isolation clearly affect how members of a group position themselves within the broader society. It can influence identity formation—dividing some identities while fusing others together. Segregation also affects the modes by which groups incorporate politi- cally. Concentrated ethnic settlements can marginalize a group politically but can also provide a springboard for the election of group members to higher office. This has been used by any number of American ethnic politicians to nudge their way into the political arena and to force the interests of their constituencies to be considered. Segregation clearly carries material consequences. It is one thing to be poor, but research has demonstrated that it is even worse to be poor and to live within a poor, segregated context (see Massey and Fischer, 2000). Public and private goods are sharply diminished in such places with worse housing, limited and expensive retail choices, fewer job opportunities, and often terrible schools. A lack of positive role models can create a cycle of poverty that then feeds upon itself. The values instilled by a positive and supportive community are replaced by withdrawal, tensions, crime, and violence. The nature of impacts depends on the groups involved, the context of the society, the state apparatus, the nature of the majority group, and the presence of other minority groups. At the turn of the 20th century, immigrants flooded U.S. shores, and the loca- tion of these exotic peoples in urban neighborhoods became extremely uncomfortable to many “native” Americans (many of whose ancestors had arrived only a couple of gen- erations before). The call to restrict immigration led to a draconian clampdown in 1924 that lasted for 40 years. Similar debates about immigration are taking place today in the United States—with a different set of immigrants—and in many countries in Europe. In these Western European societies, it appears that the growing Muslim population and their increased visibility within particular quarters provoke the most anxiety. This has spurred a variety of policy responses, ranging from a restriction on clothing to the banning of new  SEGREGATION OUTCOMES 591 mosques. Decolonization continues to reverberate both in the lands of the colonizers and the colonized. After independence, economic ties remained and many European countries in particular have found themselves destinations for immigrants from former colonies. The legacy of colonialism can be seen in the former colonial cities as well, because so many of these cities were laid out to separate colonial overseers from indigenous groups, with other groups—such as South Asians in East Africa—carving out an intermediary space between the two. Segregation has also been associated with outbursts of violence, or at least height- ening the level of attention given to violent acts that occur across a segregated urban land- scape. Anyone living in Los Angeles in 1992 well remembers the riots that raged after police officers accused of beating a black man were acquitted. Gun shots, fires, looting, and thuggery exploded beyond the ghettoes of south-central Los Angeles and threatened to engulf the mainly white enclaves to the west. Likewise, the so-called crise des banlieues brought into sharp relief the racialized landscape of metropolitan Paris.3 The types of outcomes associated with concentration depend on the nature of the group, how long most members have lived in the host country, the societal context, the rela- tions between the minority and the majority, and many other factors. Perhaps the princi- pal contingency is whether the segregation is a product of choice or discrimination. Put broadly, some groups choose to segregate based on their attitudes toward the majority population and their level of resources.4 This would be considered voluntary segregation. Portuguese who live in Montreal and Toronto, for instance, have expanded out of their inner-city enclaves and into suburbs, but in the process have “resegregated,” aided by real estate agents, friends, and their own cultural preferences (Teixeira, 2006). For members of other groups, society may force enough constraints on residential choices, through formal discriminatory mechanisms, economic disadvantage, or the pressures and preferences of other groups, as to make segregation involuntary. While it might seem that there is a clear line between voluntary and involuntary segregation, often the lines are blurred. A minor- ity group’s apparent choice toward clustering may be in part a consequence of a majority group’s aversion. Also, it is important to keep in mind that segregation and its outcomes are part of a dynamic process. These depend not only on what the situation is at the ­present, but what the prospects are for the future. A group caught in a static or worsening situation will have a completely different attitude than a group whose future looks relatively bright. That being noted, we would like to highlight a few key aspects of segregation’s conse- quences as based on some of the most recent geographic literature. HEALTH AND DEPRIVATION EFFECTS One of the key consequences of ethnic segregation has been the degree to which it can lead to much poorer material outcomes among members of the segregated group. Agyei- Mensah and Owusu (2010) demonstrate first of all that segregation within Accra, Ghana exists to some extent between tribal groups. This is particularly pronounced between the less well-off Ga group and the more privileged Akon group. Segregation exacerbates pres- sures on housing and on scarce municipal resources as the more deprived members of the Ga group live within specific Accra neighborhoods that are marked by blighted housing, 3 See Agnew (2010) and Western (2010) for a comparison of the French and American cases. 4 See, for example, Allen and Turner’s (2009) discussion of middle and affluent ethnic concentrations. 592 KAPLAN AND DOUZET few services, and poor sanitation. Weeks et al. (2006) demonstrates that these neighbor- hoods are clearly unhealthy. In their study, the percentage of Ga within a neighborhood was an independent predictor of higher levels of child mortality. Similarly, there seems to be a high association between residential segregation in ­Nairobi, Kenya and several measures of human welfare. In a study by K’Akumu and Olima (2007), the focus is on the “racial” segregation established between the African, European, and Asian populations. This has promoted a system of “systematic and uneven spatial distribution of public services” (pp. 94–95) that includes education, transportation, sanitation, and health. These early colonialist divisions set in motion the entire trajec- tory of Nairobi’s socioeconomic development. Squatter settlements that lace through and around Nairobi sprang from colonial-era segregation. Similar patterns are found among many other growing third world cities. For example, nearly 50 years after independence, an examination of the divisions within Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, shows the legacy and continued persistence of colonial-era segregation (Smiley, 2009, 2010). The Germans and then the British enacted the types of building ordinances that effectively segregated the population, even without explicit racial zoning (such as was implemented in South Africa). The city continues to be divided today. For modern-day expatriate Europeans, life is lived within the upscale Msasani Peninsula and, to a much lesser extent, the downtown. It is difficult to disentangle the compositional from the contextual effects in exam- ining segregation’s impacts. For instance, a neighborhood with a high percentage of a given group may demonstrate deprivation because members of the group are individually deprived. That is a compositional effect. The question is, are there any additional factors related to the segregated context of that group? Teasing this out requires a sophisticated analysis. Cooper et al. (2008) use multivariate regression to demonstrate how residential isolation is related to the prevalence of intravenous drug use among African Americans while residential concentration is not related to this form of drug abuse. An even more elaborate analysis is provided in Grady’s (2006) examination of racial disparities in low birthweight. She uses multi-level modeling to assess the role of context and finds that residential segregation exerts an independent effect beyond what is accounted for by indi- vidual factors. One topic receiving a great deal of attention has been the relationship between certain neighborhoods and the availability of healthy foods. So-called “food deserts,” defined as areas where people suffer economic and physical barriers to procuring healthy food (Shaw, 2006), have been seen to have a relationship with the socioeconomic and racial segrega- tion within a city.5 Lack of affordability is one thing, and this can reflect a neighborhood’s lack of means. Residents may simply not have enough assets to afford healthy food that is otherwise available nearby (Shaw, 2006). But many neighborhoods also lack the physical proximity to healthy food markets at any price. Gordon et al. (2011) sought to measure food deserts in New York City and found that neighborhoods with few supermarkets and many fast food eateries also corresponded to areas with the highest proportion of black residents and the lowest median income. A study of Toledo, Ohio did not identify a sys- tematic relationship, perhaps owing to the more heterogeneous nature of many of the city’s neighborhoods, but the authors were able to identify “areas of concern” (Eckert and Shetty, 5 See Walker et al. (2010) for an extensive review of the literature on food deserts.  SEGREGATION OUTCOMES 593 2011). Kwate (2008) also showed how racial segregation—through the pathways of popu- lation concentration, an anemic retail environment, and neighborhood characteristics and stigmatization—act to increase fast food density in black neighborhoods. THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF SEGREGATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHNIC CAPITAL In the United States, segregation or clustering may have fairly significant economic con- sequences. These are primarily negative and based on the experience of African ­Americans in U.S. cities. Sociological work —from Wilson (1997) who spoke about those ghettoized neighborhoods “where jobs disappear” to Massey’s considered explanation of how segre- gation interacts with low income to create greater economic disadvantage than either one does alone (Massey and Denton, 1993; Massey and Fischer, 2000) —has been profoundly useful in illustrating these pernicious segregation dynamics. More recently, Howell- Moroney (2005) disentangled the effects of growing up in a segregated ­neighborhood with the outcomes of so-called spatial mismatch where African American neighborhoods are far from job opportunities. He found both effects to be consistent and statistically strong. Geographers Walks and Bourne (2006) examined this association within ­Canadian cities, and found it to be less apparent, though still present for blacks, Latinos, and aboriginals in some urban contexts. Using confidential census data sources, Wang (2009) discovered that immigrant Chinese women living within Chinese residential enclaves in the San ­Francisco metropolitan area were more likely take on those jobs that employed a disproportion- ate number of Chinese women. Often these were lower wage jobs, including factory and ­hospitality service work. Residential concentration operated to block the occupational mobility for these women. Segregation or group clustering of some sort may also confer certain positive economic benefits. Much of this discussion has come under the heading of “ethnic economies” or “ethnic entrepreneurship,” which looks at the ways different ethnic groups (often but not always immigrant groups) construct businesses that employ members of an ethnic group, cater to co-ethnic customers, and interconnect with other ethnic businesses. Immigrant or ethnic entrepreneurship varies widely by group and by different contexts. There have been several studies comparing levels of entrepreneurship in the United States and else- where (Light and Gold, 2000; Kloosterman and Rath, 2003; Ley, 2006). However, ethnic entrepreneurship is not the same as an ethnic economy, which relies on some level of connection between ethnic businesses, ethnic customers, and ethnic labor. What is more, ethnic economies do not necessarily exist within conditions of spatial proximity, much less segregation. Immigrant businesses are often widespread, especially among restauranteurs, who cater to mainstream customers even as they employ co-ethnics. Often the term ethnic enclave economy is used to identify ethnic economies that are spatially concentrated in some way. For geographers, the question of whether ethnic economic activity exists in conjunc- tion with segregation or clustering is a key concern. This need not be limited to residential ­clustering. Many well-known ethnic enclave economies are based on a concentration of businesses with owners and workers in those businesses living in different neighborhoods. Yet space and segregation still figure into the operation of an ethnic economy. Ethnic groups may utilize space as a resource that helps facilitate ethnic economic ties and the 594 KAPLAN AND DOUZET fostering of an ethnic customer base. Geographic research has shown how different groups may utilize both an enclave and a non-enclave component. It may come down to a question of size, maturity, and the type of business involved. Within the Toronto area, ­Portuguese entrepreneurs follow a spatially concentrated strategy that helps to create a complete ­community and a fairly self-contained ethnic economy (Teixeira, 2006). Toronto’s large Chinese community, on the other hand, exhibits a pattern of “concentrations within disper- sion” (Lo, 2006, p. 93). There exist Chinese shopping malls and strips that are more likely to serve Chinese customers, many of whom are more inclined to patronize grocery stores where they can find the foodstuffs that they require in day-to-day cooking (Lo, 2009). However, the Chinese community also hosts more mature and spread-out businesses serv- ing a more integrated clientele (Lo, 2006). These are more likely to be manufacturing businesses. Indeed, the opportunities for economic development within concentrated ethnic com- munities may be enhanced as we find more such concentrations that fit squarely into the middle and upper-middle income categories (Allen and Turner, 2009). Some of this may be seen in Miami’s Cuban community (Alberts, 2006), which has long boasted a more affluent profile. The ethnic enclave economy there has been heralded for some time and still retains many aspects of inward exclusivity. But the largest firms must spread out to integrate more closely with the mainstream economy. When segregation may facilitate ethnic economic activity, this activity in turn alters the character of segregated places. This may be witnessed whenever ethnic businesses and ser- vices lend a distinct character to segregated landscapes. Ethnic precincts from Cabramatta in Sydney to Little Tokyo in Los Angeles are a product of this ethnic re-creation (Collins, 2006; Smith, 2006). Among geographers, much of the discussion has examined how the segregation of ­particular groups ties in with disparities in the housing markets. Foreclosures, subprime lending, and even check-cashing stores are associated with particular geographies—and these tend to map on existing black-white disparities. Geographers have long noted the ten- dency of conventional mortgage lenders to avoid minority neighborhoods (see ­Dingemans, 1979; Shlay, 1988; Kaplan, 1996; Holloway, 1998). In the last decade, several noted that much of the activity in subprime and predatory lending was concentrated in these very same neighborhoods. Newman and Wyly (2004) uncovered double to triple the market penetration of subprime lenders in Newark, New Jersey area neighborhoods with large proportions of African American households. Work in Washington, DC also showed “a dis- proportionate flow of subprime capital into those parts of the region that have historically been neglected by prime, mainstream lenders” (Wyly et al., 2006, p. 119). And predatory lending in Philadelphia also exhibits a marked propensity for census tracts populated by racial minorities (Crossney, 2010). This subprime activity in minority neighborhoods has corresponded to a concentration of foreclosures within these very same neighborhoods, as reflected in studies on Akron, Ohio (Kaplan and Sommers, 2009) and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota (Grover, et al., 2008). STIGMATIZATION AND TOLERANCE In the 1920s, Bogardus (1925) maintained a relationship between spatial distance and social distance. Bogardus’s work emphasized how greater social distancing resulted in  SEGREGATION OUTCOMES 595 more spatial distance, but scholars and policymakers have often reversed the causal arrows to argue that diversity, often manifested via residential integration, fosters greater toler- ance and decreases the social distance among groups of people. In modern sociological terminology, this process would be described as “bridging social capital.” However, other studies have indicated that greater contact between members of different groups may in fact lead to more conflict (Wessel, 2009). This “bonding social capital” reinforces group solidarity and exclusion from other groups. Putnam’s article (2007) suggested that greater diversity within neighborhoods led to a decline in all forms of social capital, both between and within groups. Other studies, which control for socioeconomic status, have found that diversity has less of an effect when the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood is accounted for (Letki, 2008). Phillips (2008), in examining the effects of segregation on British Muslim populations of Pakistanis, Kashmiris, and Bangladeshis, questions the extent to which government efforts at desegregation actually increase tolerance or enhance a sense of group identity. In the cities they studied, segregated spaces had become more commonplace, compounded by concerns over safety. Yes, there is a clear yearning among some of the younger genera- tion for greater diversity. But this seems most true of the Asian population that moves into more mixed areas, hoping to foster the kind of contact that could lead to greater under- standing. However, the barriers to this are high. The attempted mixing process is largely a one-way street, as new Asian entrants spur more white flight. Any attempt at “bridging” by the Asian group is rebuffed by the majority white culture. Institutions, such as churches, can have the effect of solidifying group identity, particularly among first-generation immi- grants (Ley, 2008). To succeed long term, however, many have attempted to create a more multicultural congregation that breaks down group boundaries. The development of “ghettoes”—in fact, the very connotations of the word—suggests the complete segregation and marginalization of a specific population. The early develop- ment of the Venetian Ghetto was intended to concentrate the city’s Jewish population, ostensibly for their own security. The Nazis later turned the idea of the ghetto into truly horrific places. In the United States and elsewhere, ghetto has come to mean a place that experiences extreme levels of residential segregation, and while so-called gilded ghet- toes can exist, it also connotes economic and political marginalization. Peter Marcuse’s (1997) characterization of the “outcaste ghetto” helped to flesh out this idea, as did the work of other sociologists like Wilson (1987). Generally, the quintessential exemplar is the black, inner-city ghetto in the United States. Highly segregated, economically deprived, and socially marginalized—people within these places are effectively cut off from the rest of society. Outside of the United States, there is a good question as to whether ghettoes per- sist. Walks and Bourne (2006), in finding that the association of low income and high ­concentration holds only for some groups, conclude that there is not sufficient evidence that Canadian cities are in the process of forming ghettoes. The situation appears to be different for the Arab population of Jaffa, Israel, where many live within older neighbor- hoods (Goldhaber and Schnell, 2007). Here all indications are that segregation is high, and occurs among several different dimensions of segregation: activity segregation, levels of co-ethnic interaction, and the segregation experienced by various individual members of the Arab population. Goldhaber and Schnell (2007, p. 618) conclude that “the Arab enclave 596 KAPLAN AND DOUZET is a highly marginalised ghetto, with its inhabitants, in the main, basically excluded from society at large.” Immigrants to southern European cities, particularly those who are non-European, have witnessed declining segregation during the 1990s (Arbaci and Malheiros, 2010). But this decline does not suggest better conditions—in fact it seems more a function of the increasing tendency of these immigrant populations to disperse to the urban peripheries. In France, the notion of ghetto is increasingly debated, as populations living in segregated areas started nicknaming their neighborhoods “The Bronx” or “Chicago” in reference to black American ghettos (Giblin, 2009). For decades, social scientists failed to perceive the emergence of separate identities, frustration, and resentment within highly stigma- tized territories where disadvantage corresponded with immigrant origin. In the midst of heightened tensions and violence in suburban areas, ghettoization has emerged as a useful concept to analyze—and a powerful tool to express—the feeling of deprivation, isolation, and marginalization of concentrated populations. SEGREGATION AND CRIME Studies have shown that it is extremely difficult to disentangle issues of poverty, depri- vation, race, and individual characteristics when assessing the impact of segregation on crime and violence (Krivo et al., 2009; Ludwig and Kling, 2007). In addition, the data available for crime or violence are not necessarily accurate. Offenses are likely to be underreported in the most segregated areas and are not uniformly collected across cities or available at a relevant scale. However, the correlation between the spatial concentration of disadvantage and high crime was clearly established by sociologists and criminologists decades ago (Park et al.,1925; Shaw and McKay, 1942). Following in the footsteps of the Chicago School, numerous studies have tested the racial invariance thesis, which argues that structural ­conditions—particularly structural disadvantage (e.g., female-headed family; poverty) characteristics—predict crime in the same ways for all racial groups (Sampson and ­Wilson, 1995), stirring considerable debate among scholars. Beyond individual characteristics, there is a consensus over the fact that crime rates are affected by the structural conditions and crime rate of the surrounding area (Baller et al., 2001). As African Americans and Latinos remain overrepresented in extremely disadvan- taged neighborhoods, the correlation between racial segregation and violent crime remains salient. A Chicago study by Sampson et al. (2005) showed that blacks and Hispanics were respectively 85 percent and 75 percent more likely than whites to perpetrate violence. Much of this disparity is explained by the marital status of parents, immigration status, and dimensions of neighborhood social context. Yet structural key indicators (population, pov- erty, immigration, family structure, etc.) are also geographically clustered and vary consid- erably across space (Cahill and Mulligan, 2007; Graif and Sampson, 2009). Again, teasing out compositional from contextual effects on crime distribution can be quite complex. In most instances, youth contributes to higher perceptions of crime in segregated areas. Their control of the territory and their visibility, along with the rise of delinquency and uncivil behavior among a minority of the youth, exacerbates fears. What is more, children who live in a neighborhood where crime is commonplace and where relatives and friends have served time in jail, may encourage the perpetuation of crime. In France, the failure  SEGREGATION OUTCOMES 597 of the government to acknowledge and provide a response for these security concerns has strongly contributed to the rise of the National Front in suburban segregated areas in the 1990s (Alidières, 2006; Roché, 2006). With GIS techniques and a growing interest in the social ecology of crime, recent stud- ies have measured the impact of a broader notion of space as opposed to place in order to assess whether what happens in one neighborhood affects the crime rate of another ­(Sampson and Morenoff, 2004). Mears and Bhati (2006) examine whether resource- deprived communities in one location affect the crime rate of nearby communities with similar socioeconomic disadvantages. They demonstrate that “No community is an island.” A recent study by Light and Harris (n.d.) argues that the dynamics of collective violence differ by racial group yet are equally sensitive to space. Place matters to a greater extent for white than for black violent crime. These differences depend on where one looks and the surrounding spatial context. ETHNIC TENSIONS AND RIOTS Interaction between ethnic groups can improve understanding but can also heighten competition. Conflicts occur not only as a function of deprivation and poverty but also in times of prosperity and desegregation, when ethnic groups compete for resources such as jobs and housing (Olzak, 1992). Segregation emerges as a key factor in several studies of urban violence, but it does not operate alone. Instead segregation works in conjunc- tion with other factors to precipitate mass violence. For instance, the prior history of riots increases the likelihood of racial turmoil (Olzak et al., 1996). There are two basic patterns identified in the literature. In the first, segregation—in asso- ciation with concentration, discrimination, spatial mismatch, and demographic change— drives collective ethnic violence (Jones-Correa, 2009). It affects established segregated neighborhoods with little access to resources and comes as an expression of frustration and protest, which was illustrated by the 1960s riots in the United States but also the 2005 and 2007 riots in France. The second pattern emerges when rapid demographic change combines with ethnic contact to catalyze collective ethnic violence. In her recent book, Abu-Lughod (2010) emphasizes competition for space and community resources as a trig- ger for racial unrest. For instance, the movement of upwardly mobile African Americans into traditionally white neighborhoods sparked violent reactions among the majority. This pattern applies to the early 20th-century riots in the Unites States such as the 1917 East St. Louis, 1919 Chicago, and 1921 Tulsa riots (Lieberson, 1980; Massey and Denton, 1993) as well as the 1992 Los Angeles riots (Bergesen and Herman, 1998). In all of these instances, the local political culture, particularly law enforcement, has a great influence on the nature and spread of mass conflict (Abu-Lughod, 2010). European cities, with fewer and smaller segregated neighborhoods, have experienced less of this sort of mass violence. Yet the spatial concentration of immigrant popula- tions and their socioeconomic disadvantages can also lead to increased competition for resources between groups. These tensions are exacerbated among segregated youth, and can manifest as gang violence, whether it has to do with drug trafficking or just control over territory (Sauvadet, 2004). In 2005, a British official warned that riots in Bradford, Oldham, and Burnley were the result of severe segregation and that Britain was sleepwalk- ing into American-style ghettoization (Peach, 2007). Follow-up studies have revealed a 598 KAPLAN AND DOUZET much more moderate and complex picture of British segregation than suggested by this official (Peach, 2009). Crime, tensions, and violence in segregated areas induce two types of behaviors: either people move out to a safer neighborhood, therefore reinforcing segregation, or they stay home, leading more sheltered isolated lives, and therefore participating less in community activities. Children end up spending more time with their families and less on the street, but they also become separated from the social fabric of their neighborhood. They might become more distrustful and miss opportunities to build social ties (Ellen and Turner, 1997). This, in turn, affects civic participation. Cases of civic mobilization to improve the neighborhood are a third option and do make a difference, but the forces that must be overcome are often beyond the scope of the most dedicated community leaders. POLITICAL AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Political and civic engagement has been thoroughly studied by sociologists and politi- cal scientists through the prism of economic and social capital. The impact of the level of education, economic resources, social networks, and the political culture of places interact with segregation because the spatial concentration of cumulative disadvantages—in which neighborhood minorities tend to be overrepresented—has a negative impact on civic par- ticipation, particularly voter turnout (Stoll, 2001; Schildkraut, 2005; Pacheco and Plutzer, 2008; Solt, 2008). There is still no clear consensus among social scientists as to how much segregation and diversity impact the levels of social trust and civic engagement, once controlled for by socioeconomic criteria. Yet in countries with district-based elections, where voters live is as important as who they are and how they behave. The black ghetto was once the support base of black power and large minority concentrations in inner cities were instrumen- tal in breaking the racial barriers of municipal power, along with coalition-building with white progressives (Browning et al., 1984, 1990). Changes from at-large to district-based elections helped to elect numerous minority council members throughout American cities from the mid-1960s and through the 1970s. Where districts are favorably drawn, segregation can actually encourage civic engage- ment and political participation by providing electoral opportunities, leading to greater minority political incorporation. Under the Voting Rights Act (1965) and its 1982 amend- ment, U.S. districts at all levels of government have to be redrawn after each new census, every 10 years, in order to provide fair representation to all groups. Redistricting processes create both opportunities and conflicts that are likely to increase the political mobilization and organization of ethnic groups (Cain et al., 2008; Douzet, 2009; Douzet and ­MacDonald, 2010). With massive Hispanic and Asian immigration to the United States and declining black segregation, racial coalitions have come to a new age, with greater competition for minority candidates who increasingly need to reach out of their own community and build alliances to win electoral office (Mollenkopf, 2001; Sonenshein and Drayse, 2008). These minority-majority districts, which were at first seen as a remedy to the under- representation of minority interests, have been challenged on the grounds that, while they allow for an increase of the total number of minority representatives, the concentration of minority voters into specific districts reduces the incentive of other officeholders to pay attention to minority interests. This decreases support for minority-sponsored legislation  SEGREGATION OUTCOMES 599 while a lack of competition in such districts might reduce the incentive for voter turnout (Cameron et al., 1996; Weber, 2000). In addition, a lack of concentration among some groups, combined with large electoral districts, can be detrimental to their political repre- sentation. For example, because of large districts and scattered neighborhoods, Asians do not have a single elected official on the city council in Los Angeles (Sonenshein, 2004; Douzet and Sonenshein, 2008). Europe presents an even more complex picture. Here the types of immigrants, the stage of the migratory process, the electoral systems, and the political cultures vary from one country to another, offering a wide range of spatial contexts. Going against the conven- tional wisdom that diversity and dispersal might increase minority political incorporation, Fieldhouse and Cutts (2008) found that turnout of religious minorities is higher in the neighborhoods where these populations are more concentrated. These results are consis- tent with recent studies that support the hypothesis that concentration favors ethnic mobi- lization (Schlichting et al., 1998; Hero and Tolbert, 2007). It is difficult to generalize, as different rules of access to citizenship, for example, “directly affect immigrant opportu- nities to participate in formal political life and determine which institutions are open to immigrants and their offspring” (Martiniello, 2009, p. 45). Some European countries allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, whereas others still do not; some have district-based elections whereas others have at-large electoral rolls. In addition, comparisons between European countries are impeded by the unequal availability of relevant statistical data. In France, populations in segregated neighborhoods tend to have lower citizenship, voter registration, and participation rates. For the regional elections of 2010, the participation rate was lower than 30 percent in highly segregated suburbs like Sarcelles or Clichy-Sous- Bois where the 2005 riots started. The trauma of 2002—when the leader of the National Front made it to the runoff for the presidential election—and the 2005 riots generated a massive registration drive and increased participation rates for the 2007 presidential elec- tion (Giblin, 2009). To many observers, the 2010 drop in participation came as a sign of disillusionment from voters, a sense of alienation and disinvestment in politics. However, segregation could provide opportunities for the emergence of local minor- ity political leaders likely to play a role nationally. President Obama’s election raised ­tremendous enthusiasm among the European minority youth in 2008, raising the ques- tion of whether any European country was ready to elect a president of color. In many ­European countries, political systems are still very much controlled by the parties, who are in a position to play a key role in promoting minority access to high political office and therefore provide role models to the community. The available statistics show contrasted results (Garbaye, 2005; Hochschild and Mollenkopf, 2009). Yet a better political repre- sentation of segregated populations could alleviate the feeling of alienation rioters have expressed on many occasions, and help build political support in favor of policies seeking to fight racial segregation. CONCLUSION Twenty-first century societies will be required to contend with challenges posed by ever more diverse populations. At broader scales, this new multiculturalism can contest the basis of a nation’s identity. More challenges loom at urban scales, as cities incorporate ever more diverse groups of people who look, act, and sometimes think differently than 600 KAPLAN AND DOUZET existing residents. Where in the city these ethnically and racially distinct groups reside, and how culturally distinct neighborhoods operate, will have major ramifications for the prospects of each different community and for the operation of the city at large. For the ethnic communities, location can influence ethnic maintenance, economic opportunity, health and nutrition access, criminality and tensions, and political clout. Segregation only heightens these influences. For the city as a whole, it raises the question as to whether the continued segregation of older groups, and the arrival and subsequent segregation of newer populations, is a problem to be forestalled and curtailed or a persisting urban reality that is best managed in place. REFERENCES Abu-Lughod, J. L., 2007, Race, Space, and Riots in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Agnew, J., 2010, Slums, ghettos, and urban marginality. Urban Geography, Vol. 31, 144–147. Agyei-Mensah, S. and Owusu, G., 2010, Segregated by neighbourhoods? A portrait of ­ethnic diversity in the neighbourhoods of the Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana. Popula- tion, Space and Place, Vol. 16, 499–516. Alberts, H., 2006, Geographic boundaries of the Cuban enclave economy in Miami. In D. Kaplan and W. Li, editors, Landscapes of the Ethnic Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 35–48. Alidières, B., 2006, Géopolitique de l’insécurité et du Front National (The Geopolitics of Insecurity and the National Front). Paris, France: Armand Colin. Allen, J. and Turner, E., 2009, Ethnic residential concentrations with above-average incomes. Urban Geography, Vol. 30 209–238. Arbaci, S. and Malheiros, J., 2010, De-segregation, peripheralisation, and the social exclu- sion of immigrants: Southern European cities in the 1990s. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 36 227–255. Baller, R. D, Anselin, L., Messner, S. F., Deane, G., and Hawkins. D. F., 2001, Structural covariates of U.S. county homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology, Vol. 39, 561–588. Bergesen, A. and Herman, M., 1998, Immigration, race, and riot: The 1992 Los Angeles uprising. American Sociological Review, Vol. 63, 39–54. Bogardus, E. S., 1925, Social distance and its origins. Journal of Applied Sociology, Vol. 9, 16–226. Browning, R. P., Marshall, D. R., and Tabb, D. H., 1984, Protest Is Not Enough: The Strug- gle of Blacks and Hispanics for Equality in Urban Politics. Berkeley, CA: ­University of California Press. Browning, R. P., Marshall, D. R., and Tabb, D. H., 1990, Racial Politics in American ­Cities. New York, NY: Longman Publishing Group. Cahill, M. and Mulligan, G., 2007, Using geographically weighted regression to explore local crime patterns. Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 25, 174–193. Cain, B., Hui, E., and MacDonald, K., 2008, Sorting or self-sorting: Competition and redistricting in California? In F. Douzet, T. Kousser, and K. Miller, editors, The New  SEGREGATION OUTCOMES 601 Political Geography of California. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies, 245–266. Cameron, C., Epstein, D., and O’Halloran, S., 1996, Do majority-minority districts maxi- mize substantive black representation in Congress? American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, 794–812. Charles, C. Z. 2006, Won’t You Be My Neighbor?: Race, Class, and Residence in Los Angeles. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Publications. Collins, J., 2006, Ethnic diversity and the ethnic economy in cosmopolitan Sydney. In D. Kaplan and W. Li, editors, Landscapes of the Ethnic Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 135–148. Cooper, H. L. F., Friedman, S. R., Tempalski, B., and Friedman, R., 2008, Residential seg- regation and the prevalence of injection drug use among black adult residents of U.S. metropolitan areas. In Y. F. Thomas, D. Richardson, and I. Cheung, editors, Geography and Drug Addiction. New York, NY: Springer, 145–157. Crossney, K. B., 2010, Is predatory mortgage lending activity spatially clustered? The Professional Geographer, Vol. 62, 153–170. Dingemans, D., 1979, Redlining and mortgage lending in Sacramento. Annals of the Asso- ciation of American Geographers, Vol. 69, 225–239. Douzet, F., 2009, Revisiting black electoral success: Oakland (CA), 40 years later. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 31, 243–267. Douzet, F. and MacDonald, K., 2010, La représentation des minorités dans le système politique Californien (The representation of minorities in the California political sys- tem). Pouvoirs, No. 133, 69–84. Douzet, F. and Sonenshein, R., 2008, Los Angeles et Oakland, du noir et blanc à la couleur! Nouvelles coalitions politiques dans les villes multiculturelles (Los Angeles and ­Oakland black and white! New political coalitions in multicultural cities). ­Hérodote, No. 130, 146–172. Eckert, J. and Shetty, S. 2011, Food systems, planning and quantifying access: Using GIS to plan for food retail. Applied Geography, forthcoming. Ellen, I. G. and Turner, M. A., 1997, Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evi- dence. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 8, 833–866. Fieldhouse, E. and Cutts, D., 2008, Diversity, density, and turnout: The effect of neigh- bourhood ethno-religious composition on voter turnout in Britain. Political Geography, Vol. 27, 530–548. Garbaye, R., 2005, Getting into Local Power: The Politics of Ethnic Minorities in British and French Cities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Giblin, B. 2009, Dictionnaire des banlieues (Dictionary of Suburbs). Paris, France: Larousse. Goldhaber, R. and Schnell, I., 2007, A model of multidimensional segregation in the Arab ghetto in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 98, 603–620. Gordon, C., Purciel-Hill, M., Ghai, N., Kaufman, L., Graham, R., and Van Wye, G., 2011, Measuring food deserts in New York City’s low-income neighborhoods. Health & Place, Vol. 17, 696–700. Grady, S. C., 2006, Racial disparities in low birthweight and the contribution of residential segregation: A multilevel analysis. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 63, 3013–3029. 602 KAPLAN AND DOUZET Graif, C., and Sampson, R. J., 2009, Spatial heterogeneity in the effects of immigration and diversity on neighborhood homicide rates. Homicide Studies, Vol. 13, 242. Grover, M., Smith, L., and Todd, R. M., 2008, Targeting foreclosure interventions: An analysis of neighborhood characteristics associated with high foreclosure rates in two Minnesota counties. Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 60, 91–109. Hero, R. E. and Tolbert, C., 2007, Voter turnout and other participation. In R. Hero, editor, Racial Diversity and Social Capital. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hochschild, J. L. and Mollenkopf, J., 2009, Bringing Outsiders In: Transatlantic Perspec- tives on Immigrant Political Incorporation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Holloway, S. R., 1998, Exploring the neighborhood contingency of race discrimination in mortgage lending in Columbus, Ohio. Annals of the Association of American Geogra- phers, Vol. 88, 252–276. Howell-Moroney, M., 2005, The geography of opportunity and unemployment: An inte- grated model of residential segregation and spatial mismatch. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 27, 353–377. Iceland, J. 2009, Where We Live Now: Immigration and Race in the United States. ­Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Jones-Correa, M., 2009, Immigrant contexts and ethnic violence in Europe and the United States. Paper presented at the conference Together or Separate: Spatial Concentration and Immigrant Incorporation in the United States, France, and Great Britain, University of Paris 8, Paris, France. K’Akumu, O. A. and Olima, W. H. A., 2007, The dynamics and implications of residential segregation in Nairobi. Habitat International , Vol. 31, 87–99. Kaplan, D. H., 1996, What is measured in measuring the mortgage market. The Profes- sional Geographer, Vol. 48, 356–367. Kaplan, D. H. and Li, W., 2006, Landscapes of the Ethnic Economy. Lanham, MD: ­Rowman & Littlefield. Kaplan, D. H. and Sommers, G. G., 2009, An analysis of the relationship between housing foreclosures, lending practices, and neighborhood ecology: Evidence from a distressed county. The Professional Geographer, Vol. 61, 101–120. Kaplan, D. H. and Woodhouse, K., 2004, Research in ethnic segregation I: Causal factors. Urban Geography¸Vol. 25, 579–585. Kaplan, D. H. and Woodhouse, K., 2005, Research in ethnic segregation II: Measure- ments, categories, and meanings. Urban Geography, Vol. 26, 737–745. Kloosterman, R. and Rath, J., 2003, Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Venturing Abroad in the Age of Globalization. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers. Krivo, L., Peterson, J. R. D., and Kuhl, D. C., 2009, Segregation, racial structure, and neighborhood violent crime. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 114, 1765–802. Kwate, N., 2008, Fried chicken and fresh apples: Racial segregation as a fundamental cause of fast food density in black neighborhoods. Health & Place, Vol. 14, 32–44. Letki, N., 2008, Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Political Studies, Vol. 56, 99–126. Ley, D., 2006, Explaining variations in business performance among immigrant entrepre- neurs in Canada. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 32, 743–764. Ley, D., 2008, The immigrant church as an urban service hub. Urban Studies, Vol. 45, 20–57.  SEGREGATION OUTCOMES 603 Lieberson, S., 1980, A Piece of the Pie. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Light, I. H. and Gold, S. J., 2000, Ethnic Economies. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Light, M. T. and Harris, C. T., n.d., Race, Space, and Violence: Exploring Spatial Depen- dence in Structural Covariates of White and Black Violent Crime in U.S. Counties (working paper). Retrieved April 27, 2011 from http://www.sociology.psu.edu/­graduate/ race,%20Space,%20and%20Violence.pdf Lo, L., 2006, Changing geography of Toronto’s Chinese ethnic economy. In D. Kaplan and W. Li, editors, Landscapes of the Ethnic Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & ­Littlefield, 83–96. Lo, L., 2009, The role of ethnicity in the geography of consumption. Urban Geography, Vol. 30, 391–415. Ludwig, J. and Kling, J. R., 2007, Is Crime Contagious? The Journal of Law and Econom- ics, Vol. 50, 491–518. Maly, M. T., 2005, Beyond Segregation: Multiracial and Multiethnic Neighborhoods in The United States. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Marcuse, P., 1997, The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: What has changed in the post- Fordist U.S. city. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 33, 228–264. Martiniello, M., 2009, Immigrants and their offspring in Europe as political subjects. In J. Hochschild and J. Mollenkopf, editors, Bringing Outsiders In. Transatlantic Per- spectives on Immigrant Political Incorporation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 33–47. Massey, D. S. and Fischer, M. J., 2000, How segregation concentrates poverty. Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 23, 670–691. Massey, D. S. and Denton, N. A., 1993, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mears, D. P. and Bhati, A. S., 2006, No community is an island: The effects of resource deprivation on urban violence in spatially and socially proximate communities. Crimi- nology, Vol. 44, 509–548. Mollenkopf, J. H., 2001, New York: The great anomaly. In R. Browning, R. Dale, D. ­Marshall, and D. Tabb, editors, Racial Politics in American Cities (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 115–141. Newman, K. and Wyly, E. K., 2004, Geographies of mortgage market segmentation: The case of Essex County, New Jersey. Housing Studies, Vol. 19, 53–83. Olzak, S., Shanahan, S., and McEneaney, E. H., 1996, Poverty, segregation, and race riots: 1960 to 1993. American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, 590–613. Olzak, S., 1992, The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Palo Alto, CA: ­Stanford University Press. Pacheco, J. S. and Plutzer, E., 2008, Political participation and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of economic and social hardship on young citizens. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 64, 571–593. Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., and McKenzie, R. D., 1925, The City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Peach, C., 1996, Good segregation, bad segregation. Planning Perspectives, Vol. 11, 379–398. Peach, C., 2007, Sleepwalking into Segregation? The British Debate over Segregation. Berlin, Germany: WZB, Social Science Research Center, Discussion Paper SP IV 604 KAPLAN AND DOUZET 2007-602. Retrieved August 18, 2010 from http://bibliothek.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2007/ iv07-602.pdf Peach, C., 2009, Slippery segregation: Discovering or manufacturing ghettos? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 35, 1381–1395. Phillips, D., 2008, The problem with segregation: Exploring the racialisation of space in northern Pennine towns. In C. Dwyer and C. Bressey, editors, New Geographies of Race and Racism. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 179–192. Putnam, R. D., 2007, E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first cen- tury. Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30, 137–174. Roché, S., 2006, Le frisson de l’émeute: Violences urbaines et banlieues (The Thrill of the Riot: Urban Violence and the Suburbs). Paris, France: Seuil. Sampson, R. and Wilson, W. J., 1995, Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequal- ity. In J. Hagan and R. Peterson, editors, Crime and Inequality. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 177–187. Sampson, R. J. and Morenoff, J. D., 2004, Spatial (dis)advantage and homicide in Chicago neighborhoods. In M. Goodchild and D. Janelle, editors, Spatially Integrated Social Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press., 145–70. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., and Raudenbush, S., 2005, Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 95, 224. Sauvadet, T., 2004, Jeunes de la cité et contrôle du territoire: Le cas d’une cité de la banlieue parisienne (Youth of the city and territorial control: The case of a city in the Parisian suburbs. Hérodote, No. 113, 113–133. Schildkraut, D. J., 2005, The rise and fall of political engagement among Latinos: The role of identity and perceptions of discrimination. Political Behavior, Vol. 27, 285–312. Schlichting, K., Tuckel, P., and Maisel, R., 1998, Racial segregation and voter turnout in urban America. American Politics Research, Vol. 26, 218. Shaw, C. R. and McKay, H. D., 1942, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas: A Study of Rates of Delinquency in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shaw, H. J., 2006, Food deserts: Towards the development of a classification. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 88, 231–247. Shlay, A. B., 1988, Not in that neighborhood: The effects of population and housing on the distribution of mortgage finance within the Chicago SMSA. Social Science Research, Vol. 17, 137–163. Smiley, S., 2009, The city of three colors: Segregation in colonial Dar es Salaam, 1891– 1961. Historical Geography, Vol. 37, 178–196. Smiley, S. L., 2010, Expatriate everyday life in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Colonial origins and contemporary legacies. Social & Cultural Geography, Vol. 11, 327–342. Smith, J. M., 2006, Spatial and identity transformations of the Japanese American ethnic economy in globalizing Los Angeles. In D. Kaplan and W. Li, editors, Landscapes of the Ethnic Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 177–192. Solt, F., 2008, Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Jour- nal of Political Science, Vol. 52, 48–60. Sonenshein, R., 2004, The City at Stake: Secession, Reform, and Battle for Los Angeles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.  SEGREGATION OUTCOMES 605 Sonenshein, R. J. and Drayse, M., 2008, The political geography of coalitions in the age of immigration: The case of Los Angeles. In F. Douzet, T. Kousser, and K. Miller, editors, The New Political Geography of California. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies, 99–127. Stoll, M. A., 2001, Race, neighborhood poverty, and participation in voluntary associa- tions. Sociological Forum, Vol. 16, 529–557. Teixeira, C., 2006, Residential segregation and ethnic economies in a multicultural city: The Little Portugal of Toronto. In D. Kaplan and W. Li, editors, Landscapes of the ­Ethnic Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 49–66. Walker, R. E, Keane, C., and Burke, J., 2010, Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place, Vol. 16, 876–884. Walks, R. A. and Bourne, L., 2006, Ghettos in Canada’s cities? Racial segregation, ethnic enclaves, and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas. Canadian Geographer/ Le Géographe Canadien, Vol. 50, 273–297. Wang, Q., 2009, How does geography matter in the ethnic labor market segmentation pro- cess? A case study of Chinese immigrants in the San Francisco CMSA. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 100, 182–201. Weber, R. E., 2000, Race-based districting: Does it help or hinder legislative representa- tion? Political Geography, Vol. 19, 213–247. Weeks, J. R., Hill, A. G., Getis, A., and Stow, D., 2006, Ethnic residential patterns as pre- dictors of intra-urban child mortality inequality in Accra, Ghana. Urban Geography, Vol. 27, 526–548. Wessel, T., 2009, Does diversity in urban space enhance intergroup contact and tolerance? Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 91, 5–17. Western, J., 2010, Just how different? Loic Wacquant’s Chicago-Paris comparisons. Urban Geography, Vol. 31, 175–178. Wilson, W. J., 1987, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, W. J., 1997, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Wyly, E. K., Atia, M., Foxcroft, H., Hammel, D. J., and Phillips-Watts, K., 2006, American home: Predatory mortgage capital and neighbourhood spaces of race and class exploita- tion in the United States. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 88, 105–132.