В урбанистической литературе все реже и реже можно встретить термен ‘городское гетто’. Но действительно ли они исчезли как явление? Или мы  изменили их название из-за негативной каннотации классического термина? В эссе автор аргументирует в пользу идеи о том, что гетто не исчезли, а местами, как в Швеции, даже выросли и стали привычной частью городского пространства. Только вместо гетто в Европе такие зоны начали назваться ‘no-go zones’. Соответствуют ли они параметрам прежних городских гетто, разберёмся в эссе.


Overview. In the introduction to this essay, a brief overview of the essay’s topic and goal will be discussed. The section «Are the ‘no-go zones’ is a Ghetto: definition issue» shortly examines the definition of an urban Ghetto and the ways how it could be measured and apply to the phenomenon of the ‘no-go zones’. Then, I will explain modern poverty theory, including four ways of forming a Ghetto, which will be described in «‘No-go zones’ in the form of the modern poverty» section. In «Paradoxical nature of ‘no-go zones’: how the humanity of turn to anti-humanity», the question of the role of the European mentality will be described. «What could we do for overcoming ‘no-go zones’» sheds light on the possible solutions to the problems of these «no-go zones». A general conclusion will then be made.


Modern megapolises are places of congestion of people, spaces, and events with different values, goals, and positions. Diversity is a product of megapolises. In these diverse environments, very different people, from different socio-economic classes, with different culture background, mindset, skin color, personal lifestyle, and so on could be found. However, a consequence of the diversity which was born with megapolises during the industrialization is alienation. As Marks said, we could be alienated from a product, process of production, others and from ourself.1 This alienation and disconnect became obvious in modern cities and lead to the formation of the «Blasépersonality», according to Simmel.2 In such situation the feeling of well-being decrease, and for somehow overcome it people need to be attached to the other individual or a group, which is one of human’ basic psychological needs.3

Typically, personal relationships are not enough to reduce feelings of alienation― a group of people with a similar perspective is needed. This could be different groups in one individual, living at the same time, as Simmel emphasized.2 And for being attached to some group in megapolises the special spaces is forming, such as high-fashion streets in Bruclin, Westminster area in London or the Molenbeek in Bruxelles, etc. However, the formation of spaces in such megapolises, which have inclusion according to particular values, has also a negative effect: exclusion of others, who represent another set of values. Sometimes this exclusion becomes extreme. One of the most obvious forms of extreme exclusive production is an urban Ghetto, such as the new type of modern European ‘no-go zones’.

Ghettoes have long existed in Europe, such as in medieval Venice, when the 15th-century government of the Venetian Republic ordered all Jews within the city to move to two settlements on the island of Cannaregio.  On the island were the Ghetto Nuovo («New Ghetto»), and the adjacent Ghetto Vecchio («Old Ghetto»). During World War II, the name «Ghetto» was also associated with Jewish relocation. However, the modern definition of the «urban Ghetto» has become mostly attached to poor and criminalistic African-American neighborhoods in the United States. In America, the formation of its modern Ghetto was connected to the «Great Migration» of African Americans (1914–1950). The most famous US Ghetto became Pruitt-Igoe in the city of St. Louis, which was destroyed after a short time after it had been built.4

In contemporary Europe, similar situations of urban Ghetto creation can be observed. But in the European Union, such neglected neighborhoods are likely to be called ‘no-go zones’, due to the negative connotations of the word «Ghetto». I will argue that the ‘no-go zones’ are a new type of urban Ghetto since the formation processes in both 20th century America and modern Europe are similar. There is a great influence with the formation of such urban exclusion zones, which realize new urban poverty― the case of Europe: a special self-blaming mentality. How do we measure whether «no-go zones» meet the criteria of a «Ghetto».  Finally, where can the solution to the problems presented by the no-go zones could be found? I will try to answer these questions in my essay.

Are the ‘no-go zones’ is a Ghetto: definition issue

Ghetto have two strong connotations. The first is related to the Jewish Ghettoes during World War II, and second is associated with Afro-American neighborhoods notorious for their criminality and poverty. Nowadays the word «Ghetto» is not used in Europe. Instead, the ‘no-go zone’ definition is widely spread in the media, where the information about the recent migrants’ settlements is taken into account. However, perhaps this term ‘no-go zone’ is just a new name of the old-fashioned Ghettoes which remain in existence? To be better understood, a definition of an  «urban Ghetto» should be given.

The main theoretical problem in defining «Ghetto» is responding to the mandatory question regarding its formation, which has divided all theories of the Ghetto into the two main categories. In the first, older, theoretical camp, theories argue that urban Ghettoes are a voluntarily constructed space. The second camp,  more modern and increasingly popular, believes that Ghettoes are formed involuntarily.

The image of the Ghetto as a natural formed space created by conflicts between different ethnicities was first deeply analyzed and proposed by Louis Wirth5, whose approach was criticized. However, there are some authors who believe that the Ghetto could be formed voluntarily, as well as involuntarily. 4

Loïc Wacquant proposes that an urban Ghetto consists of four structural elements: stigma, boundaries, spatial confinement and institutional encapsulation. Moreover, he emphasizes that the Ghetto is a ‘socio-organizational device’ which has ‘ two contradictory goals: economic exploitation and social ostracism’. His main idea is that it is a ‘form of collective violence concretized in urban space’ and its role is of a ‘matrix and symbolic incubator for the production of a tainted identity’.6 In his article, Françoise Dureau supports this position: ‘All Ghettoes are segregated, but not all segregated areas are Ghettoes’.4  Ozuoekren and Van Kempen argue, that the initialization of Ghetto could be direct; such as the council housing area in Britain, or indirect, discriminated-based segregation.7 According to the «forced» theories, without an involuntary mechanism, the segregated area is an ethnic enclave.4 William Wilson analyzed Black American Ghettoes and noted that social problems in the Ghetto are the product of determinate circumstances and policies which are related to the structural changes in the economy. He also emphasizes the importance of the ‘relationship between economic restructuring, long-term joblessness, and cultural behavior’..8

Michael Poulsen et al. proposed a rules-based classification system for cities’ segregation formation. This criteria, perhaps, is the most objective , because it is based on statistical measurement indicators. Using data of minority groups’ size, or «concentration» in communities,10 Poulsen suggested the following:

‘Ghetto = concentration level >= 60% and >= 30% of that minority group living within that city in census units at that level of concentration; otherwise is a polarised enclave’.9 Concentrations mean ‘size of the largest minority group’.10

The authors explain: ‘If the minority group forms at least 60% of the area’s population and at least 30% of the group’s total population live in areas above that threshold, then the area is classified into our type 4 as a Ghetto.’10

The definition of no-go zones is widely used in media, but not in academic literature. The other name for describing the violent, dangerous neighborhood which is widely used by police is ‘vulnerable area’. The Swedish police’s definition of a “vulnerable area” is:

“a geographically defined area characterized by a low socio-economic status where criminals have an impact on the local community. The impact is linked to the social context in the area rather than a wish to take power and control the community.”10

In 2018 the Sweden police reported 61 graduated ‘vulnerable area’ in the country. In 2015 the recorded number was 53.11 In Sweden, all the no-go zones are described and associated as areas with a high level of crime (‘… around 5,000 criminals and 200 criminal networks are believed to be based in these 61 vulnerable areas’ … )11, poverty, danger, and high proportions of drug use. In reading the media, I found data that reported that even the police do not go to such areas, and also that in such zones the local population deliberately provokes conflicts with the police. American Ghettoes have similar characteristics.

An important indicator for Ghetto formation is the level of poverty. The level of immigrants’ income is significantly lower compared with locals in Sweden: ‘The level of immigrants income in significantly lower compared with the locals in Sweeden: ‘The median income for the refugees in the group was found to be as low as £880 a month. The family immigrants of refugees earned even less. Ten years after arriving in the country, their median income was merely £360 a month’.12 The level of poor people is much higher in the all-immigrants group when compared with Sweden’s «native» population. In 2007 30% of immigrants in Switzerland experienced poverty, compared with 8% of natives. At that point in time, the three poorest groups of immigrants were the Iraqis where 55% experienced poverty, Turks (41%), and Africans (35%).13

Data about the population of immigrants and natives in no-go zones should be analyzed for solutions. According to ‘Integration: Report 8’ made by Sweden in 2015, the populations of native Swedish residents and immigrants in some of the no-go zones between the 2011-2013 was analyzed. The prevalence of the immigrants was or equal 60% in following areas: Stockholm’s districts of Rinkeby (62%) and Tensta (60%); in Södertälje’s Hovsjö (69%) and Ronna (61%) areas; in Malmö’s Herrgården district (65%); in Göteborg’s Gårdsten (62%) and Biskopsgården (61%) areas. In other analyzed areas the percentage of migrants was between 42% and 59%: Växjö’s Araby (54%); Malmö’s Södra Sofielund (47%); Landskrona’s Centrum-Öster (42%); Kristianstad’s Gamlegården (58%); Göteborg’s Bergsjön (57%) and Hjällbo (59%); Trollhättan’s Kronogården (53%); Borås’s Hässleholmen (53%). In all mentioned cities between 2011 and 2013, the percentage ratio between Swedish and immigrants was 85:15 compared with 89:11 in 1997–1999.14 Also, according to the same report, ‘the five largest countries of birth by number in the group born in non-Nordic countries outside EU by period for all urban areas in the period of 2011-2013 were Iraq, Somalia, Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Yugoslavia. The immigrants of 3 of these five countries were mentioned as the poorest immigrants in Sweden.

If we return to the definition of «Ghetto» given by Poulsen et al., then seven of fifteen analyzed in ‘Integration: Report 8’ areas could be suggested as «Ghettoes» according to the «concentration level» criteria. The latter criteria are hard to measure, due to a lack of statistical information. So, according to this report, 46,7% of analyzed no-go zones could be called «Ghettoes» due to the statistics of minorities when compared to the natives.

The no-go zones in Sweden meet another important criterion of the «Ghetto»: as they are not voluntarily formed. The state directly formed these Ghettoes by providing cheap housing that is located in a particular area of its cities. Also, it is natural, that immigrants settle in areas with the cheapest housing in the city, i.e landlords can indirectly affect immigrants resettlement by the manipulation of the housing market.

It is worth noting that the term «Ghetto» is not used in relation to Europe’s wartime past when this definition gained such extreme, negative connotations.4 In this regard, the media made the right desition not to use the Ghetto definition. But this does not mean that the new name of the Ghetto, such as the «no-go zone» has any different meaning. I believe that the modern no-go zones are the Ghetto in a modified form, characteristic of the European continent. I would even argue that European no-go zones are the third type of Ghetto, after the Jewish Ghettoes in Europe and African-Americans Ghettoes in the US.


No-go zones as the form of the modern poverty

European and American poverty has become more similar to each other, and the European megapolises increasingly resemble American’s megapolises with their ‘long-term joblessness or precarious occupational attachment, the accumulation of multiple deprivations within the same households and neighborhoods, the shrinking of social networks and slackening of social ties’.15 Loïc Wacquant wrote that European cities have two interconnected trends which have characterized their poverty, the main issue with Ghettoes.

‘The first is the pronounced rise of multifarious urban inequalities and the crystallization of novel forms of socio-economic marginality, some of which appear to have a distinctly ‘ethnic’ component and to feed (off) processes of spatial segregation and public unrest. The second is the surge and spread of ethno-racial or xenophobic ideologies and tensions consequent upon the simultaneous increase in persistent unemployment and the settlement of immigrant populations formerly thought of as guest workers.’15

In the same paper, he argued that ‘new urban poverty in advanced societies must begin with the powerful stigma attached to a residence in the bounded and segregated spaces, the ‘neighborhoods of exile’ to which the populations marginalized or condemned to redundancy’.15

He believes that there is exists a ‘nexus between territorial stigma, insecurity, and public abandonment is highly distinctive’ in US Ghettoes. But for him, the main differences between European and US Ghettoes are political and racial. The latter is not so emphasized in Europe.15 However, something similar can be observed in modern no-go zones

It turns out that the modern Ghetto is a product of poverty, which has unique characteristics in our time. In a later article, Loïc Wacquant proposed four structural elements of modern urban poverty16, which also can be observed in the no-go zones. In general, the author describes new marginality as the ‘… results not from economic backwardness, sluggishness or decline, but from rising inequality in the context of overall economic advancement and prosperity… it is [new urban marginality] spreading in an era of capricious but sturdy growth that has brought about spectacular material betterment for the more privileged members of First World societies.’16

The four structural factors which define the new marginality:

1.’The Macrosocial Dynamic: The Resurgence of Social Inequality’ — the process in which the capitalistic market leads to the reducing of the low-skilled workplaces, which leads to the disqualification of the working class. It is paradoxical because all this is happening during an era of new technology and particularly fast economic growth.16 The growing income inequality within the counties at the time when it decreases between the countries support Wocount’s theory.

The unemployment rate in Swedish no-go zones are very high: ‘The problems in Rosengard, however, are real. Many immigrants live in overcrowded flats, often shared. Jobs are scarce. In Herrgarden, perhaps the most deprived part, the employment rate in 2015 was 27 percent. In Sweden as a whole, it was 78 percent. The unemployment rate for foreign-born people in Malmo is four times that of those born in Sweden.’ But also, there is the contradicting opinion about the cause of such a high unemployment level: ‘Education, rather than immigration, determines whether you can get a job, says Josef Lannemyr, an analyst at the Swedish public employment service.’17

  1. ‘The Economic Dynamic: The Mutation of Wage Labour’ — this factor is closely related to the previous one with regards to the numbers of people who lose their jobs due to the automatization, but it is mainly emphasized on changes in labor market rules. Self-employment, a part-time job and new types of labor contracts change the structure of the labor market, where low-skilled workers could not find jobs.16

In an article, Eurofound: ‘migrant workers in Sweden are over-represented among atypical work contracts and low-paid jobs… migrant workers more often have temporary employment, have fewer possibilities to find work that matches their level of formal education’18

  1. ‘The Political Dynamic: The Reconstruction of Warming States — the state pursues a policy that creates poverty. The actions of poverty creation in governmental level include the policy of reducing the level of social sector financing; the creation of isolated areas in cities with the low-price rent houses for the poor; deregulation of the policy of non-discrimination in the labor market; law which makes it difficult for refugees and migrants to take position in labor market, etc.16

Sweden is well aware of the complexity of the situation in the country since the level of unemployed migrants is high and needs to be addressed. According to a 2014 OECD report ‘Finding the Way: A Discussion of the Swedish Migrant Integration Systems’ published, it was stressed that the Swedish state has created many programs for immigrants who help them find a job. Among such programs: programs for studying the Swedish language; anti-discrimination programs in the workplace; programs for training the necessary skills (retraining); the introduction of forced quotas for jobs for immigrants, etc. But nevertheless, the unemployment rate among the non-native Swedish is high.19

  1. ‘The Spatial Dynamic: Concentration and Stigmatisation’ — in the cities where the exclusion zones formed, have easily recognized characteristic features by both residents of Ghettoes and city at large. Usually, in such places, there are poor residents and people from a higher socio-economic class, and tourists avoid these urban spaces, as they are not safe.16

Wacquant gives the following examples: ‘Nantua in Philadelphia, Moss Side in Manchester, Gutleutviertel in Hamburg, Brixton in London, Niewe Westen in Rotterdam, Les Minguettes in Lyon’ s suburbs and Bobigny in the Parisian periphery: these entrenched quarters of misery have `made a name ‘for themselves as repositories for all the urban ills of the age, places to be shunned, feared and deprecated.’16

Newsmedia has described examples of some of Stockholm’s no-go zones:  ‘In Sweden, places like Rinkeby are scaring: locals avoid them, the news picture them as dangerous. Rinkeby, Tensta, Husby, Akulla are real Ghettoes, born in the Sixties of last century to host Swedish workers and then house to political refugees…’20

Paradoxical nature of no-go zones: how the humanity of turn to anti-humanity

«Nothing is more Western than hatred of the West, that passion for cursing and lacerating ourselves»

Pascal Bruckner21

One of the important reasons for the formation of ‘no-go zones’ is the paradoxical Humanism in Europe, which has turned against its creators. I would like to give this issue a separate chapter because the situation with the emergence and growing of new-patterns Ghettoes represent a crisis of values which have reached a deadlock and created many problems.

Due to its sincere self-reflection in the last century, European Humanism was able to overcome the terrible consequences of World War II, and raise the level of other existential issues, such as sexual and gender rights.22 However, there have also been negative consequences, such as a tyranny of guilt. In his book, The Tyranny of Guild An Essay on Western Masochism, Pascal Bruckner wrote: ‘The peculiar genius of Europe is that it is aware of its dark areas; it knows only too well what ails it and how fragile are the barriers that separate it from its own ignominy.’21

Despite the victories of existential equalization, Europe pays a price for its humanity. This price in Bruckner’s opinion was the one-sided European feeling of guilt in front of other countries for the horrors of colonial policy, the World Wars, for an invention of capitalism that gave rise to «evils» such as exploitation, hedonism. The culmination that we see now is the blame for socio-economic development: guilt for progress.

Bruckner says: ‘All Europeans should be convinced that Europe is the sick man of the planet, which it is infecting with its pestilence. ‘”Who is to blame?”…“We are.” The West…is a machine without a soul or a captain that has put “humanity in its service.” And then he emphasizes on the unreasonable feel of guilt behind the developing countries: » to assume responsibility for them, always ready to ask what Europeans can do for the South rather than asking what the South could do for itself’. 21

The consequence of this chronic guilt is the ‘mentality of accusation still subsists in our reflex to spontaneously blame ourselves for the planet’s ills’. 21 This feeling of guilt is capable of destroying, not only of creating. And the biggest problem of guilt is that it can be easily manipulated, and forcing a person, or even a whole state, to do what is asked of those who observe guilt.

Europe, in becoming a hostage of its own Humanism, has forgotten how to defend itself: it is allowed to be manipulated on a sense of guilt. But at times, this humanity is not sincere when it addresses the situation of the no-go zones. So, if the feeling of humanity is true, then European Ghettos simply could not exist, since for migrants, all conditions for a free movement have (theoretically) been created. But they have not, hence the existence of modern Ghettoes.

The Ghettoes are a marker of the paradox where turn from the initially supposed humanistic act into one of the most dehumanizing acts which could be observed. It is absurd: Humanism turned anti-Humanism for both of a state’s Ghetto and native residents. Perhaps, all the same, it is worth questioning the sincerity of humanistic intentions in the migration policy of the European Union. Maybe this is just a bad attempt to continue Humanism when there are no economic (e.g. unemployment rate) and moral resources (such as the unemployment rate and emergence of racist movements, respectively). I think better for all to say the bitter truth, which is obvious: there exists a problem with the acceptance of migrants in Europe due to the lack of economic, political and moral resources.

The Ghetto can be seen as a side effect of exhausted Humanism. The Ghettos show us how inconclusive Europe is in its desire to be the most Humanistic the point on the planet. After such a failure in the migration policy, which led to discontent among all participants and, in fact, the isolation of migrants in the urban Ghetto, the honesty of humanistic intentions and the limits of feelings of guilt should be taken into account. And also it is worth thinking about the possibilities of solving the current situation. Europe had a long way to Humanism, and needs no less than a long way to go to establish the boundaries of Humanism, its «recovery.» And even more time will be spent on overcoming the consequences of this impulsive Humanism.

What could we do for overcome no-go zones

Urban sociology is well aware of the method of Ghetto transformation in areas that are favorable for life, such as gentrification. An issue of gentrification is returning the diversity to the neighborhood. This process struggles with the main reason for the formation of the Ghetto: the isolation of a particular group of people in certain areas of the city.

Ruth Glass was first who used the definition and described the process of gentrification in 1964: «One by one, many of the working class quarters have been invaded by the middle class — upper and lower … Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the working class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed».23 Well-known gentrified areas in Europe which became well-known areas of art and tourism are Užupis in Vilnius, Monmart in Paris and Christiania in Copenhagen.

In the process of gentrification, visible social and physical changes occurred. This is due to the fact that open-minded Bohemia and then middle-class people move to the Ghetto, and form an infrastructure that with time transforms the exclusion zone. In general, such changes occur spontaneously.24 But also, the state can promote the gentrification by pursuing a policy of diversifying the Ghetto areas.

If we return to the theory of Ghetto creation as a process of congestion of new urban poverty proposed by Loïc Wacquant, then it is worthwhile to consider the ways of solving this problem which he proposed. He offers three ways to solve the problem of urban poverty, which underlies the formation of no-go zones. The first two he finds not very effective but still used by governments: the firs are ‘patching up the existing programs of the welfare state’ and the second is ‘to criminalize poverty through the punitive containment of the poor in increasingly isolated and stigmatized neighborhoods, on the one hand, in jails and prisons, on the other’.16

The third way he finds progressive and defines it as: ‘fundamental reconstruction of the welfare state that would put its structure and policies in accord with the emerging economic and social conditions.’ For these purposes, he suggests using a basic income that would allow ‘to expand social rights and control the deleterious effects of the wage of wage labor’.16

If there is such a simple and well-known mechanism how to bring prosperity back to a no-go zone, then why have not it done yet? Is gentrification in the ‘no-go zones’ are not possible? This, of course, is a question that does not have an unambiguous answer, but most likely the situation in society, which is executed by politicians and the media, does not allow the process of gentrification to begin. A very important role in this played a public discourse, which constantly broadcasts information about the ‘no-go zones’ as dangerous and marginal, in which there live not worthy people with low education who just want to live on the means of the taxpayers of the European Union. And politicians also use a negative image of migrants as a means of fighting in the political arena, as, for example, the recent elections in France and America showed.

In such a situation, the emergence of native Bohemian or middle-class volunteers, who will want to move to a no-go zone, is impossible as people naturally worry about their safety. At the moment, there is an opposite situation, when all local residents leave the no-go zones, and as a consequence, these areas become more homogeneous, as, for example, in Sweden. This leads to the impracticability of integrating migrants and even greater isolation from the local population. The more difficult the level of not accepting the current situation in society, the stronger the processes of segregation, stereotyping, exclusion, mystification and demonization of ‘no-go zones’ become.


Due to the wave of migration from Arabic, Asian, African countries, as well as the war in Syria, we know many migrants try to find a better life in the European Union. As the experience of European modern megapolises has shown, migrants settle in a certain area of the city, which subsequently turn into a «no-go zone». These zones have become zones of isolation where levels of criminality and poverty grow. The more migrants, the more ‘no-go zones’ emerge. Despite the fact that ‘no-go zones’ are not called «urban Ghettoes», they have retained the essence of Europe’s historical Ghettoes.

The formation of such modern Ghettoes is caused by the process of migrants’ exclusion, reduction of diversity, and the accumulation of new urban poverty in such areas of the city. The new urban poverty is a phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century, which fills modern megacities around the world, but is particularly noticeable in urban Ghettoes and is one of the main reasons for their formation.

 Also, in the stalemate of the migration crisis in Europe and its ability to resolve the situation, the self-terror and full of guilty European mentality play a role. Unfortunately, this mentality is paralyzing and does not allow relevant issues to be solved, which consequently, has left the problems of migrant Ghettoes to remain unsolved. It appears that the attempt to preserve Europe’s Humanistic face has exhausted both its moral and economic resources.

However, the last century, a «cure» for the Ghetto was found: gentrification. But at the moment there are no visible gentrification processes in ‘no-go zones’, as political and media discourse is anti-migrant, and fuels hatred of migrants among the continent’s inhabitants. But in order to overcome this situation, it is necessary to change social policy and the general attitude towards migrants in Europe and also overcoming its destructive guilt complex.

Reference list 

  1. Istvan Meszaros Marx’s Theory of Alienation. Harper & Row, 1972 — Philosophy — 356 p.
  2. Georg Simmel The Metropolis and Mental Life 1903
  3. 3.Bowlby, J., Holmes, J.  A Secure Base. London: Routledge (2005)
  4. R. Penninx et al., The Dynamics of International Migration and Settlement in Europe. A State of the Art. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, pp. 134-170.
  1. Louis Wirth The Ghetto University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1928 — 306 pages
  2. (5) Loïc Wacquant What is a Ghetto? Building a sociological concept Revista de Sociologia e Política · November 2004
  3. Ozuoekren, A. S., R. van Kempen Explaining housing conditions and housing market positions Comparative Studies in Migration and Ethnic Relations 4, 11-29.1997
  4. (9) Wilson, William J., The Truly Disadvantaged: the Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
  5. Poulsen M, Johnston.R, Forrest R Intraurban ethnic enclaves: Introducing a knowledge-based classification method Environment and Planning 33:2071-2082.2001
  6. Brimicombe A. Ethnicity, religion, and residential segregation in London: evidence from a computational typology of minority communities Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34:884-904. 2007
  7. So… are they no-go zones? What you need to know about Sweden’s vulnerable areas The Local 21 June 2017
  8. Nima Sanandaji Swedish welfare model traps immigrants in poverty Capx journal 17 March 2015
  9. Ognjen Obucina Paths into and out of poverty among immigrants in Sweden Acta Sociologica Vol 57(1) 5–23. 2014
  10. Integration Report 8 — focus on 15 municipal districts Statistics Joined 2015
  11. Loïc Wacquant Urban Outcasts: Stigma and Division in the Black American Ghetto and the French Urban Periphery Vol.17:366-383. 1993
  12. Loïc Wacquant Urban Marginality in the Coming Millennium Urban Studies, Vol. 36,1639-1647, 1999
  13. Sweden’s immigrants struggle with jobs and integration Financial Times 2017
  14. Working and employment conditions of migrant workers – Sweden 30 May 2007
  15. Finding the Way: A Discussion of the Swedish Migrant Integration System OECD 2014
  16. Sweden — In the Ghetto A district where integration and fundamentalism get mixed up htttp://www.parallelozero.com/reportage/sweden-stockholm-rinkeby-district-448-0
  17. Pascal Bruckner The tyranny of Guilt An Essay on Western Masochism Princeton University Press, 2006
  18. Göran Therborn The Killing Fields of Inequality 2013
  19. Ruth Glass, London: Aspects of Change London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1964
  20. Jan van Weesep Gentrification as a research frontier. Faculty of Geographical Sciences, University of Utrecht, PO Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands

This Post Has Been Viewed 72 Times