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

Preface

Divided Cities and Strategies for Undivided Cities
Kristine Dösen and Urban Herlitz

As we approach the end of the century, immigration from the southern part of the world has had increasingly important social, political, economic and cultural implications. This is especially true where large European cities are concerned, in so far as they are the main destination of immigrants.

Contemporary international migration has emerged as one of the most powerful agents of social change. Its major impacts have been on cities, which have always been the focal point of social, demographic and economic transformations - transformations that invariably lead to change in the broader society

Understanding the relationship between the phenomena of migration and city administration is an important political challenge, and one which all developed societies face. These societies, however, have yet to identify solid interpretations of the situation which will provide them with ”strong” tools for dealing with it. In essence, the problem of the relationship between new ethnic groups and urban economics is a priority to both administrators and researchers.

The development and recognition of new patterns of segregation in urban estates has been the point of departure for a wide range of political efforts. This has been the case in Western Europe as well as in other parts of the world. Segregation patterns and divisions of cities have also provoked social and economic research. Is there a social development towards ghettos in the European cities? Will the suburban problems in the cities be a structurally new social problem? Is there an ethnic division in European cities creating somewhat of a similar situation as in North America?

The Metropolis International Project is a set of co-ordinated activities carried out by a group of countries and international organizations who share the vision of strengthened immigration policy by means of applied academic research. By focusing on cities, Metropolis attempts to identify and better understand the economic conditions and social, cultural and political variables that affect migration flows and integration, always with the goal of strengthening policy and, thereby, allowing societies to better manage the challenges and opportunities that immigration presents to the cities. Metropolis is an attempt to advance the role that research plays in policymaking. There are many ways that one can try to link policy with academic research. What might be considered the traditional way is to follow a broadly consumer transaction model, the role of research in the policy development process is how to transfer knowledge from a supplier, the researcher, to a consumer, the policy annalist or decision-maker. The researchers and policymakers are not simply suppliers and consumers, but are partners with a shared objective; stronger policy in the field of immigration and integration.

The first Metropolis Inter-Conference with the topic "Divided Cities and Strategies for Undivided Cities" was organized in Göteborg in May 1998. It was initiated by the City of Göteborg, Göteborg University, the Framtiden Group in collaboration with the Metropolis Project, Canada. Invited to the conference were international academics and policymakers, administrators, project leaders and responsible persons working in municipal authorities in Göteborg, Malmö and Stockholm, Sweden.

The topics of the conference were urban policies and the socio-economic consequences of mass housing in Sweden and Europe. The ongoing reformulation of policies in the wake of changes in socio-economic conditions during the 1990s has, in Sweden, produced an economically poor class of semi-marginalised, partially excluded, unemployed people, who live quite distinctively clustered on certain large, mainly suburban, housing estates in the major Swedish cities - Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö. In early 1995, the Minister in charge of ethnic integration issues, Mr. Leif Blomberg, declared that the government intended to put extra money into a special assistance program for neighborhood development. Research teams from Göteborg University, Lund University and Uppsala University are in the process of following and examining area-based policy issues and strategies for neighbourhood development in Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö.

The themes on the agenda have dealt with three sets of problems. Although they are interrelated, they are different in character. First, there is the problem of what forces in society determine the social division in cities? Aren't divided cities as old as the cities themselves? What is really new with the poverty problems in certain parts of cities and what is new about social exclusion? Of course, this is a problem with many dimensions: historical, cultural, demographic, social and economic. However, if there are common problems showing up in different countries, then, there is reason enough to focus on international socio-economic trends and structural changes on an international scale.

The second set of problems that were up for discussion concerned public policy measures in relation to divided cities and strategies for undivided cities. These questions were discussed from different European perspectives and from different time perspectives. In what respect has public policy contributed to improving the living conditions in areas with major social problems? Has the policy been effective or consequent in the long run? Is it meaningful to expect the policy to have any impact on reducing poverty in these areas?

The third field of discussion concerned the implementation of government policy with a special regard to Sweden and especially the projects financed by the funds initiated by Leif Blomberg (fondly called 'Blomman'), and called the "Blomman fund". The Blomman Fund was earmarked for special projects targeting social exclusion on selected residential estates in Sweden and, particularly, in the big cities. Project discussions took part in workshops and included project leaders, as well as social researchers engaged in evaluating the various projects. A particular focus was on the issues concerning problems of evaluation. The aims and goals of government policy were generally formulated and long-term in character, while the actual projects were small and generally dealt with small parts of the general problem of segregation and social exclusion.

Professor Saskia Sassen introduces the first theme. Her paper focuses on changes in the regulation of global production and its consequences for the role of cities in the advanced economies. The paradigmatic change in technological style from fordist to post-fordist regulation of production gives rise to a range of new social divisions of which one gives cities a more central role in the production system. The focus of analysis is what she calls "global cities" which are given a new role in the economy as the production system becomes more globally organized. While new technology, in many respects, suggests that space doesn't matter, still the global economy has to be controlled from centres of heavily specialized, service production areas. The cities, thereby, become more important in the production system as centres of this service production. However, this creates new forms of stratification on the labour market in the cities and new claims from new groups. In the new service economy, there is a growth of both highly qualified and well-paid jobs, as well of low-paid temporary and part-time jobs. New claims on the cities question concepts, such as citizenship and legitimacy. The analysis leads to the conclusion that we are seeing a new class structure emerging and emphasizes the concept of social exclusion.

Even if Saskia Sassen's analysis mainly deals with global cities, its relevance may be broader. Only a few cities could be classified as "global" but the implication of the analysis is that the new social stratification and the new view of cities have broader consequences for city structures in various countries. This is really the presentation of the "divided city" thesis.

Dr. Anne Power reveals another and presumably West European history of city development. After World War II, there was, in most European countries, an enormous demand for housing due to the war, urbanization and rapid expansion. The solution to the housing shortage was large-scale construction in a "fordist" spirit. The volume of social housing expanded remarkably. The form of construction was "mass housing estates on a dormitory model of housing devoid of economic activity". There seems to be a common European history in which most of these estates were built between 1960 and 1975 and with the same lack of respect for traditional city development. These estates were soon to become unpopular, but the real crisis coincided with the general economic crisis of the mid-seventies. This made the large estates more important to poorer people and to many immigrant communities at the same time as economic resources eroded. The situation on the estates became rapidly worse.

The situation called for government intervention. In all the investigated countries, governments launched rescue programs in the period between 1978 and 1987. However, the difference in approach between the policy of building the estates and that of the rescue programs is striking. Power finds that in all successful rescue programs, localization and estate community participation were of importance. She points to the paradox that mass housing, originally viewed as a universal solution, was operable only at a local level. The story Power has to tell gives rise to some hope. The estates could be made better off by means of successful rescue programs.

The effects of and paradoxes of the rescue programs are further discussed in Dr Maurice Blanc's contribution. He is concerned with the urban renewal programs in France mainly from the late seventies. In many ways, this confirms the picture presented by Anne Power. But, it adds a great deal of complexity to the picture of renewal programs. In many ways, political aims seem to be in conflict. In order to make the regenerated estates affordable even to poor tenants, a personalized housing benefit was introduced in France. However, Maurice Blanc finds it plausible that segregation, thereby, increased. Since better off tenants did not obtain benefits, their rent increased substantially, thereby, stimulating them too move out of the estate.

Other problems concern tenant participation in regeneration programs. While landlords pretend to attract better-off tenants to the empty flats by improving them, poorer tenants become suspicious of regeneration programs and tend to refuse participation in the renewal process. Maurice Blanc has also observed a public ambiguity regarding tenant participation in the management of estates. While central government encourages such participation, local governments are often reluctant and suspicious.

Dr. Ronald van Kempen's contribution not only gives an illustrative picture of the development of housing and housing policy in the Netherlands, but also presents another perspective with relevance to European development. He is critical of the "divided city" thesis for several reasons. The origin of the thesis is an analysis of changes in societies, not in cities. It’s not necessarily legitimate to extend the analysis to units of cities and there may well be other reasons explaining why observed inequality is striking in cities.

Ronald van Kempen has serious doubts concerning the picture of Dutch cities as divided. He demonstrates that ethnic segregation is not seriously increasing and raises the question to what extent it really is a problem. Income segregation is also comparatively low (compared with US figures) and decreasing. The conclusion concerning housing conditions is, therefore, that Dutch cities should be regarded as mixed rather that divided. He particularly holds this to be true for social housing estates.

The presentation of Dutch policy and policy changes gives a picture of quite substantial changes over time and Ronald van Kempen demonstrates not only problems in consequence of policy. He also argues that modern policy is not well focused on the problems it is supposed to deal with. The objectives of the policies are often both obscure and poorly based on solid and relevant research.

Dr. Roger Andersson's contribution deals with this development in Sweden and its political implication. He argues that ethnical segregation is a rather new phenomenon in Sweden depending on a rather rapid re-structuring of the urban population in the main cities of Sweden. With the help of a heuristic model of ethnic housing segregation, where the distinction between segregation-generating migration and segregation-generated migration is essential, he explains why substantial immigration was transformed into ethnical housing segregation. The situation is described as new even if the estates were formed in 1965-75 and have been burdened with major social problems since they were built.

Roger Andersson also argues that the new pattern of segregation calls for new political guidelines. He stresses that according to historical circumstances Sweden has never had a national urban policy. Such a policy has, however, in fact, begun to emerge in recent years as a reflection of recent developments. It began with the initiatives taken by the late Minister Leif Blomberg and has, according to Roger Andersson, developed into, among other things, an area-based urban strategy.

Even if these rather short reports and papers can only give a brief review of the problems treated, I think they spread some light on some important issues.

First, there may well be said to be a global transformation of social and ethnic structures, employment patterns, production systems and social regulations. These changes may well influence the role of cities, the claims of the inhabitants, enterprises and authorities and the dynamics of change in the cities. But, there may well be some discussion of in what way and how these influences interact with other social and urban dynamics. Differences between regions, types of cities, national trajectories, and so on, may be substantial.

Second, there appears to be a rather common story to be told about housing policy in different European countries. There are remarkable similarities in time and the form of housing construction. There also seem to be similarities in housing policy and the discovery of the need for renewal programs. Moreover, the direction of policy has some common features. However, the picture becomes more varied when we focus on different national experiences. National patterns appear to vary substantially. For example, the picture of segregation in the Netherlands differs from the Swedish one.

Third, the political arena for urban policy is conceptually difficult. Policy initiatives are often mixed in ambition. On the one hand, policy deals with unemployment or social problems, and on the other, it deals with problems of the estate. Sometimes it appears as if the goals were self-contradictory or at least mixed-up. Vocabulary is not always clear. The term "segregation", for example, is generally used as an indicator of some social problems, but it is not at all clear for which problems.

Fourth, the implementation of a policy for renewal has proven to be quite difficult everywhere. This becomes even more apparent by reading the remaining papers which report on the evaluation of different "Blomman" funded projects in Sweden. Of course, there are all kinds of implementation problems. But one dimension has to do with the rather general goals formulated by the central government. Once they are received by the local authorities, they must be made more concrete. Generally, local authorities also want these central goals to fit into the local structure of actions. Typically, they avoid actions that challenge their own authority. Now, local authorities in poor areas are generally pressed between high levels of needs and lack of funding. They are not in a position to work miracles out of small central funds or vague directives. There seems to be a vast area of institutional change in the relations between different levels of public authorities.

The problems treated in these reports have a general relevance in Europe and in European social policy. Unpopular estates were built during the fordist regime and they will likely remain for many years. After a period of reduced inequality and diminishing poverty in the fifties and sixties, poverty, social exclusion and widening income gaps have become features of growing importance in the long run. Mass unemployment has become permanent in most countries. Problems related to ethnicity, ethnic segregation and cultural conflicts are related to increasing mobility and international integration as the world economy becomes more global.

Treated together, the problems appear to become far more complex as they interact and reinforce each other. What happened in Sweden in recent years gives an illuminating example of the processes. A sudden increase in immigration combined with a dramatic increase in unemployment and an economic crisis rapidly changed the situation, especially on the unpopular estates. They became the focal point of an agglomeration of ethnic and social problems. If the situation becomes permanent and if the segmentation of the labour market proceeds along the lines suggested by Saskia Sassen, then, the situation on these estates may well become worse.

The challenge presented by this rather new picture of social problems in Europe requires a policy response. Still, political initiatives appear to be preliminary and rudimentary. Much work is left to be done involving research on the precise nature of the problems, institutional changes in public undertakings and policy development, before we can get more definite strategies for undivided cities and maybe undivided societies.

Anne Power's research suggests that there are means to improve the living conditions on the estates, if important actors co-operate and the right initiatives are taken. However, the composition of the tenants is harder to change and, thereby, segregation, too. In order to sort out what problems might be solved by a certain initiative, an ongoing dialogue between researchers, politicians and policymakers would be desirable.

Even if Anne Powers underlines the importance of localization in policy, admittedly many of the social problems on the unpopular estates are governed by trends and policies on higher and more central levels of the societies. Strategies for undivided cities, therefore, require initiatives on several political levels and a co-ordination of the initiatives.

The goal of this event was to bring policymakers and researchers together and to put the "Blomman Fund" and the area-based policy in the Swedish urban centres, Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö in an international context. The idea was to use academic research to stimulate and strengthen policymaking. The purpose of this highly focussed conference, was to exchange the experiences of the partnership regarding the effects of immigration on our cities, and the effects of government interventions. With the first Metropolis Inter-Conference we have started, both on the national and international level, a dialog for the exchange of the experiences of the partnership regarding the effects of immigration and segregation on our cities, and to exchange information and knowledge about effective practices where these have been identified and explained on the basis of rigorous empirical research.