Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Maarten van Ham

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 2. Index of dissimilarity (D) between the top and bottom of the social groups, 2001 and 2011. Source: Szymon Marciriczak, Sako Musterd, Maarten van Ham, and Tiit Tammaru Madrid, Tallinn, London, Budapest, Vilnius, Athens, Prague, Riga—managers and elementary occupations Amsterdam, Oslo, Stockholm—highest and lowest income quintile Vienna—university degree and compulsory education * Metropolitan region, **city.

Figure 2 Index of dissimilarity (D) between the top and bottom of the social groups, 2001 and 2011. Source: Szymon Marciriczak, Sako Musterd, Maarten van Ham, and Tiit Tammaru Madrid, Tallinn, London, Budapest, Vilnius, Athens, Prague, Riga—managers and elementary occupations Amsterdam, Oslo, Stockholm—highest and lowest income quintile Vienna—university degree and compulsory education * Metropolitan region, **city.

Related Figures (3)

Table 1. Four structural factors shaping socioeconomic segregation, corresponding theoretical values, and final theoretical model outcomes. “PS Post socialist Sources: Arbaci, 2007; Beaverstock et al., 2015; Esping-Andersen, 1990; Fenger, 2007; Kemeny, 1995
Table 1. Four structural factors shaping socioeconomic segregation, corresponding theoretical values, and final theoretical model outcomes. “PS Post socialist Sources: Arbaci, 2007; Beaverstock et al., 2015; Esping-Andersen, 1990; Fenger, 2007; Kemeny, 1995
Figure 1. Index of segregation of highest (Top) and lowest (Bottom) classes of social groups in European capitals, 2001 and 2011.
Figure 1. Index of segregation of highest (Top) and lowest (Bottom) classes of social groups in European capitals, 2001 and 2011.
Related topics:
Human GeographyUrban GeographyEuropean StudiesEconomic GeographyGlobal citiesSpatial segregationSocial Science Research NetworkPoverty and InequalityCapital CitiesSocioeconomic Segregation
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved