Editorial on the special issue “An International Perspective on the Processes, Patterns, and Outcomes of Reurbanisation” Editorial on the special issue “An International Perspective on the Processes, Patterns, and Outcomes of Reurbanisation” Paul Gans, Stefan Siedentop Anyone following the ongoing debate in urban research, policy-making and society about “reurbanisation” or the “renaissance” of big cities will fi nd it hard to imagine that not so long ago, urban futures still had largely negative connotations. In light of seemingly limitless mobility, new communication and information technologies, and changing residential and business location preferences, many commentators regarded high density forms of settlement as signs of a bygone era. It seemed that in a globalised and digitally networked world, there was no more need for traditional forms of urban centrality and agglomeration (Gordon/Cox 2012; Lang/LeFurgy 2003; Dear/Flusty 1998). The future was rather to be found in an urban society without cit- ies. This assessment was fuelled by fl ight from cities to suburbs (which had, in some cases, been ongoing for decades), massive losses of industrial jobs combined with the occurrence of concentrated poverty in inner city areas, and derelict building stocks and infrastructure in many places. In view of this, the population increase that has taken place over the past 20 years in numerous cities of the Global North appears to represent a radical break from these trends. The quantitative dimension of the new urban growth is striking: the fi ve biggest German cities (Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, and Frankfurt) – for example – collectively grew by nearly half a million inhabitants between 2011 and 2015; and, since the mid-2000s, numerous smaller cities also fi nd themselves confronted by new population growth (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Rau- mentwicklung 2017; see also Gans in this issue). Similar developments can be seen in other European countries and in the US. Reference can be made here to available cross-sectional analyses of demographic developments in European city-regions and cities (Kabisch/Haase 2010; Turok/Mykhnenko 2008; Wolff/Wiechmann 2017), as well as to studies that illustrate the phenomenon of new urban growth from a national perspective (Randolph/Tice 2017; Juday 2015; Glaeser 2013; Rae, 2013; Sturtevant/Jung 2011; Rérat 2012a) and for individual cities and regions (Kährik et al. 2016; Hyra 2015; Haase/Rink 2015; Lilius 2014; Mulherin/Howell 2012; Bromley et al. 2007; Lehrer/Wieditz 2009; Moos 2015). In Western and Central Europe, as well as in North America, the phenomenon of reurbanisation is now being considered as an integral part of a more compre- Comparative Population Studies Vol. 42 (2017): 391-398 (Date of release: 23.03.2018) Federal Institute for Population Research 2018 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2018-03en URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2018-03en8 • Paul Gans, Stefan Siedentop392 hensive process of economic and sociodemographic restructuring. The trigger for the corresponding debate was the observation of a re-population and densifi cation of inner-city areas in the US and Canada starting in the 1980s (Landis 2016; Juday 2015; Moos 2015; Hyra 2012; Birch 2005; Sohmer/Lang 2001). With a slight delay, these tendencies have also been noted for Western European countries. Here too, many inner cities had signifi cant population growth (Rae 2013; Herfert/Osterhage 2012; Rérat 2012a; Koll-Schretzenmayr/Kramp 2010; Kabisch/Haase 2010; Haase et al. 2010; Bromley et al. 2007; Bromley et al. 2005). Since then, numerous observers see signs of a “revitalisation” of inner city areas, which is often regarded as the re- sult of an actively pursued valorisation by urban marketing, the real estate industry and city politics (Mulherin/Howell 2012; Holm 2012; Breen/Rigby 2004; see also Brombach et al. in this issue). This is accompanied by critical voices that point to dynamic processes of dis- placement of lower income groups (Hyra 2015; Maciag 2015; Holm 2012; Lambert/ Boddy 2010; Shaw/Porter 2009). In many cities, the discussion of reurbanisation is tightly interwoven with debates on the gentrifi cation of inner city residential areas and the approaches of combating it by means of land market and housing policy (Schipper/Wiegand 2015; Holm 2012; Shaw/Porter 2009; Lees 2008). Some voices see the historical signifi cance of reurbanisation not so much in the absolute devel- opment of the population in inner cities, but rather in the changes of their social composition. According to this view, what is “new” in reurbanisation is to be found in signifi cant socio-demographic changes brought about by the infl ux of largely younger, well-educated and affl uent people into centrally located neighbourhoods (Juday 2015; Moos 2015; Siedentop et al. 2017; Siebel 2008). In contrast to the clas- sical and well-established understanding of gentrifi cation, reurbanisation cannot be understood as a spatially limited process that is confi ned to a comparatively small number of inner-city neighbourhoods and can only be observed in large metropo- lises with a dynamic service sector and an existing built stock from the pre-war period. Based on the observation of new, economically powerful population groups in inner city areas and the suburbanisation of social disadvantage (Hochstenbach/ Musterd 2017; Randolph/Tice 2017; Häußermann et al. 2011; as well as Dembski et al. in this issue), some scholars even expect a large scale “inversion” of the social structure of metropolitan regions (Ehrenhalt 2012). In Europe, unlike the US, reurbanisation is also being discussed on the city-re- gional level. In some countries – such as Germany or the UK – a weakening of sub- urbanisation or even its reversion towards intra-regional concentration has been observed (Geppert/Gornig 2010; Siedentop 2008; Rérat 2012a; see also Dembski et al., as well as Brombach et al., in this issue). In more than a few German city-regions, current population growth in the city centres even exceeds that of the suburban belt (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung 2017; Herfert/Osterhage 2012). In the US, on the other hand, observers point to an ongoing intra-regional deconcentration of the population (Siedentop et al. 2017; Wilson et al. 2012; Brook- ings Institution 2010). Inner city population growth is regarded here as merely one spatial facet of an overall regional growth process. An International Perspective on the Processes, Patterns, and Outcomes of Reurbanisation • 393 From the observation of both convergent and divergent developments in city-re- gions and cities, it can be concluded that reurbanisation is to be explained by forces of different spatial scope. Firstly, place-independent effective changes in the econo- my and in society alter the framework conditions within which actors make location decisions. Secondly, endogenous local factors embed the above-mentioned forces and developments in a strongly path-dependent, historical context and thus give rise to place-dependent outcomes. Accordingly, higher level social and economic developments are “fi ltered” in a locally specifi c way, such that both the process of reurbanisation and its material outcome differ from country to country and from city to city (on this subject, see also Beauregard 1990). Such an understanding also explains why new growth has not occurred in certain cities up to now, or has oc- curred only to a limited extent. On the one hand, the higher level – ubiquitously effective – forces include the transition from an industrial to a service economy, a neoliberal political climate that emphasises competition and growth, the internationalisation of the real estate sec- tor, and, last but not least, processes of demographic change and socio-cultural differentiation as drivers of reurbanisation (Krätke 2014; Gerhard 2012; Geppert/ Gornig 2010; Siebel 2010). On the other hand, context-related forces include re- gional, strongly path-dependent economic and demographic developments, topo- graphic and demographic conditions, and the local milieus of urban politics, each with their peculiar actor networks, institutional patterns and planning cultures (see Brombach et al. in this issue). The latter aspect in particular has been the subject of intense debates in recent years. According to the predominant view, public and municipal investment in city centres and inner cities has favoured reurbanisation and gentrifi cation processes, either as an explicitly pursued strategy of renewal and social mixing (Porter/Shaw 2009; Lees 2008; see also Dembski et al. in this issue) or as a more or less unintended side-effect of the valorisation of public spaces and housing stock renovation programmes (Rérat 2012b). Overall, however, it must be admitted that assessments of the causal background of population growth and socio-demographic change continue to be widely diver- gent. Despite empirical research that has been conducted in recent years, “reur- banisation” in no way gives the impression of being a robust scientifi c concept. So far, there are no convincing predictive theories which can claim validity for differing economic, social or urban political contexts and across national borders. Reurbani- sation appears, in part, to be an overly complex phenomenon, which can only be grasped in a coherent theoretical framework to a limited extent. The evident absence of a “grand theory” for explaining reurbanisation under- scores the value of an inductive research design. By way of a spatially highly dif- ferentiated description of socio-demographic, economic and political processes, as well as by way of international comparisons, an inductive design allows us to draw conclusions about what is generalisable and what is case-specifi c. Such a research strategy has, above all, to be oriented toward grasping heterogeneity and diversity, instead of only focussing on generalisable causal mechanisms. This is precisely where this special issue comes in, inasmuch as it offers an overview of demographic trends in selected city-regions of the global North which • Paul Gans, Stefan Siedentop394 have been discussed under the heading of “reurbanisation”. The four contributions are devoted to developments in city-regions in Germany (see the article by Gans and Brombach et al.), England (see the article by Dembski et al.), Eastern Europe (see the article by Haase et al.), and the US (see the article by Brombach et al.). In addition to providing empirical evidence of the changes in population numbers and structures that are observable in each case, the contributions also inquire into the causal backgrounds of reurbanisation phenomena. The article by Paul Gans explores the question of what factors could be respon- sible for the sometimes sharply diverging demographic developments in larger Ger- man cities. The point of departure is the observation of a general trend toward reurbanisation, whereby the great majority of cities with at least 100,000 inhabitants have seen population increases since the year 2000. At the same time, however, it is shown that substantial variance exists within the urban system with respect to the intensity of growth and its composition in terms of age and origins. Using regression analysis, the author identifi es the size, heterogeneity and dynamics of regional labour markets, as well as higher educational infrastructure, as key drivers of reurbanisation. The article by Sebastian Dembski, Andreas Schulze Bäing and Olivier Sykes discusses the effects of the national “urban renaissance” policy pursued by New Labour in the 1990s on city-regions in the structurally weaker North of England. The Manchester/Liverpool case study shows that the “urban renaissance” largely remained limited to the inner cities, whereas municipalities in the suburban pe- riphery are affected by ongoing structural problems and demographic shrinkage. This is particularly the case for highly industrialised municipalities and those that have evolved into mono-functional dormitory towns. The article argues that demo- graphic and socio-economic developments in city centres and suburbs interact and hence have to be considered comprehensively. The authors conclude that it cannot be taken for granted that a reurbanisation policy focussed on city centres has a posi- tive spill-over effect on suburban areas. The article by Karoline Brombach, Johann Jessen, Stefan Siedentop and Philipp Zakrzewski intends to identify similarities and differences between reurbanisation in city-regions in Germany and the US. It becomes clear that, beyond the re-pop- ulation and increasing density of inner cities on both sides of the Atlantic, sharp divergences are apparent with regard to spatial patterns and dynamics, as well as socio-structural changes and built-physical forms. Using the case studies of Stutt- gart and Portland, the authors show, however, that the valorisation of inner cities represents a planning strategy which was pursued in both cities over the course of decades and whose negative side effects in the form of gentrifi cation have lately created enormous political pressure for action to be taken. The article by Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková and Adam Rad- zimski enquires into the evidence for reurbanisation processes in Eastern European city-regions, which, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, were fi rst affected by a dynamic suburbanisation. The authors currently see few signs of a reurbanisation trend and, at the same time, point to highly heterogeneous developmental trajectories, both between the countries and/or regions considered (Eastern Germany, Poland and the An International Perspective on the Processes, Patterns, and Outcomes of Reurbanisation • 395 Czech Republic) and within them. There is no specifi c “post-Socialist type” of reur- banisation, they argue. For Poland and the Czech Republic, an inner city population growth such as that which has been observed in Eastern Germany is also not very likely in the future. As explanations, they identify, among other factors, differing housing preferences and differences in the real estate markets, but also diverging public policies on both the national and municipal levels. According to the authors, the reurbanisation of Eastern German cities is the result of broad public support for urban redevelopment and renovation, whereas neoliberal policy models have ac- celerated suburbanisation in post-Socialist states. Taken as a whole, all four contributions suggest that the new growth of urban cores can be interpreted as “universal” to the extent that such growth began to oc- cur in Western European and US cities at more or less the same time, despite the differing contextual conditions. But reurbanisation takes place in specifi c spatial- temporal forms and is embedded in highly different regional structures and de- velopmental contexts. Whether and how population growth occurs, what social groups participate in it, and how it gets manifested in land-economic and social structural changes – as well as built-physical ones – depends on numerous factors whose interaction we have hitherto only begun to be understand. The interaction of place-independent changes in the economy and society and locally and regionally specifi c contextual factors needs to be explored more deeply in future research. The relevance, in particular, of public (and especially fi scal) policies on the federal and municipal levels is a topic which has yet to be suffi ciently investigated. References Birch, Eugenie L. 2005: Who lives downtown. Living Cities Census Series. Washington DC.: The Brookings Institution. Beauregard, Robert A. 1990: Trajectories of neighborhood change: The case of gentrifi - cation. Environment and Planning A 22,7: 855-874 [doi: 10.1068/a220855]. Breen, Ann; Rigby, Dick 2004: Intown living: a different American dream, Westport, CT: Praeger Publisher. Brombach, Karoline et al. 2017: Demographic Patterns of Reurbanisation and Housing in Metropolitan Regions in the US and Germany. In: Comparative Population Studies 42: 281-318 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2017-16en]. Bromley, Rosemary D.F.; Tallon, Andrew R.; Roberts, Alexander J. 2007: New popula- tions in the British city centre: Evidence of social change from the census and house- hold surveys. In: Geoforum 38,1: 138-154 [doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.07.008]. Bromley, Rosemary D.F.; Tallon, Andrew R.; Thomas, Collin J. 2005: City centre re- generation through residential development: contributing to sustainability. In: Urban Studies 42,13: 2407-2429 [doi: 10.1080/00420980500379537]. Brookings Institution 2010: State of Metropolitan America. On the front lines of demo- graphic transformation. Washington DC. Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung 2017: Wie viel (Re-)Urbanisierung durchzieht das Land? BBSR-Analysen KOMPAKT 07/2017. Bonn: Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung. • Paul Gans, Stefan Siedentop396 Dear, Michael; Flusty, Steven 1998: Postmodern Urbanism. In: Annals of the Associa- tion of American Geographers 88,1: 50-72. Dembski, Sebastian; Schulze Bäing, Andreas; Sykes, Olivier 2017: What about the Ur- ban Periphery? The Effects of the Urban Renaissance in the Mersey Belt. In: Compara- tive Population Studies 42: 219-244 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2017-14en]. Ehrenhalt, Alan 2012: The great inversion and the future of the American city. New York: Vintage. Gans, Paul 2017: Urban Population Development in Germany (2000-2014): The Contribu- tion of Migration by Age and Citizenship to Reurbanisation. In: Comparative Popula- tion Studies 42: 319-352 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2018-01en]. Geppert, Kurt; Gornig, Martin 2010: Mehr Jobs, mehr Menschen: die Anziehungskraft der großen Städte wächst. In: DIW Wochenbericht 19/2010: 2-10. Gerhard, Ulrike 2012: Reurbanisierung – städtische Aufwertungsprozesse in der Glo- bal-City-Perspektive. In: Brake, Klaus; Herfert, Günter (Eds.): Reurbanisierung. Mate- rialität und Diskurs in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Springer: 52-68 [doi: 10.1007/978-3- 531-94211-7_4]. Glaeser, Edward L. 2013: The historical vitality of cities. In: Wachter, Susan M.; Zeuli, Kimberly A. (Eds.): Revitalizing American Cities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl- vania Press: 7-25. Gordon, Peter; Cox, Wendell 2012: Cities in Western Europe and the United States: do policy differences matter? In: The Annals of Regional Science 48,2: 565-594 [doi: 10.1007/s00168-011-0495-8]. Haase, Annegret et al. 2010: Emergent spaces of reurbanisation: exploring the demo- graphic dimension of inner-city residential change in a European setting. In: Popula- tion, Space and Place 16,5: 443-463 [doi: 10.1002/psp.603]. Haase, Annegret; Rink, Dieter 2015: Inner-city transformation between reurbanization and gentrifi cation: Leipzig, eastern Germany. In: Geografi e 120,2: 226-250. Haase, Annegret et al. 2017: Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe – A Comparative View of Eastern Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic . In: Comparative Population Studies 42: 353-390 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2018-02en]. Häußermann, Hartmut; Dohnke, Jan; Seidel-Schulze, Antje 2011: Segregation, Konzen- tration, Polarisierung – sozialräumliche Entwicklung in deutschen Städten 2007-2009. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik: resurbana GmbH. Herfert, Günter; Osterhage, Frank 2012: Wohnen in der Stadt: Gibt es eine Trendwen- de zur Reurbanisierung? Ein quantitativ-analytischer Ansatz. In: Brake, Klaus; Herfert, Günter (Eds.): Reurbanisierung. Materialität und Diskurs in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Springer VS: 86-112 [doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-94211-7_6]. Hochstenbach, Cody; Musterd, Sako 2017: Gentrifi cation and the suburbanization of poverty: changing urban geographies through boom and bust periods. In: Urban Ge- ography 39,1: 26-53 [doi: 10.1080/02723638.2016.1276718]. Holm, Andrej 2012: Paradoxien und Begleiterscheinungen der Reurbaniserung. In: Bra- ke, Klaus; Herfert, Günter (Eds.): Reurbanisierung. Materialität und Diskurs in Deutsch- land. Wiesbaden: Springer: 239-256 [doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-94211-7_14]. Hyra, Derek S. 2012: Conceptualizing the new urban renewal: comparing the past to the present. In: Urban Affairs Review 48,4: 498-527 [doi: 10.1177/1078087411434905]. Hyra, Derek S. 2015: The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of political and cultural displacement. In: Urban Studies 52,10: 1753- 1773 [doi: 10.1177/0042098014539403]. An International Perspective on the Processes, Patterns, and Outcomes of Reurbanisation • 397 Juday, Luke J. 2015: The changing shape of American cities. Charlottesville: Demogra- phics Research Group. Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, University of Vir- ginia. Kabisch, Nadja; Haase, Dagmar 2011: Diversifying European agglomerations: evidence of urban population trends for the 21st century. In: Population, Space and Place 17,3, 236-253 [doi: 10.1002/psp.600]. Kährik, Anneli et al. 2016: What attracts people to inner city areas? The cases of two post-socialist cities in Estonia and the Czech Republic. In: Urban Studies 53,2: 355-372 [doi: 10.1177/0042098014567444]. Koll-Schretzenmayr, Martina; Kramp, Simon 2010: Reurbanisierung und bauliche Dyna- mik. Neubautätigkeiten und ihre räumlichen und sozioökonomischen Auswirkungen in der Stadt Zürich. In: disP – The Planning Review 46,180: 60-80 [doi: 10.1080/02513 625.2010.10557064]. Krätke, Stefan 2014: Cities in Contemporary Capitalism. In: International Journal of Ur- ban and Regional Research 38,5: 1660-1677 [doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12165]. Lambert, Christine; Boddy, Martin 2010: City center housing in the UK. Prospects and policy changes in a changing housing market. In: disP – The Planning Review 46,180: 47-59 [doi: 10.1080/02513625.2010.10557063]. Landis, John D. 2016: Tracking and explaining neighborhood socioeconomic change in U.S. Metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2010. In: Housing Policy Debate 26,1: 2-52 [doi: 10.1080/10511482.2014.993677]. Lang, Robert E.; LeFurgy, Jennifer 2003: Edgeless cities: Examining the Noncentered me- tropolis. In: Housing Policy Debate 14,3: 427-460 [doi: 10.1080/10511482.2003.9521482]. Lees, Loretta 2008: Gentrifi cation and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Re- naissance? In: Urban Studies 45,12: 2449-2470 [doi: 10.1177/0042098008097099]. Lehrer, Ute; Wieditz, Thorben 2009: Condominium development and gentrifi cation: The relationship between policies, building activities and socio-economic development in Toronto. In: Canadian Journal of Urban Research 18,1: 140-161. Lilius, Johanna 2014: Is there room for families in the inner city? Life-stage blenders challenging planning. In: Housing Studies 29,6: 843-861 [doi: 10.1080/02673037.2014.905673]. Maciag, Mike 2015: No room in the city. In: Governing Magazine. Washington DC. Moos, Markus 2015: From gentrifi cation to youthifi cation? The increasing importance of young age in delineating high-density living. In: Urban Studies 53,14: 2903-2920 [doi: 10.1177/0042098015603292]. Mulherin, Stephen; Howell, Gareth 2012: Changes in downtown Los Angeles and the Fifth Migration 1990-2010. In: Heralds Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 1,2: 19-35. Porter, Libby; Shaw, Kate 2009: Whose urban renaissance? An international comparison of urban regeneration strategies. London/New York: Routledge. Rae, Alasdair 2013: English urban policy and the return to the city: A decade of growth, 2001-2011. In: Cities 32: 94-101 [doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.012]. Randolph, Bill; Tice, Andrew 2017: Relocating disadvantage in fi ve Australian cities: Socio-spatial polarisation under neo-liberalism. In: Urban Policy and Research 35,2: 103-121 [doi: 10.1080/08111146.2016.1221337]. Rérat, Patrick 2012a: The new demographic growth of cities: the case of reurbanisation in Switzerland. In: Urban Studies 49,5: 1107-1125 [doi: 10.1177/0042098011408935]. • Paul Gans, Stefan Siedentop398 Rérat, Patrick 2012b: Housing, the compact city and sustainable development: Some insights from recent urban trends in Switzerland. In: International Journal of Housing Policy 12,2: 115-136 [doi: 10.1080/14616718.2012.681570]. Schipper, Sebastian; Wiegand, Felix 2015: Neubau-Gentrifi zierung und globale Finanz- krise. In: sub/urban ‒ zeitschrift für kritische stadtforschung 3,3: 7-32. Shaw, Kate; Porter, Libby 2009: Introduction. In: Porter, Libby; Shaw, Kate (Eds.): Whose urban renaissance? Abingdon/Oxon: Routledge: 1-8. Siebel, Walter 2010: Bedingungen der Reurbanisierung. In: disP ‒ The Planning Review 46,180: 106-114 [doi: 10.1080/02513625.2010.10557067]. Siebel, Walter 2008: Wohnen in der Innenstadt. In: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kommunal- wissenschaften 47,1: 37-46. Siedentop, Stefan 2008: Die Rückkehr der Städte? Zur Plausibilität der Reurbanisie- rungshypothese. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 3-4: 193-210. Siedentop, Stefan; Zakrzewski, Philipp; Stroms, Peter 2017: A childless urban renais- sance? Age-selective patterns of population change in North American and German Metropolitan areas. In: Regional Studies, Regional Science 5,1: 1-20. Sohmer, Rebecca R.; Lang, Robert E. 2001: Downtown rebound. In: Fannie Mae Founda- tion TBI (Ed.): Fannie Mae Foundation Census Note. Washington DC. Sturtevant, Lisa A.; Jung, Yu Jin 2011: Are we moving back to the city? Examining resi- dential mobility in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. In: Growth and Change 42,1: 48-71 [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2257.2010.00543.x]. Turok, Ivan; Mykhnenko, Vlad 2008: Resurgent European cities. In: Urban Research & Practice 1,1: 54-77 [doi: 10.1080/17535060701795363]. Wilson, Steven G. et al. 2012: Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010. 2010 Census Special Reports. Washington DC.: U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Wolff, Manuel; Wiechmann, Thorsten 2017: Urban growth and decline: Europe’s shrink- ing cities in a comparative perspective 1990-2010. In: European Urban and Regional Studies [doi: 10.1177/0969776417694680]. Prof. Dr. Paul Gans (). Department of Economics, University of Mannheim. Mannheim, Germany. E-mail: paulgans@uni-mannheim.de URL: http://gans.vwl.uni-mannheim.de/1461.0.html Prof. Dr. Stefan Siedentop. Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development (ILS). Dortmund, Germany. E-mail: stefan.siedentop@ils-forschung.de URL: https://www.ils-forschung.de/index.php?lang=de&s=siedentop Published by Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider Federal Institute for Population Research D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany 2017 Managing Editor Frank Swiaczny Assistant Managing Editor Katrin Schiefer Copy Editor (Selected Articles in German) Dr. Evelyn Grünheid Layout Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de Scientifi c Advisory Board Paul Gans (Mannheim) Karsten Hank (Cologne) Johannes Huinink (Bremen) Michaela Kreyenfeld (Rostock) Marc Luy (Vienna) Notburga Ott (Bochum) Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz) Nikola Sander (Groningen) Zsolt Spéder (Budapest) Comparative Population Studies www.comparativepopulationstudies.de ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet) Board of Reviewers Martin Abraham (Erlangen) Laura Bernardi (Lausanne) Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn) Claudia Diehl (Konstanz) Andreas Diekmann (Zurich) Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock) Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden) Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin) E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld) Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna) Beat Fux (Salzburg) Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley) Sonja Haug (Regensburg) Hill Kulu (Liverpool) Aart C. Liefbroer (The Hague) Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz) Emma Lundholm (Umeå) Nadja Milewski (Rostock) Dimiter Philipov (Vienna) Roland Rau (Rostock) Tomáš Sobotka (Vienna) Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona) Olivier Thévenon (Paris) Helga de Valk (Brussels) Heike Trappe (Rostock) Michael Wagner (Cologne)