Urban Shrinkage and Socio-Economic Segregation in Medium-Sized Cities: The Case of Schwerin (Germany)

Abstract

Although past studies have found that processes of urban shrinkage may act as a catalyst for socio-economic segregation, these relationships remain underexplored outside the context of large cities and capitals. Moreover, cities at lower-tiers of the urban hierarchy in post-socialist Europe have been doubly excluded from the critical discourse on the socio-spatial effects of shrinkage. Hence, this article examines how shrinkage affects socio-economic segregation in the medium-sized post-socialist city of Schwerin, employing segregation indices to assess levels of spatial unevenness and location quotients to map intra-urban patterns of vulnerable population groups over time. Results indicate processes of shrinkage may exacerbate socio-economic segregation in medium-sized cities and that the spatial heterogeneity of shrinkage intersects with uneven distributions of affluence and poverty. However, suggesting that legacies of state socialism shape contemporary socio-spatial change, segregation in Schwerin is strongly conditioned by its socialist-era housing estates, which are generally characterised by the highest rates of population decline, vacancy, and vulnerable groups.

Full text

© 2021 Author(s)
This is an open access article distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution license
QUAESTIONES GEOGRAPHICAE 40(4) • 2021
URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION
IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN
(GERMANY)
DaviD Huntington
Department of Economic Geography, Faculty of Human Geography and Planning,
AdamMickiewiczUniversity,Poznań,Poland
Manuscript received: June 7, 2021
Revised version: July 21, 2021
Huntington D., 2021. Urban shrinkage and socio-economic segregation in medium-sized cities: The case of Schwerin
(Germany). Quaestiones Geographicae40(4),BoguckiWydawnictwoNaukowe,Poznań,pp.29–46.6gs,1table.
abstract: Although past studies have found that processes of urban shrinkage may act as a catalyst for socio-economic
segregation, these relationships remain underexplored outside the context of large cities and capitals. Moreover, cities
at lower-tiers of the urban hierarchy in post-socialist Europe have been doubly excluded from the critical discourse on
the socio-spatial effects of shrinkage. Hence, this article examines how shrinkage affects socio-economic segregation in
the medium-sized post-socialist city of Schwerin, employing segregation indices to assess levels of spatial unevenness
and location quotients to map intra-urban patterns of vulnerable population groups over time. Results indicate processes
of shrinkage may exacerbate socio-economic segregation in medium-sized cities and that the spatial heterogeneity of
shrinkageintersectswithunevendistributionsofafuenceandpoverty.However,suggestingthatlegaciesofstatesocial-
ism shape contemporary socio-spatial change, segregation in Schwerin is strongly conditioned by its socialist-era housing
estates, which are generally characterised by the highest rates of population decline, vacancy, and vulnerable groups.
KeyworDs: urban shrinkage, socio-economic segregation, medium-sized cities, post-socialist cities, socio-spatial ine-
quality
Corresponding author: David Huntington, Department of Economic Geography, Faculty of Human Geography and Planning,
Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. B. Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland; e-mail: david.huntington@amu.edu.pl
Introduction
The development of European cities has be-
come increasingly polarised in recent decades.
While select cities have experienced population
booms, labour market growth, and new forms
of work, many others—above all small and me-
dium-sized cities, but also numerous large cities
and metropolitan areas—endured years of de-
population and job losses (Turok, Mykhnenko
2007; Wolff, Wiechmann 2018). Although the
socio-spatial consequences of the phenomenon
which has become known as ‘urban shrinkage’
are context-dependent and, therefore, may differ
considerably between seemingly similar cities
and regions, current theory and empirical evi-
dence indicate that processes of demographic
and economic decline generally precede shifts
in the socio-spatial fabric of cities. For instance,
population ageing and increasing concentrations
of disadvantaged social groups are a common
characteristic of so-called ‘shrinking cities’ due to
their typical experiences with selective outmigra-
tion of younger, highly-educated, and middle- to
https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2021-0036
ISSN2082-2103,eISSN2081-6383

30 DAVID HUNTINGTON
upper-class segments of the population (Fol 2012;
Großmannet al.2013; Haaseet al.2016a, b).An
increasing lack of job opportunities for those left
behind on the one hand, and a scarcity of qual-
ied working-age residents on the other may
also place strains on the local economy. An un-
balanced job market and rising unemployment
may, in turn, damage a city’s reputation and
attractiveness to potential newcomers or inves-
tors. That the proliferation of vacant buildings
and abandoned land tends to fuel outmigration
as well as the stigmatisation of shrinking cit-
ies—or particular areas of cities—adds anoth-
er layer to the socio-spatial challenges of urban
shrinkage (Großmann et al. 2015). Ultimately, if
left unchecked, continuous urban shrinkage and
rising vacancies may spur a vicious cycle of so-
cio-economic inequalities and spatial polarisa-
tion (Hoekstra et al. 2020).
Yet, although more than one-third of Europe’s
population reside in small and medium-sized cit-
ies with fewer than 100,000 residents (European
Commission 2011), and despite the particular
vulnerability of such cities to the negative ef-
fects of urban shrinkage given their alienation
or resource-constraints (Wolff, Wiechmann
2018), existing investigations of how local expe-
riences with shrinkage affect segregation are al-
most exclusively set in the context of capitals or
large metropolitan areas (Großmann et al. 2015;
Marcińczaketal. 2012;Petsimeris1998;Valatka
etal.2016).Theknowledgegap concerning the
relationship between urban shrinkage and so-
cio-economic segregation extends to lower-tier
cities in the region of Central and Eastern Europe
(CEE), the epicentre of urban shrinkage and lo-
cation of some of the highest rates of population
decline since the beginning of the post-socialist
transition. Indeed, although numerous cities in
CEE had already recorded population losses in
the years leading up to the collapse of state so-
cialism, the spread of suburbanisation, declining
fertility rates, and persistent outmigration have
since accelerated processes of urban shrinkage
(Haaseetal.2016a,b;Stryjakiewicz,Jaroszewska
2016).Inotherwords,our understandingofthe
relationship between shrinkage and segrega-
tion is not merely unclear, but decidedly biased
towards the experiences of a narrow group of
cities. The omission of small and medium-sized
post-socialist cities from the shrinking cities
literature is a practical problem for urban plan-
ning and policy-making because empirical ver-
icationsofhowsocio-spatial inequalities, such
as socio-economic segregation, develop across
different contexts are key to the development of
evidence-based, place-sensitive responses.
Hence, the emphasis of this contribution is
an empirical study of the socio-spatial restruc-
turing of the medium-sized post-socialist city
of Schwerin, Germany, paying particular atten-
tion to the explanatory power of processes of
urban shrinkage on levels and patterns of so-
cio-economic segregation over time. Schwerin
experienced substantial population growth as a
regional capital and prominent administrative
centre prior to the Second World War, and after-
wards as a centrally planned district capital of
the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Since
Germanreunication,Schwerinhas faced near-
ly continuous population declines, decreasing
from approximately 130,000 principal residents
in1988tofewerthan96,000asof2019.However,
spatial patterns of depopulation in Schwerin
have been far from evenly distributed; some dis-
tricts are characterised by persistent outmigra-
tion and high vacancy rates while others struggle
to meet housing demand. The following section
summarises typical causes, consequences, and
challenges of socio-economic segregation in the
contemporary city. Subsequently, post-war paths
of urban development and socio-spatial change
in CEE are examined, focusing on the explanato-
ry power of urban shrinkage on patterns of seg-
regation. This is followed by a presentation of the
study’s methodology, an introduction to the case
of Schwerin, and an examination of empirical re-
sults.Finally,keyndings are summarisedand
discussed.
Socio-economic segregation in the city
The uneven spatial distribution of differing
socio-economic population groups—a phenom-
enon known as socio-economic segregation—
appears to be on the rise in cities around the
world (Bischoff, Reardon 2014; Marcińczak et
al.2016;vanHamet al.2021).This hasbeenat-
tributed to broader processes of urban and sub-
urban transformation; for instance, the revival of
many inner-city areas, driven by the expansion

URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN 31
of knowledge-based economic activities, capital
investments in property development, new class
dynamics and demographic transitions, has ev-
idently impacted neighbourhood change and
socio-spatial differentiation (Lees 2008). While
inner-city revitalisation may initially result in
social mixing and decreasing segregation, over
time related processes of gentrication, such as
rising property values and displacement, tend to
exacerbate social homogenisation and segrega-
tion (van Gent, Hochstenbach 2020). Even in mar-
ginalised areas of cities with depressed housing
markets, socio-spatial inequalities may be further
aggravated by speculative business practices or
exploitative landlords charging exorbitant rents
(Desmond,Wilmers2019).
Yet, contemporary segregation is also linked
to macro-level structural changes in employ-
ment; for example, nancial crises and a lack
of secure, well-paying jobs in many cities have
made home ownership less accessible to younger
people (Martin et al. 2018). This trend has been
worsened by the spread of austerity measures
and a long-standing lack of investment in new
social housing (Hess et al. 2018; Scanlon et al.
2014). Furthermore, although socio-spatial differ-
entiation is also dependent on urban policy and
planning (Marcińczak et al. 2016), and in some
cases governments have successfully combated
socio-economic segregation by way of, for exam-
ple, social housing requirements in new develop-
ments (Andersson et al. 2010), local planning and
land use policies frequently encourage construc-
tion of single-family homes (and entire neigh-
bourhoods) for middle class households over af-
fordable housing (Kovács 2020). The curtailment
of socially-mixed urban housing options and
pricing out of younger, lower-income population
groups, especially from the most desirable in-
ner-city areas, has resulted in the decentralisation
of poverty, whereby low-income households,
whether existing residents or newcomers, are in-
creasingly funnelled into relatively isolated pock-
ets of affordable housing and concentrated in the
least desirable neighbourhoods (Hochstenbach,
Musterd 2018; Kneebone, Nadeau 2015).
Of course, socio-economic segregation is not
synonymous with social inequality and the de-
gree to which segregation affects quality of life
depends on historical, institutional and social
contexts. Indeed, for urban areas characterised by
relatively little income and wealth inequality, the
consequences of segregation may be less prob-
lematic, but never without meaning (Maloutas,
Fujita 2012). Bourdieu (2018) explains segrega-
tion as the manifestation of social hierarchies in
space, driven by social struggles and mediated
by the state. The relationship between social in-
equalities and segregation is furthermore highly
contingent on the tendency of capitalist housing
markets to concentrate social echelons in espe-
cially attractive urban areas with superior access
to education, employment, and amenities as well
as low levels of crime and pollution (Depro et al.
2015; Kuminoff et al. 2013). Hence, the capacity of
segregation to aggravate social inequalities tends
to be weakest in countries characterised by a
strong redistributive welfare state and strongest
in more liberal contexts (Maloutas, Fujita 2012).
While a complete overview of consequences
linked to status-based segregation in general,
and concentrations of poverty in particular, is
outside the scope of this article, it is worth noting
that social isolation and exclusion, poor access to
education and employment opportunities, and
neighbourhood stigma are counterproductive if
not detrimental to the life quality and opportuni-
ties for people of all age groups (Galster, Sharkey
2017). Segregation may also have political reper-
cussions; in Europe, several waves of migration
to various regions have been met with a revival
of right-wing populism and the normalisation
of nationalist and even xenophobic discourse
in everyday politics. This intolerance has been
attributed in part to the catalysing effect of con-
centrations of racial or religious minorities on
misunderstandings between communities and
political alienation (van Leeuwen, Vega 2021).
Contrariwise, high levels of social contact be-
tween groups can facilitate tolerance and under-
standing (Piekut, Valentine 2017). In sum, given
socio-economic segregation may act as a catalyst
of social inequalities and a threat to pluralist de-
mocracies, it is imperative to understand its caus-
es and conditions across various contexts.
Urban shrinkage and socio-spatial
change in (post-)socialist Europe
After the Second World War, countries of
CEE either became Soviet republics or satellites

32 DAVID HUNTINGTON
subjected to a socialist political and socio-eco-
nomic development agenda under the Soviet
sphere of inuence. For nearly half a century,
they constituted a distinct geopolitical region
between Western Europe and the Soviet Union,
where the role of the market was drastically lim-
ited, collective ownership of land and infrastruc-
ture was prioritised, homogenisation and egali-
tarianism were the main societal directives, and
resources were allocated according to the central-
ised planning system (Kovács 2020). Compared
to capitalist cities, French and Hamilton (1979)
found socialist cities of CEE generally featured
a more diverse spatial mix of social groups, or,
in other words, lower levels of socio-econom-
ic segregation. This was made possible by the
high level of control governments held over local
processes of spatial planning and management.
Essentially, the state became the dominant actor
in urban housing, which was proclaimed to be a
universal right. As capitalist modes of housing
were effectively abolished, most properties of the
former bourgeoisie were conscated and trans-
ferred to public ownership; however, certain
inequalities persisted and new forms of segrega-
tion emerged. In the GDR, while income-based
segregation was largely absent from cities, dis-
crimination in the form of politically distributed
privileges was common (Häussermann 1996).
Elsewhere, such as in Poland, Hungary, and the
Balkans, socio-economic inequalities were made
possible by the existence of a secondary econo-
my, which gradually evolved alongside the cen-
trally planned economy and provided additional
income for some households (Kovács 2020).
In the thirty years since the collapse of state
socialism sparked far-reaching social and eco-
nomic reforms, cities across CEE have followed
distinctive paths of urban development and so-
cio-spatial restructuring. On the one hand, the
transition to a capitalist market economy and
accession to the European Union presented nu-
merous structural changes including deindustri-
alisation, globalisation, suburbanisation, sprawl,
outmigration, and decreasing fertility rates. In
many cases, one of the cumulative effects of these
forces has been short- to long-term periods of
urban shrinkage (Berentsen 1996; Steinführer,
Haase 2007; Stryjakiewicz, Jaroszewska 2016).
Within CEE, the region of eastern Germany, or
the former GDR, serves as an interesting case
since, due to the unique conditions surround-
ingGermanreunication,itis theonlyinstance
of a former centrally planned economy integrat-
ing into an existing market economy. Virtually
overnight, eastern German cities were faced with
various structural changes affecting their de-
velopment. Subsequently, many medium-sized
cities that were prioritised as centres of growth
under state socialism, including once booming
industrial hubs (e.g. Hoyerswerda, Schwedt,
Weißwasser) and former district capitals (e.g.
Gera, Suhl), endured drastic rates of depopula-
tionandjoblosses(Heider2019).Lookingahead,
despite a handful of cities which have managed
to buck negative population growth, thanks
largelytoaninuxofyouthandmigrants,there
is currently no strong indication of a reversal of
the general trend of urban shrinkage in eastern
Germany. Indeed, while well-connected, large
cities like Berlin and Leipzig, and distinguished
capitals or university cities like Dresden, Jena,
and Potsdam are expected to continue growing
after stints of depopulation, such cities are ex-
ceptions to the rule (Vogel 2020). Several authors
maintain that eastern Germany’s post-socialist
transition represents a rare natural laboratory for
studying how drastic institutional and econom-
ic changes affect urban systems, and thereby can
serve as a frame of reference for future develop-
mentsinothercountries(Berentsen1996;Heider
2019; Steinführer, Haase 2007). On the other
hand, the impacts of the post-socialist transition
on socio-spatial change and differentiation have
also been curbed by legacies of state socialist pol-
icy and planning. In some cities, the transition
ledtoaninuxofyoungerandhighlyeducated
households to inner-city areas which were over-
represented by the elderly or vulnerable social
groups—an aftereffect of the typically poor con-
dition of pre-war buildings in many CEE cities fol-
lowing years of deliberate underinvestment and
neglect—and thereby resulted in increased social
mixing, at least in the short term (Kovács 2020;
Sýkora2009). Marcińczaketal.(2015)examined
levels and patterns of socio-economic segrega-
tion in the capitals of so-called ‘fast-track reform-
ing’ post-socialist countries (Czechia, Estonia,
Hungary, Lithuania, and Poland) by referring
to occupational structure of the economically ac-
tive population and found certain legacy effects
of state socialist policies, such as inherited urban

URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN 33
forms or regulated rents in the case of Prague,
offset the catalysing effect of economic liberalisa-
tion, globalisation, and growing income inequali-
ty on patterns of socio-economic segregation dur-
ingthe1990s.Acrossallcases,irrespectiveofthe
extent of socialist-era development, the most and
least coveted neighbourhoods of the city under
and prior to state socialism had largely retained
their desirability or lack thereof by the turn of the
millennium. Interestingly, although city-wide
levels of segregation and the share of middle so-
cial groups were similar across all cases, intra-ur-
ban concentrations of both lower and higher
groups were far more pronounced in Tallinn and
Vilnius than in the larger post-socialist capitals
under consideration, namely Budapest, Prague,
and Warsaw. These differences may be partly
explained by the divergent nature and pace of
post-socialist institutional changes across coun-
tries; in the Baltics, economic liberalisation and
the retrenchment of the welfare state was more
extensive than in Czechia, Hungary, and Poland.
This led to more rapid growth of income and
wealth inequality and, in turn, more pronounced
spatial polarisation of differing social groups in
theBalticcapitals(Marcińczaketal.2015).
While most existing empirical studies of so-
cio-spatial change and socio-economic segrega-
tion dynamics set in European cities weigh the
inuence of macro-processes such as deindus-
trialisation, globalisation, or economic inequal-
ity on city-wide levels or intra-urban patterns
of socio-economic segregation (Marcińczak et
al.2016),asmallbutgrowingbody of research
considers how local processes of urban shrink-
age shape socio-spatial disparities. Fol (2012)
described how declining investment in French
shrinking cities tended to fuel further job losses
and selective outmigration of the youngest and
mostqualiedresidents,andtherebyhighercon-
centrations of unemployment and poverty. Under
theseconditions,manylessafuenthouseholds,
which suffer most from the social consequences
of unemployment and urban decline, became
trapped in marginalised neighbourhoods, while
more afuent households frequently relocat-
ed to coveted areas. Comparing the experienc-
es of three large post-socialist shrinking cities,
Großmann et al. (2013) concluded shrinkage may
act as a catalyst for social segregation, leading to
pockets of rapid change and decline. In the case
of Genoa, shrinkage triggered increasing concen-
trations of migrants in the historic city centre; in
Leipzig, concentrations of unemployed residents
and ethnic minorities in older working-class
neighbourhoods characterised by high vacancy
rates; and in Ostrava, increasing exclusion of the
Roma minority population. Regarding Leipzig,
Großmann et al. (2015) found that as the city de-
clinedinpopulationduringthe1990s,levels of
residential mobility peaked and certain districts
experiencedanearlycompletereshufingofres-
idents. Here, city-wide housing oversupply and
falling property values opened up niches for vul-
nerable population groups and minorities, above
all in substandard housing in the least desirable
neighbourhoods. Namely, the unemployed pop-
ulation became increasingly concentrated in un-
modernised large socialist-era housing estates
on the city’s periphery, and non-native residents
in select inner-city pockets characterised by de-
cay. In terms of residents’ average age, inner-city
districtsexperiencedaninuxofyouthwhereas
outer core and suburban areas grew older. Given
that depopulation and vacancies strongly corre-
lated with concentrations of vulnerable groups,
the authors conclude urban shrinkage contribut-
ed to the city’s socio-spatial restructuring and a
partial reinstatement of pre-war patterns of so-
cio-spatial differentiation. More recently, Haase
etal.(2016b)reviewedtheeffectsofurbanshrink-
age in several post-socialist cities (Halle, Leipzig,
Ostrava,Bytom,Sosnowiec,Timişoara,Donetsk,
and Makiivka) and found the post-socialist tran-
sitionledtoreshufingof socio-spatialpatterns
intherstplace,butalsothatlocalconditionsof
urban shrinkage and neoliberal policy responses
to shrinkage-related challenges, such as labour
market mismatches and housing oversupply,
further aggravated socio-spatial segregation and
intra-urban inequalities. Paradoxically, how-
ever, while increasing levels of socio-economic
segregation and corresponding social problems
have been observed under conditions of urban
shrinkage in several post-socialist cities (Cortese
et al. 2014; Maes et al. 2012), others—including
Łódź and Vilnius—suggest this outcome is not
necessarily inevitable. In such cases, certain leg-
acy effects of state-socialist planning and policy
have apparently offset the possible catalysing ef-
fect of shrinkage on socio-economic segregation
(Marcińczaketal.2012;Valatkaetal.2016).

34 DAVID HUNTINGTON
Although post-socialist cities have caught up
with western cities in terms of empirical studies
on shrinkage and socio-spatial change, the liter-
ature still lacks research on post-socialist cities
at lower-tiers of the urban hierarchy (Brade et
al. 2009; Steinführer 2006; Sýkora 2009). This is
a notable gap, since lower-tier cities may be es-
pecially predisposed and susceptible to the myri-
ad of challenges presented by shrinkage (Gentile
2003;Maesetal.2012; Steinführer,Haase2007).
Kovács (2020) suggests this is partly because
under the unstable societal conditions of the
post-socialist transition, it has been difcult to
make decisive judgements about long-term seg-
regation processes. The scarcity of reliable data
has also impeded empirical interest in the so-
cio-spatial restructuring of post-socialist cities.
Regarding eastern German cities, the omission of
lower-tier cities in the existing literature on so-
cio-spatial change may be explained by the ab-
sence of small-scale data on individual or house-
hold incomes, the postponement of the census
afterGermanreunicationuntil2011,andtherel-
atively strict regulations on census data, includ-
ing the inability to obtain intra-urban level data
on education or occupation. Fortunately, data on
income, education, or occupation are just a few
possible indicators of socio-economic status. For
example, Friedrichs and Triemer (2009), Helbig
and Jähnen (2018), and Blokland and Vief (2021)
examined levels and patterns of socio-economic
segregation in various German cities by referring
to data on unemployment, social assistance, or
child poverty.
Methodology
The focus of this study lies on residential seg-
regation of differing socio-economic population
groups under conditions of urban shrinkage. In
light of its recent experiences with shrinkage,
the medium-sized city of Schwerin was selected
as a case.1 Although Schwerin’s population has
stabilised since 2017, it still exhibits symptoms
of shrinkage—including negative natural popu-
lation growth, an unbalanced labour market and
1 In Germany, the lower and upper bounds for cities to
becategorisedasmedium-sizedare20,000and99,999
residents, respectively.
a persistent oversupply of housing—that affect
processes of socio-spatial change and patterns
of socio-economic segregation. Schwerin also
proved suitable as the necessary intra-urban data
were available. In line with previous empirical
research of this nature, socio-economic groups
are operationalised by referring to social securi-
ty and labour market data. Namely, this study
examines levels and patterns of segregation of
(1)recipientsofsocialassistancebenets under
theageof65accordingtoBook2oftheGerman
Social Code (SGB II); (2) working-age recipients
of unemployment insurance according to SGB II;
and (3) employed persons subject to social securi-
ty contributions. Although the available data do
not account for all social groups or allow for anal-
yses of the highest social strata, they represent the
best available spatial measure of socio-economic
status for the case in question. The primary spa-
tial unit is the city district and the temporal frame
of analysis spans from 2000 until 2017, since nei-
ther the number of districts nor their boundaries
changed during this period.2
Following an overview of the case and its his-
torical context, the empirical analysis proceeds in
three stages. First, Schwerin’s districts are catego-
rised into differing types of social areas, including
inner-city quarters, socialist-era housing estates,
and suburban zones at the periphery. Second,
levels and patterns of socio-economic segrega-
tion are examined. To evaluate the spatial even-
ness of the aforementioned population groups,
the indices of segregation (SI) and dissimilarity
(DI) are employed.3 While such indices admitted-
2 While labour market gures are comparable for the
years 2000 to 2017, due to reforms to Germany’s social
assistance system, data on social assistance recipients
are only comparable from 2005 to 2017.
3 The SI indicates the share of a given group that
would have to move in order to be evenly distributed
across a city, and thereby offers a general assessment
of the level of segregation. The SI is calculated as:
SI=0.5×∑[|xi / X − yi / Y|]where:xi is the population
of group X in spatial unit i; X is the total population of
group X in a city; yi is the remainder of the population
in spatial unit i; and Y is the remainder of the popula-
tion in a city. The DI is a variant of the SI that explic-
itly compares the distribution of two different groups
within a larger population. The only difference to the
formula is that yi refers to the population of group Y
in spatial unit i and Y to the total population of group
Y in a city. Values for both SI and DI, which may be
interpreted as percentages for the sake of simplicity,

URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN 35
ly only serve as a rough measure of segregation,
they are well suited to capture broad changes in
the distribution of multiple population groups
across an urban area over time. In order to add
some geography to the analysis, location quo-
tients (LQ) are then used to map and compare
concentrations of vulnerable population groups
at select intervals.4 The years 2000/2005, 2010,
and 2017 were chosen because they mark key
developments in Schwerin’s population change
and housing market, as described below. Lastly,
correlation analyses are conducted to examine
the spatial interrelation between urban shrink-
age, operationalised as housing oversupply, and
intra-urban concentrations of vulnerable social
groups over time. To conclude, the observed lev-
els and patterns of segregation in Schwerin are
summarised and discussed in relation to the ex-
isting literature.
Setting the scene of the medium-sized
post-socialist city: Schwerin, Germany
Foundedin1160byHenrytheLion,Schwerin
(53°38' N, 11°25' E) was integral to the duke’s
aim of eastward expansion, but its relative re-
moteness and distance from maritime trading
routes hindered its economic prospects com-
pared to similar-sized cities along the Baltic Sea.
Consequently, Schwerin’s early development
was essentially shaped by its function as a bish-
op’s seat and royal residence; a role which was
furthersolidiedinthesixteenthcenturywiththe
construction of Schwerin Castle and its baroque
gardens. The nineteenth century marked another
formative phase in Schwerin’s development; its
range from 0.0 (no segregation) to 1.0 (complete seg-
regation). Values <0.3 are considered low whereas
values>0.6are interpretedas high(Massey, Denton
1988).
4 The LQ indicates patterns of spatial concentration of
a given group across a city. The LQ is calculated as:
LQ = (xi / ti) / (X / T) where xi and ti are the group
X population and the total population in spatial unit
i; X is the total X population; and T is the total popu-
lation of a city. A value of 1.0 indicates that the share
of group X in unit i perfectly resembles the distribu-
tion of group X across the city. Values >1.0 indicate
an overrepresentation of group X relative to the city-
wide distribution, while values <1.0 indicate an un-
derrepresentation(Brown,Chung2006).
connection to Berlin and Hamburg by rail, the
construction of its still-standing Gründerzeit-
style central station, and the arrival of electric
streetcars made the city not only more accessi-
ble, but also a more desirable place to live. After
watching its population increase from just a few
thousand to greater than 45,000 in less than a
century, Schwerin’s development was halted by
the First World War; however, it resumed grow-
ing—and expanding spatially—during the inter-
war period following the incorporation of several
surrounding villages. The city also managed to
successfully renew its role as an important cul-
tural centre, a desirable event venue, and popu-
lar tourist destination, which led to investments
in hotels, restaurants, trades, and transport (Bock
2002;Krieck1990). Possiblyowingtoits lackof
war-related industries, Schwerin’s cityscape es-
caped the Second World War largely unscathed
and very few of its residential buildings were
destroyed. Notwithstanding, Schwerin struggled
with a housing shortage as waves of migrants
and refugees sent its population soaring from
about 65,000 in 1939 to an estimated 107,000 in
1945.AftertheWar,Schwerinwasplacedunder
the administration of the Soviet Union and its
populationplummeted asmorethan10,000ed
to West Germany leading up to the establishment
oftheGDR(Ohle,Ende1994).
Schwerin subsequently experienced consid-
erable growth due to its administrative func-
tions as a district capital of the GDR as well as
its prioritisation as a rail and commercial hub for
the dairy and agricultural industries. However,
the construction of new housing for Schwerin’s
rapidly growing population did not commence
in earnest until 1955, at which point develop-
ment began on the district of Weststadt in an
area well-suited for industrial housing construc-
tionattheedgeofthecity.While,until1962,all
new residential buildings were built in the style
of traditional low-rise apartment blocks, the fol-
lowing years were characterised by the near-ex-
clusive construction of larger prefabricated tow-
ers—including more than 10,000 apartments in
the districts of Weststadt and Lankow—in order
to densify the housing stock and save on costs
(Ohle, Ende 1994). In 1972, Schwerin’s popula-
tion exceeded 100,000 and ground broke on the
construction of its largest industrial zone, pro-
pelling further growth of the city’s mechanical

36 DAVID HUNTINGTON
engineering, cables, metals, plastics, textile, brew-
ing, and publishing industries. Overwhelming
housing demand meanwhile led to the construc-
tion of Schwerin’s largest ensemble of medi-
um- to high-rise prefabricated apartment blocks
in the adjacent districts of Dreesch I, Dreesch
II, and Dreesch III (today Großer Dreesch, Neu
Zippendorf, and Mueßer Holz). Underscoring
the one-sided orientation of urban development,
upwards of 30,000 such apartments for approx-
imately 60,000 residents were erected in these
outer-city districts during the 1970s and 1980s.
Schwerin’s historic inner-city, which meanwhile
had been largely neglected by centralised plan-
ning priorities, became a target of redevelopment
inthemid-1970s,relativelylatecomparedtooth-
er district capitals. Although plans to transform
the inner-city into a modern metropolis were
never realised, the apparent indifference among
locals to the proposed redevelopments may be
explained by the then overly dilapidated state of
most pre-war buildings, which had caused many
inner-city residents to relocate to newly-built
prefabricated apartments on the city’s outskirts
bythe1970s(Bock2002).Insum,Schwerin’sspa-
tial structure was transformed from monocentric
to polycentric during the era of state socialism.
Peripherally-located areas of new prefabricated
housing experienced a population boom, while
historic inner-city areas fell into a state of physi-
cal and social deterioration. While some medium
and higher strata households remained in the in-
ner-city, occupying the few remaining good-qual-
ity tenements, the social status of residents gener-
ally increased with increasing distance from the
city centre.
In 1988, Schwerin recorded its peak popula-
tionof130,685;however,thefalloftheBerlinWall
in1989andthecity’ssubsequentintegrationinto
the system of market-based capitalism and expo-
sure to globalisation triggered profound social
and economic change. Although Schwerin re-
tained its role as state capital, the industries that
sustained its growth under state socialism faced
a substantial breakdown. Consequently, rising
unemployment, a labour market mismatch, and
economically-driven outmigration became a few
of the most salient outcomes of the post-socialist
transition.Asillustrated in Figure1,inthe rst
decade of its transition alone, due to persistent
migration losses and below replacement-level
fertility rates, Schwerin lost more than 30,000 res-
idents—nearly a quarter of its population (Stadt
Schwerin, 2015).
Schwerin’s declining demographic and eco-
nomic conditions also affected its housing mar-
ket;after1990,asthegovernmentsteppedaside,
new developments became increasingly initiated
by the private sector or individual households.
Owing to the sudden demand for single-family
homes and suburban lifestyles, several large res-
idential areas were developed along Schwerin’s
Natural increase, net migration, and total increase rate
Total population and non-native population
-5,000
-2,500
0
2,500
5,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Natural increase Net migration Total increase rate Total population Non-native population
Fig. 1. PopulationdynamicsandgrowthinSchwerin,1990–2019.
Source: author’s elaboration based on Stadtverwaltung Schwerin (2021).

URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN 37
western periphery. Meanwhile, as in numerous
other eastern German cities, housing vacan-
cies skyrocketed in Schwerin during the 1990s.
Besides outmigration and declining birth rates,
this oversupply was initially facilitated by the
widespread privatisation of municipal hous-
ing stocks in eastern Germany during the initial
yearsoftransition.Duringthemidtolate1990s,
waves of generous state subsidies and tax incen-
tives aiming to encourage urban development
and renewal, above all in historic inner-city dis-
tricts, resulted in additional surpluses as hun-
dreds of newly built and refurbished dwellings
were added to the market (Großmann et al. 2015;
Stadt Schwerin, 2015). This glut of market-active
vacancies led to falling rental fees in Schwerin.
In 2003, the average rent for a newly built apart-
mentwas24%lowerthanin1997,whileforats
inrenovatedpre-1956buildingsandhousinges-
tatesbuiltbetween1956and1990,averagerents
decreased by 11 and 14%, respectively. However,
givenxedcostsandmaintenance expenses in-
curred by property owners remained stable or,
even more likely, increased despite Schwerin’s
ongoing depopulation and oversupply, average
rents remained fairly static throughout the 2000s,
even for unrenovated ats, before returning to
1997levelsinthemid-2010s(Fig.2).
In this regard, it should be noted that owing to
legacies of socialist policy as well as Germany’s
contemporary housing market model, rent-
al housing comprises the predominant tenure
form in Schwerin. Indeed, although extensive
construction of owner-occupied single-family
housing after 1990 caused the share of house-
holdsrentingtodecreasefromapproximately93
to75%between 1995and2011,renting remains
rstandforemostanoptionforasignicantpro-
portion of residents representing a wide range
of socio-economic groups. Especially from the
mid-1990s to mid-2000s, the combined effect of
Schwerin’s rental dominated market, housing
oversupply, and low rental fees was a noticea-
ble increase in residential mobility (Gerdes et al.
2003; Stadt Schwerin, 2015).
Socialist-era housing estates located outside
Schwerin’s historic city centre also received
upgrades leading up to and after 2000, albe-
it to a lesser degree. High vacancy rates among
housing estates, however, became the focus of
state-subsidised rightsizing efforts following the
introduction of Stadtumbau Ost in 2001, a fed-
eral programme designed to stabilise eastern
German housing markets using targeted dem-
olitionandurbanrenewalmeasures. Intherst
decade of the programme, Schwerin dismantled
roughly 4,800 apartments—above all in Großer
Dreesch and Mueßer Holz—and in so doing
managed to reduce its vacancy rate from approx-
imately13to9%between2004and2013despite
Fig. 2. Average monthly rents per m2fordifferenthousingtypesinSchwerin,1997–2017.
Source: author’s elaboration based on Stadtverwaltung Schwerin (2021). Note: Rents refer to a good quality apartment
ofapproximately60m2andexcludeutilitycosts.Asof2011,nearlyeverythirdbuildingwasbuiltbefore1956,roughly
halfwerecompletedbetween1957and1990,andtheremainingwereerectedafter1990(StadtSchwerin,2015).

38 DAVID HUNTINGTON
continuing population decline (Stadt Schwerin,
2015). Notwithstanding city-wide revitalisation
efforts, in 2012, Schwerin’s population reached
its lowest level since the Second World War, with
91,264residents.Ontheotherhand,afternearly
two decades of negative net migration, Schwerin
recordedpositivemigrationinowsduringmost
of the 2010s. Particularly striking is the sharp in-
creaseofnewcomersin2015and2016,predom-
inantly young persons and families seeking asy-
lum. Today, Schwerin’s economy is dominated
by the service sector, small businesses, as well as
larger companies in the food industry, cable and
aerospace manufacturing, environmental engi-
neering, and plastics processing. Schwerin is also
the site of several governmental authorities, a ter-
tiary care institution and teaching hospital, and
two applied universities. Hence, just as in larger
eastern German cities, the overriding inuence
of the liberalisation of cross-border trade and
spread of neoliberal economic policy has been
a reorganisation of Schwerin’s socio-economic
foundations towards post-Fordism. However,
whereas in prosperous cities the local economy
tends to shape paths of spatial development,
economic growth has had limited relevance for
Schwerin’s post-socialist spatial restructuring
under the conditions of urban shrinkage. While
Schwerin’s population has stabilised somewhat
since 2017, the city is still facing the impacts of ur-
ban shrinkage today. The consequences include
above all residential and commercial vacancies,
browneldsandperforations,andunderusedin-
frastructure. However, not all areas are equally
affected; while inner-city and suburban areas are
characterised by stable or growing populations
and low vacancy rates, the districts found in-be-
tween continue to face processes of shrinkage in-
cluding selective outmigration, housing oversup-
ply, and abandoned space. Accordingly, urban
shrinkage remains an important matter for local
decision-makers (Stadt Schwerin, 2015).
Results: Schwerin’s socio-spatial
restructuring
Besides a range of urban forms and architectur-
al styles, each of Schwerin’s 24 inhabited districts
are characterised by differing levels of moderni-
sation and access to amenities and infrastructure,
such as green spaces and public transport.
Notwithstanding, Schwerin can be broadly di-
vided into the following types of three areas: (1)
dense, inner-city districts with a mixed socio-eco-
nomic function and high proportion of pre-war
buildings; (2) outer core districts with a predom-
inantly residential function and high proportions
of large prefabricated housing estates built in the
1960sto 1980s;and(3)suburbandistrictsonthe
city’s outskirts with a predominantly residential
function and high proportion of owner-occupied
single-family dwellings. Districts exhibit a wide
rangeofpopulationtrajectories:between1997—
therstyearforwhichreliableintra-urbanpop-
ulation data are available—and 2017—the most
recent year for which comparable data are availa-
ble and point at which Schwerin’s population has
stabilised, 14 of 24 districts increased in popula-
tion while the remaining shrunk. Strong growth
was recorded in suburban districts, where a
boom of single-family housing construction oc-
curredduringthe1990s,butalsoinredeveloped
inner-city quarters. Districts with large housing
estates meanwhile are characterised by signi-
cant rates of population decline.
The highest levels of growth occurred in
the suburban districts of Gartenstadt, Warnitz,
and Neumühle, all three of which roughly
doubledinpopulationbetween1997and2017,
from 1,137 to 2,452 (+116%), from 757 to 1,572
(+108%),andfrom1,558to3,006(+93%),respec-
tively. Noticeable growth was also recorded in
the inner-city districts of Altstadt, Feldstadt,
Paulsstadt, Schelfstadt, and Werdervorstadt,
whichaltogetherincreasedfrom19,698to26,451
residents between 1997 and 2017, but also in
the smaller suburban districts of Wickendorf
and Zippendorf. The shrinking districts, which
include all ve large housing estates plus ve
suburban districts, also exhibit varying degrees
of depopulation between 1997 and 2017, with
the largest losses in the housing estates of Neu
Zippendorf and Mueßer Holz, which decreased
from10,426to 5,195(−50%)and from21,029to
10,976 (−48%), respectively. The next largest
losses occurred in two of the remaining three
housingestates,namelyGroßerDreesch(−24%)
andLankow(−21%), followedbythe suburban
district of Görries (−21%). Notably, the only
housing estate which didn’t experience signi-
cant depopulation during the period in question,

URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN 39
Weststadt, which decreased in population from
12,765 to 11,378 between 1997 and 2017, is the
only estate that predominantly includes low-
rise prefabricated buildings, while the other four
have greater shares of mid- to high-rise prefab-
ricated blocks. Weststadt is also noticeably clos-
er to the city centre and central railway station.
Rates of depopulation have varied over the
years; among housing estates, relatively contin-
uous depopulation was observed in Lankow and
Neu Zippendorf, whereas a wave of migration
in 2015 caused population increases in Großer
Dreesch and Mueßer Holz following two dec-
ades of decline. Some inner-city districts, includ-
ing Feldstadt, Schelfstadt, and Werdervorstadt,
suffered consistent losses during the 1990s be-
fore entering a phase of reurbanisation in the
2000s following building upgrading efforts and
inlldevelopment.
While some degree of socio-economic seg-
regation is arguably unavoidable in cities like
Schwerin, where each district’s desirability is re-
ectedinproperty values andrentalprices,the
development of SI values for select social groups
in Schwerin as depicted in Figure 4 reveal not
only the presence of socio-economic segregation,
but also a clear trend: namely, both disadvan-
taged and better-off social groups became in-
creasingly less evenly distributed across the city
during the periods under investigation.
Segregation of social assistance recipients un-
dertheageof65increasedby15%between2005
and 2017. While the fact that, in 2005, roughly
30% of social assistance recipients would have
had to relocate to a different district in order to
Fig. 3. PopulationchangeinSchwerinbydistrict,1997–2017.
Source: author’s elaboration based on Stadtverwaltung Schwerin (2021).

40 DAVID HUNTINGTON
achieve an equal distribution across the city does
not necessarily establish continuous growth of
segregationbetween1990and2005,lowerlevels
of segregation can be assumed, at least during
theearly1990s,giventhat,rstly,relativelylow
levels of socio-economic segregation were typi-
cal of socialist cities and, secondly, Schwerin re-
corded a three-fold increase in social assistance
recipients—from about 2,700 to 8,032 persons—
between 1994 and 2003 (Gerdes et al. 2003).
However, that this value reached 45% in 2017 sig-
nals relatively high levels of segregation among
Schwerin’s most vulnerable social groups in ad-
dition to growing spatial polarisation between
povertyandafuence.
Regarding SI values for unemployment insur-
ancebeneciariesandemployedpersonssubject
to social security contributions, overall increases
of16%and10%wereobservedbetween2000and
2017, respectively. The development of DI values
additionally shows that residents receiving un-
employmentbenetsbecameroughly21%more
segregated from the actively working population
overthesameperiod.Whilethesendingscon-
rmtheunemployedandemployedareincreas-
ingly living in different areas, the latest values of
SI and DI, which range between 14 and 33%, do
not signal polarisation but rather medium levels
ofsegregation(Marcińczaketal.2016).
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the developing in-
tra-urban patterns of socio-economic segregation
in Schwerin’s districts between 2000 and 2017. LQ
values reveal that districts with the most marked
overrepresentations of disadvantaged groups
increasingly overlap with shrinking districts,
especially those with a predominance of prefab-
ricated high-rise housing estates. Furthermore,
growing concentrations of upper social groups
can be observed among inner-city and subur-
ban areas, the latter of which included barely
any disadvantaged households in 2017. These
trends, as in numerous other cities, are partly ex-
plained by urban revitalisation and suburbanisa-
tion. However, it seems that Schwerin’s inherited
macrospatialcongurationhasalso hadlasting
consequences for its socio-spatial restructuring.
For one, inner-city districts as well as select
housing estates still retained a relatively mixed
social fabric in 2000. Evidently, continuous de-
population, suburbanisation, and selective
buildingupgradingeffortsduringthe1990shad
a negligible effect on socio-economic segrega-
tion in these areas. After 2000, however, many
older apartment buildings in trendy inner-city
districts which had yet to be the target of mod-
ernisation received their turn thanks to waves
of public and private investment. Subsequently,
inner-city areas ipped from negative to posi-
tive population growth and experienced a re-
shufingoftheirsocialarrangements,especially
growth of better-off households. While nearly
all of Schwerin’s housing estates were already
Fig. 4. Indices of segregation (SI) and dissimilarity (DI) for socio-economic population groups in Schwerin,
2000–2017.
Source: author’s elaboration based on Stadtverwaltung Schwerin (2021).

URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN 41
Fig. 5. Concentrationsofsocialassistancerecipientsundertheageof65inSchwerinbydistrict,2005–2017.
Source: author’s elaboration based on Stadtverwaltung Schwerin (2021).
Fig.6. Concentrationsofunemploymentinsurancebeneciariesaged15to64inSchwerinbydistrict,2000–2017.
Source: author’s elaboration based on Stadtverwaltung Schwerin (2021).

42 DAVID HUNTINGTON
characterised by higher than average concentra-
tions of vulnerable social groups in 2000/2005,
thesepatternshavesinceintensiedandbecome
even more rigid. In addition, a general lack of
social mixing was already apparent in suburban
areas in 2000. Here, it seems a lack of restrictions
on new suburban developments and the prolif-
eration of single-family housing and condomin-
iums during Schwerin’s rst year in transition
contributed to higher concentrations of better-off
groups.
Following the argument of Großmann et
al. (2015) as well as Helbig and Jähnen (2018),
Schwerin’s persistent oversupply of housing has
likelyguredintoemergingpatternsofsegrega-
tion since higher rates of vacancy and abandon-
ment may inhibit rent increases in certain areas
and thereby drive concentrations of socio-eco-
nomically disadvantaged households. In order to
gaugethesignicanceofoversupplyonpatterns
of socio-economic segregation in Schwerin, Table
1 examines the extent to which housing vacancy
rates correlate with concentrations of vulnerable
population groups at the district level.
The results indicate rather strong and in-
creasing correlations between vacancy rates and
concentrations of social assistance recipients as
well as unemployment insurance beneciaries.
Evidently, higher than average vacancy rates led
to below-average rents in less desirable districts
and, consequently, growing shares of vulnerable
socio-economic households. The interrelations
were already present at the turn of the millen-
nium but weakened somewhat during the 2000s
as rightsizing efforts were undertaken to curb
housing oversupply and strengthen the housing
market. The strength and signicance of these
correlations increased after 2010, however, as
state-subsidised demolition and upgrading ef-
forts slowed, net migration balances ipped
from negative to positive, and reurbanisation
processes intensied in the city centre. Thus,
district-level patterns of socio-economic segre-
gation are indeed related to housing oversup-
ply in Schwerin. Of course, as discussed above,
Schwerin’s rental dominated housing market
structure plus its share of prefabricated housing
estates facilitated the city’s shrinkage and over-
supply; ergo there is a contingent relationship
between Schwerin’s socialist-era institutional
and morphological inheritances and its contem-
porary intra-urban patterns of socio-economic
segregation.
Discussion and summary
The current debate on the socio-spatial effects
of urban shrinkage falls short of a holistic under-
standing as we lack empirical studies set in the
context of small and medium-sized cities, espe-
cially post-socialist cities of CEE, a recent hot-
spot of urban shrinkage. Consequently, existing
theories about how processes of urban shrinkage
affect socio-economic segregation have been pre-
dominantly developed on the basis of evidence
fromalimitedcontext.Haaseetal.(2016b)argue
that post-socialist experiences with urban shrink-
age may offer valuable insights for strengthening
the discussion on urbanisation since new evi-
dence concerning processes of shrinkage under
conditions of institutional change may reveal
blind spots in our understanding of the dynam-
ics of urban change that are potentially general-
isable to other contexts. Additionally, the expe-
riences of post-socialist cities with institutional
and structural change could offer lessons for re-
source-constrained (shrinking) cities around the
world since these conditions may facilitate inno-
vation in urban governance. An examination of
the case of the medium-sized post-socialist city of
Schwerin suggests processes of urban shrinkage
Table 1. Correlations of housing oversupply with concentrations of select vulnerable socio-economic groups in
Schwerin,2001–2017(Pearson’sr; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; n = 24).
Vacancy rates
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Location quotient of social assistance
recipients N/A N/A 0.489*
(0.015) 0.425*
(0.039)
0.529**
(0.008) 0.383
(0.064)
0.760**
(0.000) 0.670**
(0.000) 0.530**
(0.008)
Location quotient of unemployment
insurancebeneciaries
0.477*
(0.018) 0.738**
(0.000) 0.469*
(0.021) 0.399
(0.054) 0.533**
(0.007) 0.405*
(0.049)
0.777**
(0.000) 0.727**
(0.000) 0.542**
(0.006)
Source: author’s calculations based on Stadtverwaltung Schwerin (2021).

URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN 43
mayinuencelevelsofsocio-economic segrega-
tion and patterns of intra-urban inequality. In
Schwerin, selective outmigration and housing
vacancies fuelled increases in residential mobili-
ty; however, existing and new residents receiving
unemployment insurance, and to an even greater
degree recipients of basic social assistance, were
mostly unable to take advantage of a rise in mar-
ket-active housing options in coveted inner-city
or suburban districts as rental prices remained
beyond their reach. In other words, increased
residential mobility was selective and largely re-
stricted to the better-off whereas vulnerable so-
cio-economic groups were funnelled into more
affordable albeit less desirable areas, namely
peripherally-located housing estates built under
state socialism. Furthermore, high vacancy rates
and underinvestment in rightsizing measures
may have exacerbated socially selective outmi-
gration from these areas, triggering a self-rein-
forcing cycle of shrinkage and segregation. This
situation is worsened by a growing reliance on
social assistance among Schwerin’s population
and high demand for low-cost rentals, which,
meanwhile, have become increasingly scarce in
inner-city districts. Thus, the case of Schwerin
disproves the common assumption that cities
characterised by persistent outmigration and
correspondingly high vacancy rates contain an
abundance of affordable housing options.
Although one should be cautious when com-
paring segregation levels between cities, espe-
cially internationally, Schwerin’s path of increas-
ing socio-spatial inequality under conditions of
institutional and structural change appears to
echo the experiences of larger eastern German
cities, such as Leipzig, as well as post-socialist
capitals with exceptionally high shares of hous-
ing estates, like Vilnius (Großmann et al. 2015;
Valatka et al. 2016). Additionally, comparisons
may be drawn with cases of urban shrinkage
outside the context of post-socialist Europe and
rental-dominated housing markets. Specically,
the case of Parkstad Limburg, a former industrial
region in the south of the Netherlands, demon-
strates that high rates of vacancy among own-
er-occupied dwellings may, not unlike vacancies
among Schwerin’s housing estates, exacerbate
levels of socio-economic segregation and in-
tra-urban divisions of rich and poor under condi-
tions of urban shrinkage, economic decline, and
selective outmigration (Hoekstra et al. 2020). The
experiences of American cities including Detroit
with depopulation and severe inner-city vacancy
rates in the wake of the Great Recession likewise
suggest that socio-economically disadvantaged
groups may become trapped in owner-occu-
pied, single-family housing dominated markets
despite overall increases in residential mobility.
Here, however, developer-driven suburbanisa-
tion as well as private acts of housing discrimina-
tion appear to have played a greater role in grow-
ing socio-spatial disparities under conditions of
structural shrinkage (Galster 2012; Kneebone,
Nadeau 2015).
Yet, Schwerin’s contemporary experiences
with socio-economic segregation cannot be ex-
plained by processes of urban shrinkage alone.
Just as in larger post-socialist cities, market forces,
including the neoliberalisation of housing, are un-
derpinning mechanisms of segregation (Kovács
2020). Increasing inner-city real estate prices
sincethemid-1990s havelimitedneworrebuilt
housing mainly to upper echelons. Moreover,
the combined encouragement and subsidisation
of new single-family housing in eastern German
citiesafter1990effectivelyopenedawindowof
opportunity for the better-off to self-segregate,
above all in suburban areas. Lastly, the role of
Schwerin’s prefabricated housing estates on lev-
els and patterns of socio-economic segregation
cannot be overstated. In particular, the largest en-
sembles of estates dating from the heydays of the
socialist-era have since become hotspots of so-
cio-economically disadvantaged groups—a chal-
lenge facing numerous European cities (Hess et
al. 2018). Given it cannot be taken for granted that
the dynamics of shrinkage and segregation ob-
served in Schwerin apply to other medium-sized
(post-socialist) cities, it would be interesting to
compare the results of this study with further
cases characterised by differing urban forms and
institutional contexts, especially lower-tier cities
facing a shortage of (rental) housing. Additional
comparative research testing the causal links be-
tween shrinkage and socio-economic segregation
in medium-sized cities which exhibit dissimilar
manifestations of and responses to shrinkage is
also welcome.
To wrap up, as is often assumed in the litera-
ture but seldomly demonstrated, this study con-
rmsthatmedium-sizedcitiesarenotimmuneto

44 DAVID HUNTINGTON
the potentially catalysing effect of urban shrink-
age on socio-economic segregation nor intra-ur-
banconcentrationsofafuenceandpoverty.That
said, Schwerin is an exemplary case characterised
by the simultaneous occurrence of several mul-
ti-scalar institutional and structural transforma-
tions over a short period, including macro political
and economic reforms alongside deindustrialisa-
tion and a demographic transition, in addition to
major shifts in labour and housing markets and
residential mobility at the local scale. All of these
changes have shaped the behaviours of residents
and other housing market actors. Despite the
specicsofthecase,Schwerin’sexperienceswith
shrinkage and socio-spatial change offer relevant
lessons for other contexts. Even though the pop-
ulation of Schwerin’s inner-city districts has re-
bounded in recent years, its large housing estates,
especially those located furthest from the city cen-
tre, continue to face population losses and high
vacancy rates. Looking ahead, Schwerin’s adapta-
tion to processes of urban shrinkage will continue
to be of utmost importance for the development
of its socio-spatial fabric. While it remains to be
seen if the city can reverse its course of increas-
ing socio-economic segregation, there appears to
be growing awareness of these interrelated wick-
ed problems and interest among policy-makers
in formulating integrated strategies that view
shrinkage as an opportunity for promoting social
cohesion as well as improving existing residents’
residential satisfaction and general quality of life
(Cortese et al. 2014; Helbig, Salomo 2019; Stadt
Schwerin, 2015).
Acknowledgements
This project has received funding from
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under the Marie
Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 813803.
The author thanks the two anonymous reviewers
for their helpful comments.
References
Andersson R., Bråmå Å., Holmqvist E., 2010. Counteracting
segregation: Swedish policies and experiences. Housing
Studies25(2):237–256.DOI10.1080/02673030903561859.
Berentsen W.H., 1996. Regional population chang-
es in eastern Germany after unication. Post-So-
viet Geography and Economics 37(10): 615–632. DOI
10.1080/10889388.1996.10641033.
Bischoff K., Reardon S.F., 2014. Residential segregation by
income,1970–2009.In: LoganJ.,(ed.), Diversity and dis-
parities.RussellSageFoundation,NewYork:208–233.
Blokland T., Vief R., 2021. Making sense of segregation in a
well-connected city: The case of Berlin. In: van Ham M.,
Tammaru T., Ubarevičienė R., Janssen H. (eds), Urban
socio-economic segregation and income inequality: A glob-
al perspective. Springer International Publishing, Cham:
249–270.DOI10.1007/978-3-030-64569-4_13.
BockS.,2002. Umgestaltungsplänefürdie SchwerinerInn-
enstadtzwischen1933 und1980 (Redevelopmentplans
forSchwerin’scitycentrebetween1933and1980).In:Li-
chtnau B. (ed.), Architektur und Städtebau im südlichen Ost-
seeraum zwischen 1936 und 1980 (Architecture and urban
development in the southern Baltic Sea Region between
1936and1980).LukasVerlag,Berlin:214–235.
Bourdieu P., 2018. Social space and the genesis of appro-
priated physical space. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research42(1):106–114. DOI10.1111/1468-
2427.12534.
BradeI.,HerfertG.,WestK.,2009.Recenttrendsandfuture
prospects of socio-spatial differentiation in urban regions
of Central and Eastern Europe: A lull before the storm?
Cities26(5):233–244.DOI10.1016/j.cities.2009.05.001.
BrownL.A., ChungS.Y.,2006.Spatialsegregation,segrega-
tion indices and the geographical perspective. Population.
Space and Place12(2):125–143.DOI10.1002/psp.403.
Cortese C., Haase A., Großmann K., Ticha I., 2014. Govern-
ing social cohesion in shrinking cities: The cases of Ostra-
va, Genoa and Leipzig. European Planning Studies 22(10):
2050–2066.DOI10.1080/09654313.2013.817540.
DesmondM.,Wilmers N.,2019. Dothepoor paymorefor
housing? Exploitation, prot, and risk in rental mar-
kets. American Journal of Sociology124(4):1090–1124.DOI
10.1086/701697.
Depro B., O’Neil M., Timmins C., 2015. White ight and
coming to the nuisance: Can residential mobility explain
environmental injustice? Journal of the Association of En-
vironmental and Resource Economists 2(3): 439–468. DOI
10.1086/682716.
European Commission, 2011. Cities of tomorrow: Challenges,
visions, ways forward. European Commission, Brussels.
DOI 10.2776/41803.
Fol S., 2012. Urban shrinkage and socio-spatial disparities:
Are the remedies worse than the disease? Built Environ-
ment38(2):259–275.DOI10.2148/benv.38.2.259.
FrenchR.A.,HamiltonF.I.(eds),1979.The socialist city: Spatial
structure and urban policy. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
FriedrichsJ., TriemerS., 2009.Gespaltene Städte? Soziale und
ethnische Segregation in deutschen Großstädten (Divided
cities? Social and ethnic segregation in German cities).
VSVerlagfürSozialwissenschaften,Wiesbaden.Spring-
er-Verlag. DOI 10.1007/978-3-531-91675-0.
Galster G., 2012. Driving Detroit: The quest for respect in the Mo-
tor City. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
DOI 10.9783/9780812206463.
Galster G., Sharkey P., 2017. Spatial foundations of inequal-
ity: A conceptual model and empirical overview. The
Russell Sage Journal of the Social Sciences 3(2): 1–33. DOI
10.7758/rsf.2017.3.2.01.
Gentile M., 2003. Residential segregation in a medium-sized
post-soviet city: Ust’-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan. Tijd-

URBAN SHRINKAGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES: THE CASE OF SCHWERIN 45
schrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geograe94(5):589–605.
DOI 10.1046/j.1467-9663.2003.00285.x.
GerdesJ., JackischA.,SchützlerC.,2003.Lagebericht zur so-
zialen Situation in der Landeshauptstadt Schwerin (Status re-
port on the social situation in the state capital Schwerin).
BundesministeriumfürBildungundForschung,Bonn.
Großmann K., Haase A., Arndt T., Cortese C., Rink D.,
Rumpel P., Slach O., Ticha I., Violante A., 2013. How ur-
ban shrinkage impacts on patterns of socio-spatial seg-
regation: The cases of Leipzig, Ostrava and Genoa. In:
Camp Yeakey C., Wells A., Sanders Thompson V. (eds),
Urban ills: Twenty-rst-century complexities of urban living
in global contexts.LexingtonBooks,Lanham:241–268.
Großmann K., Arndt T., Haase A., Rink D., Steinführ-
er A., 2015. The inuence of housing oversupply on
residential segregation: Exploring the post-socialist
city of Leipzig. Urban Geography 36(4): 550–577. DOI
10.1080/02723638.2015.1014672.
Haase A., Bernt M., Großmann K., Mykhnenko V., Rink
D., 2016a. Varieties of shrinkage in European cities.
European Urban and Regional Studies 23(1): 86–102. DOI
10.1177/0969776413481985.
Haase A., Rink D., Großmann K., 2016b. Shrinking cities
in post-socialist Europe: What can we learn from their
analysis for theory building today? Geograska Annaler:
Series B, Human Geography98(4): 305–319.DOI 10.1111/
geob.12106.
Häussermann H., 1996. From the socialist to the capitalist
city: Experiences from Germany. In Andrusz G., Har-
loe M., Szelenyi I. (eds), Cities after socialism: Urban and
regional change and conict in post-socialist societies. Black-
well,Oxford:214–231.DOI10.1002/9780470712733.ch7.
HeiderB., 2019.What drivesurbanpopulationgrowthand
shrinkage in postsocialist East Germany? Growth and
Change50(4):1460–1486.DOI10.1111/grow.12337.
Helbig M., Jähnen S., 2018. Wie brüchig ist die soziale Architek-
tur unserer Städte? Trends und Analysen der Segregation in
74 deutschen Städten (How fragile is the social architecture
of our cities? Trends and analyses of segregation in 74
Germancities). WissenschaftszentrumBerlinfürSozial-
forschung, Berlin.
HelbigM.,SalomoK.,2019.Sozialräumliche Spaltung in Meck-
lenburg-Vorpommern (Socio-spatial division in Meck-
lenburg-Western Pomerania). Ministerium für Energie,
Infrastruktur und Digitalisierung Mecklenburg-Vor-
pommern, Schwerin.
Hess B.D., Tammaru T., van Ham M. (eds), 2018. Housing
estates in Europe: Poverty, ethnic segregation and policy chal-
lenges. Springer International Publishing, Cham. DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-92813-5.
Hochstenbach C., Mustard S., 2018. Gentrication and the
suburbanization of poverty: Changing urban geogra-
phies through boom and bust periods. Urban Geography
39(1):26–53.DOI10.1080/02723638.2016.1276718.
Hoekstra M.S., Hochstenbach C., Bontje M.A., Musterd S.,
2020. Shrinkage and housing inequality: Policy responses
to population decline and class change. Journal of Urban Af-
fairs42(3):333–350.DOI10.1080/07352166.2018.1457407.
Kneebone E., Nadeau C.A., 2015. The resurgence of concen-
trated poverty in America: Metropolitan trends in the
2000s. In: Anacker S. (ed.), The new American suburb: Pover-
ty, race, and the economic crisis.Routledge,London:15–38.
Kovács Z., 2020. Do market forces reduce segregation? The
controversies of post-socialist urban regions of Central
and Eastern Europe. In: Musterd S. (ed.), Handbook of ur-
ban segregation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham:
118–133.DOI10.4337/9781788115605.00014.
Krieck M., 1990. Zuarin bis Schwerin: Eine Stadtchronik von
1160–1990 (Zuarin to Schwerin: A city chronicle from
1160–1990).Birkner,Hamburg.
Kuminoff N.V., Smith V.K., Timmins C., 2013. The new eco-
nomics of equilibrium sorting and policy evaluation us-
ing housing markets. Journal of Economic Literature 51(4):
1007–1062.DOI10.1257/jel.51.4.1007.
LeesL., 2008.Gentrication andsocial mixing:Towardsan
inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies45(12):2449–
2470. DOI 10.1177/0042098008097099.
Maes M., Loopmans M., Kesteloot C., 2012. Urban shrinkage
and everyday life in post-socialist cities: Living with di-
versity in Hrušov, Ostrava, Czech Republic. Built Envi-
ronment38(2):229–243.DOI10.2148/benv.38.2.229.
Maloutas T., Fujita K. (eds), 2012. Residential segregation in
comparative perspective. Routledge, New York.
Marcińczak S., Musterd S., Stępniak M., 2012. Where the
grass is greener: Social segregation in three major Pol-
ish cities at the beginning of the 21st century. Euro-
pean Urban and Regional Studies 19(4): 383–403. DOI
10.1177/0969776411428496.
MarcińczakS.,TammaruT.,NovákJ.,GentileM.,KovácsZ.,
TemelováJ.,ValatkaV.,Kährik A.,Szabó B.,2015.Pat-
terns of socioeconomic segregation in the capital cities of
fast-track reforming postsocialist countries. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers105(1):183–202.DOI
10.1080/00045608.2014.968977.
MarcińczakS.,Musterd S.,vanHamM., TammaruT.,2016.
Inequality and rising levels of socio-economic segrega-
tion: Lessons from a pan-European comparative study.
In:TammaruT.,vanHamM.,MarcińczakS.,MusterdS.
(eds), Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities.
Routledge,London:358–382.
Martin C., Hulse K., Pawson H., 2018. The changing insti-
tutions of private rental housing: An international review.
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Mel-
bourne. DOI 10.31235/osf.io/dzyrm.
Massey D., Denton N., 1988. The dimensions of resi-
dential segregation. Social Forces 67(2): 281–315. DOI
10.2307/2579183.
OhleW.,EndeH.,1994.Schwerin. Seemann, Leipzig.
Petsimeris P., 1998. Urban decline and the new social
and ethnic divisions in the core cities of the Italian in-
dustrial triangle. Urban Studies 35(3): 449–466. DOI
10.1080/0042098984853.
Piekut A., Valentine G., 2017. Spaces of encounter and atti-
tudes towards difference: A comparative study of two
European cities. Social Science Research62: 175–188.DOI
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.005.
Scanlon K., Whitehead C., Arrigoitia M.F. (eds), 2014. So-
cial housing in Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. DOI
10.1002/9781118412367.
Stadt Schwerin, 2015. Integriertes Stadtentwicklungskonzept
Schwerin 2025. 3. Fortschreibung (Integrated Urban De-
velopment Concept Schwerin 2025. 3rd Update). Stadt
Schwerin, Schwerin.
Stadtverwaltung Schwerin, 2021. Data supplied by Fach-
gruppe Grundsatzangelegenheiten, Controlling, Statistik
(Department of Policy Matters, Controlling, Statistics) on
22 January 2021.
SteinführerA.,2006.Theurbantransitionofinner-cityareas
reconsidered: A German–Czech comparison. Moravian
Geographical Reports14(1):3–16.

46 DAVID HUNTINGTON
SteinführerA.,HaaseA.,2007.Demographicchangeasafu-
ture challenge for cities in East Central Europe. Geogras-
ka Annaler: Series B, Human Geography89(2):183–195.DOI
10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00247.x.
StryjakiewiczT.,JaroszewskaE.,2016.Theprocessofshrink-
age as a challenge to urban governance. Quaestiones Ge-
ographicae 35(2):27–37.DOI10.1515/quageo-2016-0013.
SýkoraL.,2009.Newsocio-spatialformations:Placesofresi-
dential segregation and separation in Czechia. Tijdschrift
voor Economische en Sociale Geograe100(4):417–435.DOI
10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00550.x.
Turok I., Mykhnenko V., 2007. The trajectories of European
cities,1960–2005.Cities24(3):165–182.DOI10.1016/j.cit-
ies.2007.01.007.
van Gent W., Hochstenbach C., 2020. The impact of
gentrication on social and ethnic segregation. In:
Musterd S. (ed.), Handbook of urban segregation. Ed-
ward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham: 358–382. DOI
10.4337/9781788115605.00026.
vanHamM.,TammaruT.,UbarevičienėR.,JanssenH.(eds),
2021. Urban socio-economic segregation and income inequali-
ty: A global perspective. Springer International Publishing,
Cham. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-64569-4.
van Leeuwen E.S., Vega S.H., 2021. Voting and the rise of
populism: Spatial perspectives and applications across
Europe. Regional Science Policy & Practice 13(2):209–219.
DOI 10.1111/rsp3.12411.
ValatkaV.,BurneikaD.,Ubarevičienė R.,2016.Large social
inequalities and low levels of socio-economic segrega-
tioninVilnius.In:TammaruT.,vanHamM.,Marcińczak
S., Musterd S. (eds), Socio-economic segregation in European
capital cities.Routledge,London:313–332.
Vogel B., 2020. Schrumpfende Regionen: Ein ostdeutsches
Schicksal? (Shrinking regions: An East German fate?).
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Online: bpb.
de/geschichte/deutsche-einheit/lange-wege-der-
deutschen-einheit/47550/schrumpfende-regionen (ac-
cessed: 21 July 2021).
Wolff M., Wiechmann T., 2018. Urban growth and decline:
Europe’s shrinking cities in a comparative perspective
1990–2010. European Urban and Regional Studies 25(2):
122–139.DOI10.1177/0969776417694680.