Population Trends and Policies
Race and Ethnicity
Housing Segregation
and Spatial Mismatch
Population Trends and Policies
Types of Discrimination
• Individual discrimination
• Institutional discrimination
• Structural discrimination
Source: Pincus, F. L. (1994). "From Individual to Structural Discrimination." In F. L. Pincus and H. J. Ehrlich, Race
and Ethnic Conflict: Contending Views on Prejudice, Discrimination and Ethnoviolence. Boulder, Colo.: Westviewc
Population Trends and Policies
Individual discrimination
• The behavior of individual
members of one
race/ethnic/gender group that is
intended to have a differential
and/or harmful effect on the
members of another
race/ethnic/gender group.
Source: Pincus, F. L. (1994). "From Individual to Structural Discrimination." In F. L. Pincus and H. J. Ehrlich, Race
and Ethnic Conflict: Contending Views on Prejudice, Discrimination and Ethnoviolence. Boulder, Colo.: Westview
Population Trends and Policies
Institutional discrimination
• The policies of the dominant
race/ethnic/gender institutions and
the behavior of individuals who
control these institutions and
implement policies that are
intended to have a differential
and/or harmful effect on minority
race/ethnic/gender groups.
Source: Pincus, F. L. (1994). "From Individual to Structural Discrimination." In F. L. Pincus and H. J. Ehrlich, Race
and Ethnic Conflict: Contending Views on Prejudice, Discrimination and Ethnoviolence. Boulder, Colo.: Westview
Population Trends and Policies
Structural discrimination
• The policies of dominant race/ethnic/
gender institutions and the behavior of
the individuals who implement these
policies and control these institutions,
which are race/ethnic/gender neutral in
intent but which have a differential
and/or harmful effect on minority
race/ethnic/gender groups.
Source: Pincus, F. L. (1994). "From Individual to Structural Discrimination." In F. L. Pincus and H. J. Ehrlich, Race
and Ethnic Conflict: Contending Views on Prejudice, Discrimination and Ethnoviolence. Boulder, Colo.: Westview
Population Trends and Policies
Residential Segregation
Index of Dissimilarity
The percentage of blacks that would need to move to a different
(whiter) neighborhood in order to achieve integration with whites.
100
80
74 77
87 87 88 85
80 77
68 66
70
89
79
70 68
66
60
40
20
0
Atlanta
Boston
1970
Detroit
1980
1990
2000
Los Angeles
Applied Demography
FIGURE 5.17: Detroit Residents Percent Black
Detro it and N eighboring
Communties
Detroit
Metropolitan
Area
0
20
40
60
Enlarge d Area
Percent Bla ck
0 - 10
10.1 - 50
50.1 - 70
70.1 - 90
90.1 - 100
M iles
0
So urce: U.S . C ensus B u rea u, 1 992 c
6
12
18
24
M iles
N
Population Trends and Policies
FIGURE 5.18: Atlanta R esidents Percent Bla ck
Centra l Atlanta and
Neighboring Co mmunties
Atlanta
Metropolitan
Area
0
10
20
30
Enlarged Area
Percent Bla ck
0 - 10
10 .1 - 50
50 .1 - 70
70 .1 - 90
90 .1 - 100
M iles
N
0
So urce: U.S . C ensus B u rea u, 1 992 c
3
6
9
12 M iles
Population Trends and Policies
FIGURE 5.19: B oston R esidents Percent Bla ck
Boston and Neighboring
Communties
Bo ston
Metropolitan
Area
0
10
20
Enlarged Area
Percent Bla ck
0 - 10
10.1 - 50
50.1 - 70
70.1 - 90
90.1 - 100
30 M iles
N
0
So urce: U.S . C ensus B u rea u, 1 992 c
3
6
9
12
M iles
Population Trends and Policies
FIGURE 5.20: B oston R esidents Percent Hispa nic
Boston and Neighboring
Communties
Bo ston
Metropolitan
Area
0
10
20
Enlarged Area
Percen t His panic
0 - 10
10.1 - 5 0
50.1 - 7 0
70.1 - 9 0
90.1 - 1 00
30 M iles
0
So urce: U.S . C ensus B u rea u, 1 992 c
3
6
9
12
M iles
N
Population Trends and Policies
FIGURE 5.21: L os Angeles Residents Percent Black
City of Los A ng eles
and Neighbo ring Communities
Los A ng eles C ounty
Enlarge d Area
Percent Bla ck
0 - 10
10.1 - 50
50.1 - 70
70.1 - 90
90.1 - 100
N
0
7
14
So urce: U.S . C ensus B u rea u, 1 992 c
21
M iles
0
3
6
9
12 M iles
Population Trends and Policies
FIGURE 5.22: L os Angeles Residents Percent Hispanic
City of Los A ng eles
and Neighbo ring Communities
Los A ng eles C ounty
Enlarge d Area
Percent Hispanic
0 - 10
10.1 - 50
50.1 - 70
70.1 - 90
90.1 - 100
0
7
14
So urce: U.S . C ensus B u rea u, 1 992 c
21
M iles
0
3
6
9
12 M iles
N
Population Trends and Policies
Spatial Mismatch
A Consequence of Segregation?
•
Discrimination in housing in metropolitan areas has
resulted in the concentration of blacks in central city
neighborhoods.
•
The constrained location of blacks reduces the job
opportunities available to blacks.
•
The suburbanization of employment exacerbates the
reduced job opportunities for blacks in central city
neighborhoods.
Population Trends and Policies
SPATIAL MISMATCH &
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
• Residential and employment spatial patterns
contribute to the employment disadvantage
experienced by blacks in metropolitan areas.
• Discrimination in the residential real estate market
and other factors resulting in segregation are
precursors to spatial mismatch.
• Discrimination may be a motivating factor in firm
location decisions (i.e. access to a predominantly
white work force) resulting in spatial mismatch.
Population Trends and Policies
SPATIAL MISMATCH
The Index of Dissimilarity
Source: Stephen Raphael and Michael Stoll. 2002. Modest Progress: The Narrowing Spatial Mismatch Between
Blacks and Jobs in the 1990s. The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.
Population Trends and Policies
SPATIAL MISMATCH
The Index of Dissimilarity
Source: Stephen Raphael and Michael Stoll. 2002. Modest Progress: The Narrowing Spatial Mismatch Between
Blacks and Jobs in the 1990s. The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.
Population Trends and Policies
SPATIAL MISMATCH
The Index of Dissimilarity
Source: Stephen Raphael and Michael Stoll. 2002. Modest Progress: The Narrowing Spatial Mismatch Between
Blacks and Jobs in the 1990s. The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.
Population Trends and Policies
SPATIAL MISMATCH
• In 2000, no group was more physically isolated
from jobs than blacks.
• During the 1990s, blacks’ overall proximity to jobs
improved slightly, narrowing the gap in “spatial
mismatch” between blacks and whites by 13
percent.
• Metro areas with higher levels of black-white
residential segregation exhibit a higher degree of
spatial mismatch between blacks and jobs.
• The residential movement of black households
within metropolitan areas drove most of the overall
decline in spatial mismatch for blacks in the 1990s.
Source: Stephen Raphael and Michael Stoll. 2002. Modest Progress: The Narrowing Spatial Mismatch Between
Blacks and Jobs in the 1990s. The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.
Population Trends and Policies
SPATIAL MISMATCH
• Blacks residing in metropolitan areas in the
Northeast and Midwest were the most physically
isolated from employment opportunities.
• Blacks residing in the South were the least isolated.
• While average mismatch indices declined in all
areas, the declines were smallest in the Northeast.
• Midwestern metro areas, which had exhibited the
highest average degree of mismatch between blacks
and jobs in 1990, experienced a comparatively large
decline in overall mismatch during the decade.
• The level of mismatch between blacks and jobs
proved most severe in metros where a relatively
large percentage of the population is black.
Source: Stephen Raphael and Michael Stoll. 2002. Modest Progress: The Narrowing Spatial Mismatch Between
Blacks and Jobs in the 1990s. The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.
Population Trends and Policies
INTEGRATION EXERCISE
1. Flip a coin two times and count the number of heads. If both
your flips were heads then you are in the minority and you
have no preference for neighborhood composition.
2. If you are in the majority, flip a coin five times and count the
number of heads. This is the number of persons from
another group that you are willing to live near.
3. Everyone flip a coin two times and count the number of
heads. If both your flips were heads then you need to move
to another neighborhood based on your preferences if you
are majority.
4. Find a house (desk) in a neighborhood where you would like
to live. If someone else would also like to live in that house,
flip for it with heads winning and the loser moving on.
5. When everyone has settled in a new neighborhood, repeat
steps 3 and 4.