LARS P. SYLL

Is ethnic segregation positive?

In many European countries over the past decades, there has been increasing frustration over what is perceived as a lack of social integration of immigrants and children of foreign-born parents. One factor that researchers and politicians have highlighted as a possible explanation is what is called ‘neighbourhood effects,’ which, simply put, refers to how the area where one grows up and/or lives affects one’s life. There has often been interest in seeing if the population composition in specific neighbourhoods (‘immigrant-dense areas’) indicates the presence of segregation that may reinforce inequalities between foreign-born and native-born individuals in terms of education and employment.

In a recently published report from the Expert Group on Public Economics (ESO) — Good Neighbours: an ESO report on the significance of neighbourhoods for integration — the authors show that ethnically segregated housing does not ‘per se’ have to be something negative. This finding has received some attention in the media and is portrayed as something exciting and new because the prevailing image of ‘immigrant-dense’ areas is often that a significant part of the problem there is that if people with the same background choose to live in the same area, it hinders their opportunities to learn Swedish, obtain a good education, and secure employment.

Upon closer reflection, however, it is obvious that no one could reasonably dispute that if one grows up and lives in a neighbourhood characterized by good role models, well-functioning networks, and highly educated and successful individuals, then the chances increase that one – regardless of ethnicity – will acquire a good education and job.

The interesting question, therefore, is not whether segregation can be positive — we already know that – but whether the existing segregation we have in Sweden today is positive. In the policy area, this question becomes important because many politicians want to limit the right to free choice of residence, arguing that families who do not settle in immigrant-dense areas or who leave these ‘vulnerable’ areas have better opportunities for good education, language skills, and jobs.

Research conducted in Sweden has (unsurprisingly) found that where we live matters and that for socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and immigrants, there is a high degree of correlation between where one lives and the extent to which one has higher education and stable employment. We know that ethnic segregation has increased over the past three decades and that there is a strong connection — especially in some metropolitan regions — between ethnic and economic segregation. However, we have significantly less knowledge about the mechanisms behind these correlations.

What one – especially in quantitatively oriented research – does is select some measurable factors (‘variables’) which are put into so-called regression models, trying to measure to what extent these factors covary (‘correlate’). This is often done — as in the ESO report — without a thorough examination of to what extent these measurable factors (education, income, place of residence, etc.) really represent the mechanisms we ultimately are (should be) trying to identify. Naturally, this is troubling if we want to use policy measures to reverse what most perceive as a negative development. Without identifying the mechanisms that create societal problems, it is difficult to choose which measures can be expected to have the greatest effects.

What we need is causal knowledge about the mechanisms behind the observed relationships. To provide us with useful knowledge, also requires using other types of tools in the toolbox — such as e.g. attitude surveys — that can complement the statistical data analyses. This is important, especially in the case of neighbourhood effects, where we are often not interested in stating that these on average exhibit a certain pattern but want to know why the effects for specific groups in specific contexts can sometimes be positive and in other cases and for other groups can be negative. Focusing only on statistical results in evaluation contexts often does more harm than good.

The type of mathematical-statistical investigations that the ESO report is a clear example of have often received an undeservedly high status within social sciences in recent times. Why? Fundamentally since they give the impression of delivering rigorous and precise answers to the questions researchers ask. The price for the sought-after precision, however, is in most cases far too high. By adapting the questions in such a way that one can get precise answers, we get answers to questions we are not really interested in.

Another telling example of this is today’s hype among quantitatively oriented social researchers to engage in so-called randomized control trials (RCT). The design becomes the main focus and just by getting more or less ingenious experiments in place, one believes they can draw far-reaching conclusions about both causality and the ability to generalize experimental outcomes to larger populations. Unfortunately, this often means that this type of research gets a negative shift away from interesting and important problems to instead prioritize method selection. Design and research planning are important, but the credibility of research fundamentally lies in being able to answer relevant questions we as both citizens and researchers want answers to. Instead of accepting that a lower degree of certainty is inevitable, one engages in model constructions that enable certain knowledge. If the goal is knowledge about the real world, however, the value of these is at best unclear.

The focus on analyzing social problems using statistical models has largely created a new incomprehensibility. The narrow focus on building mathematical-statistical models and theories, where precision, elegance, and refinement take precedence over relevance, has led to a lack of overview and that quantitatively oriented social research today contributes more to the development of applied mathematics than to the social sciences.

The ESO report Good Neighbours, unfortunately, contributes no more than marginally to an accumulation of knowledge that can form the basis for evidence-based policy measures in the area of neighbourhood effects and immigration. What emerges in the report mostly confirms things we already knew, and most of the truly important policy questions we ask are not answered beyond rather meaningless statements of the type “segregation can be good if… but can also be bad if…”. How this is supposed to help us solve the important integration problems in our societies is hard to see. One might also ask whether the enormous resources that are now annually spent on this type of research could be used in a more policy-effective way.

Kan etnisk segregation vara gynnsam?

I en nyligen publicerad rapport — Goda grannar: en ESO-rapport om grannskapets betydelse för integration — visar författarna att etniskt segregerat boende inte ’per definition’ behöver vara något negativt. Detta konstaterande har fått viss uppmärksamhet i medierna och framställts som något  spännande och nytt … Vid närmare eftertanke är det dock uppenbart att ingen rimligen kan ha ifrågasatt att om man växer upp och bor i ett grannskap kännetecknat av goda förebilder, väl fungerande nätverk, högutbildade och framgångsrika individer, så ökar chansen att man själv — oberoende av etnicitet — skaffar sig en god utbildning och jobb.

Den intressanta frågan är alltså inte om segregation kan vara positiv — det vet vi redan – utan om den verkligen existerande segregation vi har i Sverige idag är positiv …

Den forskning som bedrivits i Sverige har kunnat konstatera (föga förvånande) att det spelar roll var vi bor och att vi för socioekonomiskt svaga grupper och invandrare har en hög grad av korrelation mellan var man bor och i vilken utsträckning man har högre utbildning och fast förankring på arbetsmarknaden. Däremot är kunskapen om varför det ser ut på det här sättet — vilka är mekanismerna bakom – minst sagt bristfällig …

Vad man — inte minst i den kvantitativt inriktade forskningen — gör är att välja ut ett antal mätbara faktorer (’variabler’) som man stoppar in i så kallade regressionsmodeller och försöker mäta i vilken utsträckning dessa faktorer samvarierar (’korrelerar’). Ofta görs detta — som i ESO-rapporten — utan en ordentlig genomlysning av i vilken utsträckning dessa mätbara faktorer (utbildning, inkomster, boendeort, etc) verkligen representerar de mekanismer vi ytterst är (borde vara) ute efter att identifiera. Självklart är detta besvärande om vi med policyåtgärder vill vända en vad de flesta uppfattar som negativ utveckling. Utan att identifiera de mekanismer som skapar samhällsproblem är det svårt att välja vilka åtgärder som kan förväntas ha störst effekter.

Lars Syll / Magasinet Konkret

Sedan ett år tillbaka är yours truly medarbetare på samhällsmagasinet Konkret.

Mina artiklar finns samlade här.

The psychopathy of Ayn Rand

Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country …

Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights—they didn’t have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal “cultures”—they didn’t have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using …

What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched—to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did. The racist Indians today—those who condemn America—do not respect individual rights.

Ayn Rand,  Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, 1974

It’s sickening to read this gobsmacking trash. But it’s perhaps even more sickening that people like Alan Greenspan consider Rand some​ kind of intellectual hero.

Alan Greenspan isn’t just a bad economist. He’s a bad person. What else can one think of a person who considers Ayn Rand — with the ugliest psychopathic philosophy the postwar world has produced — one of the great thinkers of the 20th century? A person who even co-edited a book with her — maintaining that unregulated capitalism is a “superlatively moral system”. A person who in his memoirs tries to reduce his admiration for Rand to a youthful indiscretion — but who actually still today can’t be described as anything else than a loyal Randian disciple.

Ayn Rand and her objectivist philosophy have​ more disciples than Greenspan. But as Hilary Putnam rightfully noticed in The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy (Harvard University Press, 2002) it’s doubtful if it even qualifies as a real philosophy:

It cannot be the case that the only universally valid norm refers solely to discourse. It is, after all, possible for someone to recognize truth-telling as a binding norm while otherwise being guided solely by ‘enlightened egoism.’ (This is, indeed, the way of life that was recommended by the influential if amateurish philosophizer – I cannot call her a philosopher – Ayn Rand.) But such a person can violate the spirit if not the letter of the principle of communicative action at every turn. After all, communicative action is contrasted with manipulation, and as such a person can manipulate people without violating the maxims of ‘sincerity, truth-telling, and saying only what one believes to be rationally warranted.’ Ayn Rand’s capitalist heroes manipulated people all the time (even if she didn’t consider it manipulation) via their control of capital, for example. Indeed, the person who says, ‘do what I want or I’ll shoot you,’ need not be violating any maxim concerned solely with discourse. But it would be a mistake to use such examples as objections to Habermasian ‘discourse ethics.’

In her diary from 1928, Ayn Rand approvingly quotes a statement made by William Edward Hickman – “What is good for me is right.” Rand is enthusiastic and writes: “The best and strongest expression of a real man’s psychology I have heard.”

Later she models one of her heroes​  – Danny Renahan – after Hickman. Renahan is portrayed as

born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness — [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people … Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should.

Who was this  Hickman that so inspired Rand?

Hickman was a notorious bank robber, child kidnapper and mass murderer. One of the most hated and heinous criminals in U. S. history.

How people like Alan Greenspan and all modern-day ‘objectivist’ disciples can consider Ayn Rand “one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century” is really beyond comprehension. It’s sickening.