GeoJournal 30.3 293-300 © 1993 (Jul) by Kluwer Academic Publishers

293

Foreign Minorities from Developing Countries in Madrid

Rodriguez, V., Dr., Centro de Ciencias Sociales, CSIC, Pinar 25, 28006 Madrid, Spain; Aguilera, M. J., Dr., Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia, Senda del Rey, s/n 28040 Madrid, Spain; Gonzalez-YancL M. P., Dr., Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia, Senda del Rey, s/n 28040 Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT: Spain, which has always been a land of emigrants, is currently a centre of attraction for immigrants, as are other countries in Mediterranean Europe. The proportion is not as high as in other countries with a longer tradition of immigration. In this survey we selected the six nationalities which provide the highest numbers of immigrants from the developing world, and which have the greatest racial or cultural contrast to the native population. We analyse their structural features, whether or not immigrants from the same country are collect in the Madrid Metropolitan Area, the recent mobility of the immigrant population, and the evolution of immigration since the Administration carried out a regularization process, as well as Spaniards' opinion of foreign immigrants.

Introduction

The importance of recent immigration movements in Spain and particularly in Madrid, can be assessed using various indicators, all of which coincide on one well- knownfact: every day the number of foreign immigrants increases.

This would not be so relevant if it were not for the fact that the phenomenon has only existed for a few years and is a contrast to the previous situation. Until the end of the seventies, Spain was a country whose population emigrated. Over the last ten years it has become the recipient of a flow of immigration. This fact has been mentioned by several authors (Prada 1989; Gozalvez 1990; Mufioz-Perez et al. 1989; Bell 1989).

Some major problems are involved in estimating the number of immigrants in Spain. There are various reasons for this, mainly the inadequacy and lack of coordination of statistic sources (Gozalvez 1990; Prada 1989; Lora-Tamayo et al. 1991), the complex status of the immigrant, which is defined in various ways, and its great dynamism over the last few years.

This is why, so far, two kinds of research have been carried out in Spain: either using some of the official

sources, obtaining a more or less general view of the subject (counting the number of legal immigrants and estimating the number of illegal ones, as in the Colectivo IOE 1987), or concentrating on micro-analysis, using qualitative techniques.

We used the Padrdn Municipal de Habitantes (Municipal Register of Inhabitants) as of December 1990, for the 12 towns belonging to Madrid Metropolitan Area for which information was available, and the April 1986 Municipal Register of Inhabitants for the city of Madrid 1). This source of information enabled us to study the structure of the registered immigrant population, but the disadvantage is that it only refers to "regular" immigrants (as per B6hning's terminology). The whole of the population which is in an "irregular" situation is therefore left out of the survey, with '°a virtually un-restricted and incontrollable growth rate", and part of the "international immigration of poverty" (Werth et al. 1989, 23).

A General Look at Immigrants in Madrid

In spite of the heavy increase and number of regular and irregular immigrants in the whole of Spain and,

294 Geodournal 30.3/1993

N : , L , ......... , , , , ~ N N

i i ' h ~ r r ~: ; : IN N

rv /~ , ' ,c~ ¢ i ! ¢ I~

Tab 1

is still slightly less than in other similar European cities. Nevertheless, over the last few years, and precisely because of the explosive nature and novelty of this phenomenon, there are some very strong opinions both in the street and

in politics, and it has become one of the most controversial latest issues.

In 1990, the foreigners (just over 45,000) in the area examined (Madrid and the twelve chosen metropolitan towns) made up only 1.10/o of the population (Aguilera et al. 1991), which was in line with the level in the whole of Spain, but in sharp contrast with the average EC figure (4% according to Werth et al. 1989). Compared to other European cities, the difference is even greater: Diisseldorf (13.3o/0), Amsterdam (21.4°/o), London (16.6°/o), Marseille (10.4%) (White 1992).

However, in Madrid's case, it is not the quantitative effects of foreign immigration which are beginning to take a hold in collective awareness, so much as the qualitative effects, "a highly visible element, which is growing within the population and the social geography of large urban centres" (White 1992).

The purpose of this paper is to analyse, from among the immigrant population of the studied area, the most contrasting ethnic groups, which also have the highest numbers, in order both to discover their typical features and to see whether they are concentrated or segregated within the urban network. Particularly since 1981, there was a spectacular increase in the range of countries whose emigrants came to Madrid. Among those listed as "regular" immigrants, there is, on the whole, a heavy predominance of Europeans and both North and South Americans, while among those countries with the highest figures there are many belonging to developing areas (Tab 1). From these, w e chose Equatorial Guinea, Morocco, the Dominican Republic, China, Philippines and Iran.

There were various reasons for this choice. First of all, these are the groups with the highest ethnic and cultural contrast to the native population: Moroccans and Iranians do not have very great ethnic differences, but the cultural one is great (language, customs, religion); the Chinese and Philippines have both ethnic and cultural differences and Dominicans, although racially they are mostly black or mulatto, do however have language and, in most cases,

Tab 2

GeoJournal 303/1993 295

MADRID METROPOLITAN TOWNS

%

EQ.GUlNEA DOMINICAN REP. PHILIPPINES MOROCCO CHINA IRAN

1 BEFORE 1970 [ ~ 1971-1980 ~ AFTER 1981

100

80

60

4-0

20

0 EQ,QUINEA DOMINICAN REP PHILIPPINES

MOROCCO CHINA IRAN

[ 1 BEFORE 1970 [ ~ 1971-1980 ~ AFTER 1981 ]

Fig 1 Arrival date of immigrants

religious similarities. These are also the groups from the developing world with the highest population figures in the area and, finally and most important of all, these are the groups which are most rapidly increasing.

The Regularization Process

Recent studies on foreign immigrants in Spain repeatedly complain of the difficulties involved in obtaining accurate information on the real situation. There are various reasons for this, the most important being the inaccuracy of existing sources, the tremendous mobility of the immigrant population, which is not permanently settled, and the clandestine nature of many immigrants who do not wish to come out into the open.

In order to cope with the new pressure of uncontrolled immigration the Spanish administration has carried out a regularization process between 1985 and 1986, and, respectively, between June and November, 1991.

By 5th November, 1992, a total of 108,372 foreigners had been regularized (DGM 1992). Their geographical distribution is noticeably consistent with the map of regular immigrants (IEE 1991). The most predominant characteristics of this population are the following: - Male (over 71%) as opposed to women; - Unmarried (65%) as opposed to married; - Employed by third parties (85.3%); - E m p l o y e d in personal services or catering (30.3%),

followed by those employed in agriculture (15.30/0), and construction (130/0);

- Adults: a total of 61.1% between 23 and 34 years of age, with a higher proportion of males.

The most numerous are Moroccans (48.2°/0), Poles (9.30/0) Argentinians (7.4%), Dominicans (5.5%), Peruvians (5.70/0) and Chinese (4.1%). Tab 2 shows how this process

affects the Autonomous Community of Madrid (hereafter, CAM) 2). While 32.6% of all regularized immigrants in Spain are located in CAM, it can be seen that, by nationalities and with the exception of Moroccans, the real figures are much higher than expected. Thus, 64.1% of Guineans are in Madrid, 57.4% of Dominicans; 46% of Chinese; 56.6% of Iranians and 38.40/0 of Philippines. In spite of being the majority in number, only 20.2% of Moroccans are in CAM. These are the groups which are increasing the most. These figures, although they are for the whole of CAM, are mostly for the towns studied.

The Opinion of the Spanish Population as Regards Immigrants

The significant increase of foreigners in Spanish society has meant that opinions regarding immigrants have been rapidly formed and feelings have emerged which range from concern to racism or xenophobia. Before, such feelings were practically non-existant.

A previous paper (Aguilera et al. 1992) analysed some of the attitudes which were apparent from survey carried out by the CIRES. Spaniards' opinion of immigrants from the third-world is different from their opifiion of those from developed countries. Whereas Spaniards believe that the later are few in number - and 65% of those questioned thought that they should settle in Spain and expressed a clear preference for those from Western Europe - most people thought that the entry of immigrants from the third world should be restricted, although they were in favour of the integration of those who had already settled here. Spaniards are more in favour of the integration of South Americans than of North Africans and Black Africans, and problems related to racial and cultural differences are noticeable with the latter two groups.

296 GeoJournal 30.3/1993

00 *

00-64 05-59 00-04 46-42 40-44 30-39 30-34 26-22 20-'24 16-1g 10-14

0-1) 0-4

90

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

I

t%0 0 0 0 10 10

06 *

60-64 06-59 60-54 46-4g 40-44 35-30 30-34 25-20 20-24 15-19 t0-14

6-g 0-4

20 20

MOROCCO

~ a a

m i m =

15 10 0 ,/,

z

z 0 t0 16

,/,

66 *

60-64 60-08 60-54

45-4g l

40-44 36-3g 35-34 20-5g 20-24 15-19 10-14

6-g 0-4 _

20

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

!

10 B 0 6 10 16

"'I 60-54 05-58 60-64 40-40 I 40-44 36-39

26-20 30-34

2O-24 16-1g 1o-14

6-9 0-4

20

CHINA

10 10 0 0 Is 10 15 20 'k

PHILIPPINE8

65 *

60-84

06-69

60-54 1 _ _ 46-49 40-~ • a5-ag I 85-~ I 26-20 1 =0-24 • 15-19 '. I 10-t4 ~! I

5-0 '. !

2 0 16 10

] i i i

5 10 lS 20 Y,

1 M A L E CZ F E M A L E

66 *

60-64 65-09 60-64 45-40 40-44 30-39 i 30-34 '

25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14

6-5 5-4

2O 1ti 10

IRAN

5 0 6 10 15 f,

Fig 2 Sex and age pyramids of immigrants in Madrid

Regarding their influence on society, the majority believe that foreigners do not affect either increased unemployment or crime rates, nor wages, yet a far from negligible number think the opposite, particularly as regards Africans and the crime rate. On the other hand, a clear majority believe that help should be provided for these people, particularly as regards health care.

The opinion of Spaniards as regards foreigners varies greatly and is closely related to variables such as the age, level of education, income, profession and social class of those questioned. Thus it can be said that opinions are more favourable among respondants who were younger and with an average to high social position, income and academic level, whereas opinions were more negative the older they were and the lower their professional and social qualifications. A similar relationship can be seen regarding the affect of economic immigrants on unemployment and crime, and the desire to see them integrated.

From this very brief outline of Spaniards' attitude towards immigrants, it might appear that there is no major or generalized feeling of racism or xenophobia whatsoever, so that, theoretically, there are no factors which should cause immigrants from these countries to become

segregated. It is therefore affinity and, of course, money, which condition the spatial distribution of these groups.

Structural Profile of the Minorities Selected

As regards the date of entry into Spain, only the Moroccans and Philippines arrived before 1970 in any considerable number. The rest arrived mostly after 1981. If one compares Madrid to its Metropolitan Area (Fig 1), arrivals are more staggered in the city. This is due more to the formation and characteristics of the city environment than to immigrants own' preferences, as they settle according to their purchasing power or place of work.

As for demographic features, the predominance of either male or female immigrants is the first difference between the six nationalities examined here. While men are more numerous among the Moroccans, Chinese and Iranians, with male rates of 123, 147 and 142, respectively, the rates among Guineans, Dominicans and Philippines are only 66, 32 and 32. These differences are sustained in Madrid and the chosen metropolitan towns, although in some cases, they increase within the same nationality. For

GeoJournal 3 0 . 3 / 1 9 9 3 2 9 7

T a b 3 _ t _ '

iii!!!~!!ii~i!iiii~i!i!!iiiiii!iii!iill

!iii~ii!~i!iii!ililili!i iiii!i~ iiiiii i

~i!iiiii~ !~i~!i~!~jii!i~ ¸

example, the proportion of Moroccan males increases towards the city outskirts, and the same occurs with the Chinese. The opposite is happening with Iranians• On the other hand, the proportion of Dominican and Philippine women is greater in the centre of the city, while Guineans show the same proportion.

Besides showing the above differences according to sex, the age pyramids, taking the city of Madrid as an example (Fig 2), reveal that adults between 20 and 45 are more numerous (over 70%), which coincides with the age of greater working activity. The youngest in age are the Guineans, with the highest number of 20 to 24 year-olds, followed by the Chinese (between 25 and 29) and the Moroccans, Dominicans and Philippines (between 30 and 34). The situation is similar in the metropolitan towns.

Tab 3 shows the highest percentages as regards marital status, level of education and the company business and professions of the various minorities. Guinean, Dominican

and Philippine immigrants are mostly married, but the number is so far lower among Iranians and Moroccans. The number of married people is slightly higher among the Chinese. The proportion of unmarried immigrants is always higher in the outskirts than in Madrid itself, except in the case of the Chinese.

Regarding the level of education, over 50% of Moroccans are illiterate or have no schooling. If to this we add the fact that they are the minority group with the lowest proportion of university degrees or diplomas, the low cultural level of this group is quite clear. Among the remaining groups, there is a definite predominance of those who state that they have completed secondary studies, while the Iranians are those with the highest number of university degrees or diplomas. This is due to the situation in their home country and nature of their immigration (exiles) (Colectivo IOE 1991).

Tab4

i ' i ! i l ~!~ i ~!~ii ~i ~! ~ i ~ ! i~i!ii~ii~,ili~!i~:iii!i~!!!i!~i~!i!~ii~iiiii~!~ii!i!!iii~ii!!!~!!~!! ~ii~ii!i~!!~i~i~!!ii~!i~P~m~!~i!~ii~i~!!~!~!!!~i~i~ii!ii~i!i~i!~i~

i!i I̧ !!i ii!i i!!,i !ili !i !!'i~ ii!' i~i!ii! ililili! ~̧ ~̧iii!~i!~i!~ii~'~ii~ili~il ~!I ¸ !i'~ii~iii~,~i~i ~i! ~i~!i, !!i~i!ili!iiii~!i!!i~i~iii~i!i'ii~'~i~i! !!!~:~ ii!!iii'~ii~i!~i~iii~!~!~ ~i! j!i~i~ ~!!ii!'ii~iiiii~!iiii!i!!i!i~i i~i ~̧̧~!~I~?I!'~ ~,i, ~i~i!~iii! ~!!i~iiii~ ii i!!iii~i!!i~!!iii~i~,ii'i!?~!!~!~i~,iiii~!!i !i~ii~,~!, ,~,?~i~ii~il i~,i! i,!i~ii!!i~!,ii~l~i~iii!i~i~! ~

i~ e l ~ O V ~ ~̧̧ !̧ I~̧ ~il ~i i!~ ~i ~ili i i ̧ i~ii~ :ij ! ?!!i ̧~i! ~ ~:~ i ̧ i:i!~i~ / i ! ~ i i i ~ i i i ~ ~i lii!~i~i!i ~iii!~ii!iiiiiiii: ii !iiiiiii!iiiiii!iii,~!~i!~i!!iiii iiiiii!!!iii~,,il ~!~ii!~iiii!~ ~!!i!! ~ii~i!!~i~,i~i ¸!i!iiill i! ~ ~ i i i i ~ i i i~ i i!!!ii!~ ¸,U, i~ill ii~i i~il if!i!

i~il i!~i~'ii~ii~!~i~,~!~!!~ ~ i!~!!iii~ii!ili~iii!ill !U!i!~iii!i~!i~?iii~ ii i!.~ii!ii~ii~i~ii~i~iii~ii!i!~ ~ !~i!i~i ~:!~i~!ii.,i!ii~ ~i i~ii~ii!!iiii~i~i?iii~! ~ o w ~

~ NES ~ N

298 GeoJournal 30.3/1993

..I. .. ~

0,1--1,6

• 9,7-ii,2

1,7-3,2 3,3-~,8

• 4,9-G,L e

e 22,5

6,5-8,0 8,1-9,6

11,3-12,8

12,9-14t4

14,5-16,0

16,1-17,6

17,7-19,2

19,3--20,8

20,9-22,4

Fig 3 Spatial distribution (% in relation to the total number of respective immigrants)

Finally, working activity shows clear differences. First of all, the high number of nonvalid answers, particularly among Guineans and Iranians, indicates that their work is temporary. Philippines, Chinese and Moroccans reply correctly for the most part, almost certainly because of their kind of work and the way in which they entered the country (eg the Philippines have work contracts, Colectivo IOE 1991). The business of the companies in which they work differs according to nationality. The Guineans, Dominicans and Philippines state that they work in personal, domestic, or collective service firms in a far

h i g h e r proportion than other groups. Trade is the main activity for both Chinese and Iranians, and building for the Moroccans. The most oftenstated profession in that of catering employee. Only Moroccan industrial workers and Iranian tradesmen are an exception. The Guineans, Dominicans and Iranians have high percentages of professionals and administrative workers, which could be explained by the role among these small collectives of such employees in their own embassies and consulates.

Location, Mobility and Segregation

A diagram intended to explain the location of foreign immigrants in the studied area would have to take into account three related phenomena: spatial distribution, group mobility and possible segregation.

A typical feature of the distribution of these six groups of foreign immigrants in Madrid (Fig 3), is that it is not spatially uniform, but tends rather to concentrate, particularly in the centre of the town (Philippines, Dominicans and Chinese), according to their socio- economic features and type of work (domestic service, trade and restaurants). Other groups which have greater cultural and religious - but not economic - differences with the native population tend to collect on the outskirts (Moroccans and Iranians, and even Guineans).

The location of immigrants coincides with the lower socio-economic areas, both in the centre of the city and in the outlying metroplitan towns to the South. In fact, "people's position in society and, therefore, within the

GeoJournal 30.3/1993 299

Tab 5

L: ii1: ~'} }?? ? : [ [ ~ ;

:?: : ;i t I : : :: )

economic system, is a decisive factor in the residencial location" of foreign immigrants (Kesteloot 1987, 232). Their characteristics reveal their marginal position in labour market which generates low-level incomes, the difficulty of access to the housing market, their more dependent demographic structure, etc. (White 1992). The groups themselves as social and cultural entities have an influence on the residential decisions of their members. There are perhaps no factors yet in examined area to make these six types of immigrants "social and economic outcasts" (Winchester et al. 1988, 40), although things are leaning in that direction.

In the groups studied there is no clear pattern as regards transfer from the centre, which is heavily occupied by foreigners, towards the outskirts, which also contain a high number, with a middle strip without immigrants (Serra 1980), nor a pattern with three basic locations (centre, industrial areas with working-class districts and towns on the outskirts with a lower social status) (O'Loughlin 1987).

Location may also be related to group mobility. The difficulty of measuring these movements using the current statistic sources is well known, and this greatly restricts the identification of spatial mobility patterns. Nevertheless, in German cities it has been shown that foreign immigrants from developing countries move more, over shorter distances and towards areas of low urban quality (O'Loughlin 1987). Using the latest movements as a gauge, some relevant facts can be seen regarding the case of study (Tab 4).

A greater percentages (between 600/0 and 70%) of immigrants in Madrid arrive directly from their home country than in the towns within the Metropolitan Area (between 60% and 70%), as the city acts as a "gateway'with its international airport (Colectivo IOE 1992). The city's attraction for foreign immigrants from other Spanish provinces is great (financial activity, labour market, particularly in the tertiary sector), showing figures of almost 30% in Guineans, Chinese and Moroccans.

Immigrants located in the Metropolitan Area are mostly from CAM, particularly the city of Madrid, except

for Dominicans and Iranians. Madrid acts as a reception point for newcomers and as a distribution point for immigrants from the centre towards the outskirts in search of new places to settle which are better suited to their financial situation, as occurs with national migration.

To what extent can we talk about "segregation", based on the above information? Some authors state that segretation ought not to be measured on a national or urban scale, but on a smaller scale (streets, blocks) (Kesteloot 1987; Peach 1987). This concept should therefore be handled with care. Nevertheless, some studies carried out on an urban scale reveal that the segregation of ethnic groups is a very widespread social and geographic phenomenon in American cities (O'Hare et al. 1992), but is far less intense in Europe (White 1992). Segregation in Madrid, measured on the dissimilarity index (Massey et al. 1988), is small when compared to other European cities, where it is moderate.

By groups, it is the Philippines, who are located in the centre of the city, and the Iranians, in the town of Mostoles in the South West, who show the greatest dissimilarity (0.474 and 0.509). The latter's language, cultural and religious feature cause them to search for a closer relationship with other members of the group. Other nationalities are more evenly spread out (Guineans, 0.311; Moroccans, 0.339; Dominicans, 0.297 and Chinese, 0.298). This distribution could be due to work and economic reasons (domestic service and housing prices).

Some interesting features can be seen if we associate the dissimilarity index with the social and economic levels of the location areas (Tab 5).

The higher-status areas show a lower percentage in the dissimilarity index for all groups, except Philippines, as a result of the particular nature of their work (live-in domestic service). Madrid shares the same situation as London, where the higher-level districts have a lower number of ethnic groups, and Paris, where there are groups of immigrants working in domestic service in the high- status areas (White 1992).

On the other hand, areas with a lower social status tend to contribute to a greater extent to the segregation of

300 GeoJournal 30.3/1993

ethnic groups, except in the case of Moroccans and Philippines. It is therefore a typical segregation, into overcrowded and low-quality towns on the outskirts. This has been thoroughly studied in the case of French towns (Peach 1987). Moroccans, who have been arriving in Madrid for years, live more evenly distributed in the urban area. For the momen t , there is nothing to show that segregation is occurring in the central areas of the city due

to the native populat ion being replaced by foreign immigrants , as has occurred in American and British cities.

Nor have we seen any "ethnic segregation" in Madrid, but rather socio-economic segregation (Anderson-Brol in 1988). This is heightened when a group is unable to adapt itself to Madrid's u rban economy. This "segration" is caused by the poverty of the ethnic groups themselves (Fielding 1992).

Footnotes

Fig 3 shows the studied area, composed by the municipality of Madrid (outlined by a thicker line), divided into 21 districts, and the twelve chosen metropolitan towns.

The Autonomous Community is a political and administrative division, more extensive than the Metropolitan Area and composed of 182 municipalities. All data about the immigrants' regularization is referred to as the Autonomous Community of Madrid (CAM).

References

Aguilera, M. J.; Gonzalez-Yanci, M. P.; Rodriguez, V.: Los inmigrantes extranjeros en el municipio de Madrid. Actas de las III Jornadas de Poblaci6n Espafiola (1991)

Aguilera, M. J.; Gonzalez-Yanci, M. P.; Rodriguez, V.: Attitudes of Spanish population about foreign immigrants. International Conference on "Mass Migration in Europe", Vienna 1992.

Anderson-Brolin, L.: Ethnic residential segregation: the case of Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Development Alternatives 7, 1, 33-45 (1988)

Bell, C.: Extranjeros en Espafia (I). Papeles de Geografia 15, 21-32 (1989)

Calvo Buezas, T.: Actitudes y prejuicios de los espafioles ante los refugiados y ante los extranjeros. En Movimientos humanos en el Mediterr~ineo Occidental, Institut Catalgt d'Estudis Mediterranis, p. 270-279. Barcelona 1989.

Colectivo IOE: Los inmigrantes en Espafia. Cfiritas Espafiola, Revista de Estudos Sociales y de Sociologia Aplicada 66, 376 pp. (1987)

Colectivo IOE: Trabajadoras extranjeras de servicio dom6stico en Madrid, Espafia. Oficina Internacional de Trabajo, Ginebra, Documento de Trabajo 51.S, 63 p., 1991.

Colectivo IOE: Hacia el an~lisis sociol6gico de la inmigraci6n: extranjeros en la Comunidad de Madrid. IV Coloquio Espafiol de Sociologia, 32., 1992.

DGM. Direccion General de Migraciones: Informe estadlstico de la regularizaci6n hasta 15-XI-1992. Madrid, D.G.M. (Mimeo), 1992.

Fielding, A.: Migrations, institutions and politics: the evolution of European migration policies. In: King, R. (ed.), Mass migration in Europe. Belhaven, London 1992.

Glebe, G.; O'Loughlin, J.: Foreign minorities in continental European cities, 296 p. Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 1987.

Gozalvez, V.: E1 reciente incremento de la poblaci6n extranjera en Espafia y su incidencia laboral. Investigaciones Geogr~ifieas 8, 7- 36 (1990)

IEE. Instituto Espafiol de Emigracion: Balance de la regularizaci6n a 31-VIII-1991. Madrid, IEE (Mimeo), 1990.

Izquierdo, A.: La inmigraci6n en Espafia, 1980-1990, 260 p. Ministero de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Madrid 1992.

Kesteloot, CH.: The residential location of immigrant workers in Belgian cities: an ethnic or a socio-economic phenomenon? In: Glebe, G.; O'Loughlin, J. (eds.), Foreign minorities in conti- nental European cities, p. 223-239, Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 1987.

Lora-Tamayo, G.; Lora-Tamayo, A.: Primera recopilaci6n de fuentes y bibliografia. III Jornadas sobre la Poblaei6n Espafiola (1981)

Massey, D. S.; Denton, N. A.: The dimension of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67, 2, 281-315 (1988)

Mufioz-Perez, F.; Izquierdo, A.: UEspagne, pays d'immigration. Population 44, 2, 257-289 (1989)

O'Hare, W. P.; Usdansky, M. L.: What the 1990 Census tell us about segregation in 25 large metros? Population Today 9, 9, 6-10 (1982)

O'Loughlin, J.: Foreign minorities in continental European cities. In: Glebe, G.; O'Loughlin, J. (eds.), Foreign minorities in continental European cities, p. 9-29, Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 1987.

Peach, C.: Immigration and segregation in Western Europe since 1945. In: Glebe, G.; O'Loughlin, J. (eds.), Foreign minorities in continental European cities, p. 30-51, Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 1987.

Prada, M. A. de: Espafia, de pals de emigraci6n a p~is de inmigraci6n. In: Movimientos humanos en el Mediterr~ineo Occidental. p. 209-241. Institut Catalfi d'Estudis Mediterranis, Barcelona 1989.

Rodriguez, V.; Gonzalez-Yanci, M.; Aguilera, M. J.: Los inmigrantes extranjeros en el espacio social madrilefio. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie VI, Geografia, t. V. 159-173 (1992)

Serra Santana, E.: Les immigr6s darts la ville. Analyse d'un espace 6cologique h Toulouse. Revue G6ographique des Pyren6es et du Sud-Ouest 51, 2, 137-151 (1980)

Werth, M.; K6rner, H.: Immigration of citizens from third countries into the Southern Member States of the EEC. p. 135. Institute for Development Research, Economic and Social Planning, Saarbriicken 1989.

White, P. E.: Immigrants and the social geography of European cities. In: King, R. (ed.), Mass migration in Europe. Belhaven Press, London 1992.

Winchester, H. P. M.; White, P. E.: The location of marginalised groups in the inner city. Environment and Planning D 6, 37-54 (1988)