Moving On from Indices, Refocusing on Mix: On Measuring and Understanding Ethnic Patterns of Residential Segregation

Abstract

In a recent special issue of JEMS, Peach challenged the authors' work on the measurement of ethnic segregation and the use of their proposed approach in studies of British cities. Peach argued for the continued deployment of single-number indices—especially those of unevenness (dissimilarity and segregation). This response highlights the major disadvantages of those and other indices, especially in the contemporary context where most members of ethnic minorities live in urban neighbourhoods with varying degrees of ethnic mix rather than in relatively exclusive areas where they are largely separated from the rest of the population. If mix is the dominant situation, methods are needed that identify rather than obscure it.

Keywords:

• Ethnic
• Segregation
• Mixed Neighbourhoods
• Indices

Notes

1. Peach (2009: 1384) is wrong in suggesting that Lieberson was the first to use these indices: they were introduced by Shevky and Williams (1949) and modified by Bell (1954).

2. If group x—Pakistanis in his example—are 40 per cent of an area's population and the host society forms 30 per cent, then the area is in Type IV, not Type V: 40 per cent is less than 67 per cent of (100 –30).

3. The origins of the word ‘ghetto’ are in medieval Italian, referring to the dross skimmed off molten iron—i.e. cast out. This traditional view of segregation—even for those in the USA—of Blacks being locked out of prescribed areas has been replaced by one where they are locked in to certain areas, not because they are excluded from others simply by their race but rather because disadvantage in the labour and housing markets and in the educational system precludes them from affording homes in many parts of the city (Goldberg 1998).

4. A press release prepared by the conference organisers did not include the word ghetto; journalists were not provided with the text, only the PowerPoint slides. When one of us (Poulsen) was interviewed by a number of journalists after the paper was given, he stressed that it was about changing levels of segregation and population mix, not ghetto formation, and was assured that the word ghetto would not be used! None of the quotes deployed by Peach (2009) are from a formal paper but from notes prepared before its presentation to inform a co-author. Simpson and Peach (2009: 1378) and Peach (2009: 1381) are wrong in stating that Trevor Phillips based his claims on Poulsen's (2005) conference paper: he based them on the media reports.