Segregation

In social gatherings, one gets to hear some old bones, born and bred in Port-Louis, reminisce on the good old days when all kinds of people lived side-by-side in what was then the cultural capital of the country. Despite its economic dynamism, the city now offers a desolate picture of residential segregation, done by income, race and religion. But if one cares to ask around, one will soon realise that, contrary to common perceptions, a significant number of its inhabitants (and I would even dare to call it a majority) will be genuinely happy to live in more integrated neighbourhoods. So, why, oh why, is there so much segregation in my beloved city? An answer can be found in a 1971 paper written by Thomas Schelling, the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics for 2005. His insights are so profound that they can explain many sociological patterns which the individuals concerned did not intend to happen and can sometimes be unaware of their occurrence.

Schelling had a similar puzzle to resolve. In the US, there was at that time, as there still is, a high degree of segregation between the black community (10% of the population) and the white community. But the Harvard economist could detect little racial hatred among his peers and students (and even with the average American), and yet, these are the very people who will, once they earn sufficient income, swiftly move to the cosy, predominantly-white suburbs of Massachussetts. In addition, residential segregation was, and still is, not just by income. Poor blacks and poor whites live in different neighbourhoods and so do the rich.

To understand Schelling’s idea, let us take a chequerboard and randomly allocate the black and the white pieces. Now, impose this rule: a white piece, inspite of preferring our random allocation to a segregated one, does not want to be surrounded on more than two of its four sides by black pieces. If it is, the white piece would prefer to move to a different square where it isn’t. If you apply this rule, you will very quickly see a polarised picture emerging from your chequerboard. And notice that this rule can hardly be any milder. The black pieces are absolutely indifferent to colour, and the white pieces are no ‘racists’: they simply do not want to be a minority in their neighbourhood.

Physicists have, for long, focused on the way in which very small perturbations can substantially affect the equilibrium of a system, through positive feedbacks. Along these lines, economists have shown how small perturbations can be amplified by positive spillovers: by moving out, a white piece increases the black majority in its initial neighbourhood and this may induce other white pieces to move, although, at the start, the latter had no incentive to do so. Segregation, which can be slow at the start, increases exponentially over time.

One can identify two ‘perturbations’ in the recent history of Port-Louis. The first is the 1968 ethnic tensions between Christians and Muslims. To draw an analogy with our game of chequers where a white piece was ok with two black pieces around, those two ethnic groups may initially have tolerated some neighbours of different ethnicity. However, ethnic tensions have undoubtedly reduced this tolerance and triggered a self-fulfilling, mass exodus of one group to the Plaines Wilhems. Not surprisingly, the group that moved was, firstly, more able to do so financially and, secondly, in minority and had therefore a stronger incentive to do move initially.

The second happened in the 1980s with the creation of an Export Processing Zone (EPZ) in Plaine Lauzun, on the outskirts of Port-Louis. It is well known that in the space of 5 years, the EPZ absorbed all of the 100 000 unemployed, doubled income per head, and provided the foundations for the successful economy that we now have. What is less known is the migration of thousands of families from rural areas to the suburbs of Port-Louis, in a legitimate attempt to get their share of the economic miracle. There were prospects not only for those wanting to work in the EPZ but also for street hawkers, food vendors, shopkeepers, mechanics and all those working in sectors which were directly benefiting, like the docks. For the EPZ workers, commuting from the villages was technically feasible, but for the former, living in the capital was essential. Let’s go to our chequerboard again: when it realised that it was in minority, the middle class began to move, fearing about the quality of schools for their children and on the security of their neighbourhoods (it is worth noting that within the improved economic climate, drugs and prostitution also flourished).

Port-Louis has bred some of the best minds of this country, including its first Prime Minister, its longest-serving President, successful academics, doctors, judges and lawyers to name but a few. Inspite of their genuine and passionate calls for increased integration and national unity, they have, for the most of them, deserted this city.

Here is the root cause of the problem: what we choose as individuals has to be compatible with our (strong) individual preferences, but the sum of our choices generates an outcome that may not be compatible with our (weak) preferences for the society. I value environmental issues a lot, but that doesn’t stop me from driving to work everyday (I could take the bus instead). We all believe in Justice, but we don’t quite mind when the traffic warden waives our parking ticket. Some politicians are passionate about their cause, but they still would not refuse that odd ‘donation’ to their bank account or that of their political parties. Most parents believe in fairness, but some could go to hell and back to get for their kids the school of their choice.