http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

International Journal of Housing Policy 13Table 7. Evaluation of the ease of access for immigrants to different housing tenures in the Nordiccountries ∗ .Denmark Finland Norway SwedenTenureSocial housing +++ ++ + ++Private renting – ++ + ++Cooperatives, etc. – +++ +++Owner-occupied +++ +++ +++ +++Easy access: +++Greater obstacles: –∗ The evaluation of the ease of access is based on a combination of available housing and factors which especiallyhamper the options of immigrants.Downloaded by [Norsk Institutt for By og] at 07:07 11 March 2013of different tenures and of the described rules for access and practices of administration.Three factors are considered in determining these evaluations: the relative size of the tenure,which especially applies to the rental sectors; specific rules regulating access; and, finally,whether conditions on the market make room for discrimination of immigrants.Our conclusion is that Denmark has the most differentiated housing market with greatdifferences between immigrants’ opportunities for access to the tenures.Access to social/public housing is most difficult in Norway. In all the countries studied,private renting is the least accessible tenure. Access to cooperatives is most difficult inDenmark due to price regulations. Access to ownership is based on market conditions inall the countries.Comparison of immigrants’ housing situation in four Nordic countriesAs described in the introduction, we will compare immigrants’ housing situation in thefour countries by looking at the ethnic segmentation of the housing markets, that is howimmigrants are distributed across housing tenures, and to what extent immigrants live inovercrowded dwellings.Ethnic segmentationEthnic segmentation on the housing market can be examined by comparing the distributionof immigrants on tenures with the distribution of the whole population. Tables 8 and 9show how immigrants are distributed across tenures and their over or under-representationin each form of tenure. Moreover, an index of segmentation for each country is shown.The index is calculated as the sum of the absolute value of the difference between theproportion of immigrants in each tenure and the proportion of the whole population livingin that tenure, weighed by the proportion of the whole population living in the tenure.The tables show significant differences between the four countries regarding immigrants’distribution on tenures. In particular Norway differs by having a substantially largerproportion of immigrants living in owner-occupied housing. In the other three countries,homeownership is at about the same level, accounting for about 30 per cent of dwellings.In all countries, immigrants are under-represented in the owner-occupied tenure, but ashomeownership is not at the same level in the various countries, immigrants are less oftenhomeowners in Finland than in Denmark and Sweden. This could partly be due to the fact
14 H. Skifter Andersen et al.Table 8. Immigrants and the whole populations distributed on tenures in four Nordic countries (%).Denmark Finland Norway SwedenDownloaded by [Norsk Institutt for By og] at 07:07 11 March 2013ImmigrantsOwner-occupied 30 31 45 30Cooperatives 6 18 23Private renting 16 21 24 26Social/public housing 45 43 13 20Other 2 5Total 100 100 100 100Total populationOwner-occupied 62 72 62 55Cooperatives 6 14 17Private renting 14 11 19 14Social/public housing 17 13 5 14Other 1 4Total 100 100 100 100Year and sources:Denmark: 2008, Database at the Danish Building Research Institute based on data from Statistics Denmark.Finland: 2010, Statistics Finland.Norway: Living conditions among immigrants in Norway 2005/2006 and living conditions among the wholepopulation 2007, survey data Statistics Norway.Sweden: GeoSweden 2008.that immigrants in Finland have arrived later than in the other countries and have had lesstime to ‘climb up the housing ladder’.There are also remarkable differences between the countries concerning immigrants’representation in the other tenures. In Denmark and Finland a large proportion of immigrantslive in social/public housing, while it is only 20% in Sweden and 13% in Norway. The lowproportion in Norway is due to the very small social/public housing sector. When it comesto immigrants’ over-representation in social/public housing, Norway is at the same levelas Denmark, while Finland has the largest over-representation. Immigrants are also overrepresentedin social/public housing in Sweden, but at a lower level than in the othercountries.Private renting is an important sector for immigrants in all the countries studied, accommodatingbetween 15 and 25%. But compared with the size of this tenure, immigrants havemore often gained access to private renting in Finland and Sweden. Especially in Denmark,Table 9.Immigrants’ overrepresentation in the tenure and a calculated index of tenure segmentation.Denmark Finland Norway SwedenOwner-occupied −51 −57 −27 −45Cooperatives −4 29 37Private renting 18 91 26 89Social/public housing 166 222 160 45Other 113 40Index of segmentation 63 81 34 50Over representation = (% of immigrants in tenure x –% of whole population in tenure x)/% of whole populationin tenure x.Index of ethnic tenure segmentation = sum x=1,n (Absolute (% of immigrants in tenure x –whole population intenure x) ∗ proportion of population in tenure x).
Page 1 and 2: This article was downloaded by: [No
Page 3 and 4: 2 H. Skifter Andersen et al.Downloa
Page 7 and 8: 6 H. Skifter Andersen et al.Table 1
Page 11 and 12: 10 H. Skifter Andersen et al.Table
Page 13: 12 H. Skifter Andersen et al.Downlo
Page 17 and 18: 16 H. Skifter Andersen et al.in Den
Page 19 and 20: 18 H. Skifter Andersen et al.Downlo
Page 21: 20 H. Skifter Andersen et al.Downlo

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?