ETHNIC DIVERSITY AND CONCENTRATION
IN THE THREE GATEWAY CITIES OF CANADA
T. R. Balakrishnan
Emeritus Professor of Sociology
The University of Western Ontario
- Attraction of the Gateway Cities
- Concentration Within the Cities
- Conclusions and Policy Implications
One of the striking features of the contemporary Canadian population is its
remarkable ethnic diversity. There are
more than 200 ethnic groups identified in the 2001 census and the proportion
of foreign born is 18.4%, the highest
in 70 years. This diversity has been achieved over a period of time by the
changing ethnic composition of the
immigrants. While western Europeans predominated before 1960, in the 1960s
and 1970s most immigrants were
primarily from Southern and Eastern Europe. Since then, however, the majority
of immigrants are from the Third
world countries. More than half of the immigrants since 1980 were the so-called “Visible
Minorities”, among whom
Blacks, South Asians and Chinese form about two-thirds. Further, the immigration
of visible minorities in the
recent decade 1991-2001 doubled compared to the previous decade.
Back to top
ATTRACTION OF THE GATEWAY CITIES
This rapid growth of ethnic and racial minorities raises questions about their
integration into Canadian society.
Integration can be conceptualized at various levels: economic, social, cultural,
spatial etc. Spatial integration would
mean that immigrant groups are distributed similar to the rest of the population.
This is hardly the case with
respect to the recent immigrants to Canada. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of
immigrants who came in the 1990s lived
in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. This trend is not surprising. Employment
opportunities and the presence of
large numbers of the same ethnic group predict such a pattern. Moreover, a
large part of immigration is chain
immigration where a new immigrant follows an earlier immigrant who is a relative
or friend. In Canada as a whole,
the proportion of the population that is visible minority increased from 11.2%
to 13.4% during 1996-2001. The proportions
in Montreal were similar to national figures: 12.2% in 1996 and 13.9% in 2001.
However, the attraction of
Toronto and Vancouver was overwhelming. In Toronto, the proportion of the population
that can be classified as
visible minority, which was already at a high of 31.6% in 1996, increased substantially
to 38.7% in 2001 and in
Vancouver from 31.1% to 38.7%.
Back to top
CONCENTRATION WITHIN THE CITIES
Just as ethnic populations are unevenly distributed across the regions, provinces
and metropolitan areas, they are
also non-randomly distributed within cities. Spatial residential patterns of
ethnic and racial groups have been a
long-standing area of interest for social scientists, urban planners and political
policy makers. Urban literature
contains many studies of Chinatowns, Little Italies, and Portuguese, Greek
or Black neighbourhoods. In U.S. cities,
Blacks and Hispanics are often found to be highly segregated, a cause of concern
for policy-makers. One of the
reasons for the interest in residential segregation is that it is often seen
as a measure of how well or how poorly a
group has integrated into the society at large. The assumption is that a group
isolated in a particular area is probably not participating in housing and labour
markets to the fullest extent. It is argued further that living in close proximity
to others of the same ethnic or racial background, while increasing interaction
within the groups of concern,
reduces interaction outside the group. Thus, while residential segregation maintains
ethnic identity, it reduces
integration into the wider society, economically, socially and politically.
There are three main reasons for ethnic residential segregation. First, ethnic
segregation might reflect social-class
differences among the ethnic groups. Ethnic groups in Canada migrated at different
points in time and vary considerably
by their socio-economic background, language proficiency, and educational and
occupational skills. The lack
of economic and social capital, force recent immigrant groups to live in the
poorer areas of the city, often in the city
core. As their conditions improve, they are able to disperse to more desirable
neighbourhoods. With increased integration
into the country's occupational and industrial structure, ethnic residential
segregation should decrease.
This perspective, basically a human ecological one, stresses the economic dimensions
and puts less emphasis, if
any, on cultural and psychological factors in settlement patterns. While many
studies have shown the importance
of social class in residential segregation patterns, others have conclusively
proven that much residential segregation
remains, even after one controls for social class, and after alternative explanations
have been explored. The continued
high segregation of Blacks, Native peoples, Chinese and South Asians in Canada
and the United States, in spite
of their socio-economic advancement over the decades, lends support to this
perspective.
Second, ethnic residential segregation might be due to the social distance
among the ethnic groups. Social distance
can be measured by factors such as the acceptance of a particular ethnic group
as colleagues, neighbours, close
friends or spouses. Greater social distance should be reflected in higher levels
of residential segregation. One can
expect prejudice and discrimination, strong indices of social distance to be
correlated to residential segregation.
Not surprisingly, many studies have found a parallel between social distance
and residential segregation.
Third, ethnic residential segregation might be due to the differences among
the ethnic groups, in the level of ethnic
identity and ethnic cohesion. This is fundamentally different from the two
earlier reasons, which were based on the
premise that residential segregation is due to involuntary causes such as one's
social class or social status. In contrast,
this ethnic-identity hypothesis postulates that people of the same ethnic ancestry
choose to live in proximity so
that social interaction can be maximized, and group norms and values maintained.
Size and concentration provide
distinct advantages. Many institutions such as ethnic clubs, churches, heritage
language newspapers, stores specializing
in ethnic food, clothing, etc., require threshold populations concentrated
in geographic space. Thus, ethnic
residential segregation has certain merits, whether or not it is perceived
as such by the ethnic group. The greater
the self-identity of an ethnic group, the more likely they will be residentially
segregated. The level of self-identity
between ethnic groups may vary for several reasons. Apart from historical and
political causes, it could be due to
the strength of commonly held beliefs and values, kinship networks, and feelings
of solidarity.
Residential segregation in three cities is investigated using census tract
data on ethnic populations. Census tracts
in the three metropolitan areas were arranged in decreasing order of ethnic
population in 2001, and the cumulative
proportions were calculated. The extent of concentration is measured by the
proportion of tracts in which 50% and
90% of an ethnic group population is found. There is a low concentration of
people of British and French origins in
all the three cities. Though the British are a minority in Montreal, they do
not show a high level of concentration.
About a fifth of the tracts have to be covered to account for half of the British
origin population, and more than two
thirds of them have to be taken into consideration to account for 90% of the
population. Although the French are a much smaller group in Toronto and Vancouver,
they show very little concentration. Concentration is also low for
the western, central and eastern European groups, though slightly more than for
the British. Italians are somewhat
more concentrated than the other European groups, probably a function of their
more recent migration to Canada.
Half of the Italians in Montreal live in 12.3% of the census tracts, in Toronto
they live in 13.6% of the tracts.
The most residentially concentrated minority group in Canada is the Jewish
community. In 2001, half of the Jewish
population in Montreal lived in 2.4% of the census tracts, and 90% in 13.6%
of the tracts. They are also highly
concentrated in Toronto, the corresponding figures being 3.8% and 26.2% respectively.
They are somewhat more
dispersed in Vancouver, with half the Jewish population living in 14.3% of
the tracts. It is interesting to note that
the two Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), Montreal and Toronto, where two thirds
of all Jewish people in Canada
live are also where they are most concentrated. It seems size has a positive
effect on concentration for the Jewish
populations, even though they are not recent immigrants, and not in the lower
socioeconomic classes. Their
concentration is probably more a function of a strong cultural bond.
After the Jewish population, visible minorities are the most concentrated
groups in the three cities. In Montreal,
half of the South Asians live in 4.6% of the tracts, and 90% in 27.2% of the
tracts. Among the visible minorities, the
South Asians are the most concentrated. However, they are less concentrated
in Toronto and Vancouver, where
most of them live. Half of the South Asians live in 13.7% of the tracts in
Toronto and in 10.4% in Vancouver. The
Chinese show somewhat lower concentrations than the South Asians in Montreal,
but in Toronto and Vancouver
their concentration is about the same. Half of the Chinese live in about a
tenth of the tracts in all the three CMAs.
The Black population, whether of African or Caribbean origins show a significantly
lower concentration than the
other two major visible minorities groups in Canada, the Chinese and the South
Asians; this constitutes a striking
difference from U.S. residential patterns. This is surprising given their lower
socio-economic position compared to
the Asian population and their not too different position in the social distance
scale. One may surmise that a
greater cultural diversity within the Black population relative to the Asian
population may have something to do
with this pattern.
Back to top
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Within the three metropolitan areas, the rank ordering of the concentration
of selected ethnic-origin groups have
remained basically the same when compared to studies done for the earlier periods.
British, French and Western
European groups are the least concentrated, other European groups somewhat
more concentrated, and the visible
minority groups most concentrated. The persistence of this pattern of a relationship
between segregation and the
social prestige of the ethnic group is an important observation of considerable
social significance. Is it due to differences
in social class, social distance or cultural cohesion? Because these factors
are related to each other, it is not
possible to separate the effects of all of the causal factors involved in concentration.
However, some general observations
can be made. Long established groups of European origins in the higher socio-economic
classes seem to
be least concentrated. Here again Jewish people are an exception. They have
the highest concentration; clearly
there is the powerful influence of cultural factors at work in their desire
to live in close proximity to each other.
One cannot make this same generalization across societies. For example, Asians
enjoy a greater social status than
the Blacks in the U.S. and this is clearly reflected in concentration; the
U.S. Black migration to American cities and settlement patterns within them reveal
a long history of discrimination in housing. Slavery and its consequences
were instrumental in black settlement in the central core of cities in the northern
United States and subsequent
movements within cities were dominated by the racial factor. These factors are
largely irrelevant to the Canadian
urban growth.
In the Canadian case, concentration of minority groups does not mean that
there is only one ethnic group cluster
in a city. Maps of the proportion of an ethnic population in the census tracts
show multiple clusters in the three
cities. For example, the Chinese in Toronto are not only concentrated in the
downtown area in Chinatown; they are
also found in large clusters in Scarborough and in the west in the Brampton
area. Similarly, different clusters can
be identified with regard to other visible minorities such as the South Asians
and Blacks. They are found not only
in city cores but also in the suburban areas. Moreover the areas often do not
overlap, indicating differences in
their residential preferences. One is tempted to conclude that voluntary causes
probably outweigh the involuntary
causes in the Canadian case.
The fact that certain ethnic groups are highly concentrated needs further
investigation. Is high concentration a
characteristic of poor neighbourhoods? This is clearly the case of Blacks in
many U.S. Cities, but it is less evident
in Canadian cities. Jewish neighbourhoods are not poor nor are some Chinese
neighbourhoods in Scarborough. At
the same time there are many neighbourhoods that are poor that show high concentrations
of Blacks, Portuguese,
Vietnamese, etc. The crucial policy question is whether concentration of an
ethnic group can lead to neighbourhood
poverty? U.S. studies have shown that as Black concentration increases in an
area, the overall socioeconomic
status of the area goes down. In Canada some studies have suggested that as
the Aboriginal population of a neighbourhood
increases, the real estate prices fall, and so does the desirability of the
neighbourhood. Some real estate
agents may direct Aboriginal Peoples to certain neighbourhoods and not to others.
This can lead to high concentrations
of Aboriginal Peoples in a small number of neighbourhoods in many Canadian
cities. Whether such discriminatory
practices have affected the concentration of other visible minority groups,
such as the Chinese, South
Asians or Blacks is not known, but should be explored.
It is possible that a great deal of the concentration of many minority groups
in Canada is due to voluntary causes
rather than due to class differences or social distance. A certain threshold
population size may enable a minority
group to establish an ethnic neighbourhood with many advantages. Specialized
social institutions such as an ethnic
community club, ethnic food stores and restaurants, entertainment places, religious
institutions such as an ethnic
church or temple, synagogue etc. become viable in an ethnic enclave. Canada's
multiculturalism policy supports
the development of such social institutions and encourages individuals to maintain
their cultural heritage. Policy
oriented research should examine whether ethnic enclaves enable its inhabitants
to develop and enjoy a culturally
and socially rich life, rather a degenerative life that leads to a ghetto with
all its negative images of poverty and
crime. One way to investigate this policy would be to compare members of an
ethnic group who live inside to those
who live outside of an ethnic enclave.
It has been argued that the residential segregation of a minority group will
decrease with subsequent generations.
Those who are born and raised in Canada will adopt the lifestyle and customs
of the wider society; they would have
gone through the educational system in Canada and would have lost most of their
heritage language facility. They
are likely to have greater social networks outside their ethnic community and
greater chances for social mobility.
The advantages of living in an ethnic neighbourhood may be less attractive
to them. They are also more likely to
intermarry and develop multiple ethnic loyalties. We find decreasing segregation
for the older European groups as
expected, but not so for the visible minority groups. Because of the problem
of small numbers, we are not able to
go beyond the second generation, but we find little difference between the
first and second generations. Why there
is a persistence of segregation in the second generation is a worthwhile area
to investigate. We need survey data
on attitudes and behaviour to get to the core of this issue. The strong bond
between generations involving expectations
and obligations varies between ethnic groups. Similarly if a high level of
social distance persists even in the
later generations, this could be an explanation for the continuance of segregation
levels in the second generation.
Another important policy concern is whether residential concentration is a
reflection of occupational concentration.
New immigrant groups might often be concentrated in certain occupations such
as construction, manufacturing,
garment making, etc. This might be due to their limited skill levels on arrival,
official language facility, etc. It is
expected that with time they will be able to move into other occupations. Our
findings for 2001 show that residential
concentration is at about the same level as in 1991. The 1991-2001 time period
was one of high immigration, but
many immigrants come to Canada with higher levels of education and job skills
than earlier arrivals. With increased
economic assimilation and social mobility, one would have expected residential
concentration to decline. This has
not happened to date to any significant degree in the case of visible minority
groups. However, with the passage of
time and increased social mobility, it is possible that residential concentration
in Canada will decrease among the
minority groups, though some level of concentration will remain, if only because
of discrimination, prejudice, and
the desire of ethnic groups to live in proximity.
The future is hard to predict.
The high level of segregation among some ethnic groups such as “visible
minorities”
has been sustained by many factors, such as their size and recency of immigration,
lack of official language facility,
and cultural differences. It might also have been influenced by discrimination
and prejudice experienced by them,
actual or perceived, in their interaction with the largely white host society.
With time, the impact of these factors
on residential location should decrease. Intermarriage between white European
groups and visible minorities will
be a powerful factor in reducing segregation. There is evidence of greater
acceptance of ethnically diverse groups
by the host society, especially among the youth. Though the government of
Canada's
policy of multiculturalism
might help preserve ethnic identity, over time, there is bound to be an erosion
of the cultural heritage of many
groups. As we try to understand the dynamics of ethnic diversity in Canada,
it is clear that their spatial dimension
is an integral part of the overall picture.
Back to top
|
